Canada has become the first nation in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage. After months of fierce debate, almost as anticlimax, the Senate voted over two to one to approve the bill already confirmed in the lower house. The usual suspects predicted the end of the world. Marriage ceremonies are expected to start before the week is out.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5621 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Well, I suppose it’ll put a little pressure on the US. Though with Dubya in power, no external influence will budget the neocons from their agenda. But it’s a good start.
Another reason to emigrate to CA. 🙂
That’s cool that it is legalized. It was a step up in Civil Rights that was needed. Now all we need is something like that to pass here in the states. But that wont happen for a while, especially with the reactionary in power in Washington.
Maybe not the end of the world, but perhaps a further decline of society. I am from Canada, and more than half of the country does not agree with this legislation.
Amazing! The sky hasn’t fallen here, like the anti-gay marriage supporters predicted. It is good to see this get passed before the extended government summer break. Best of luck getting it done down there. And yes we welcome any US citizen to come North if they want.
I am also from Canada and, despite the previous Canadian poster’s claims to the contrary, the published polls for the last few months have shown that support for the bill outstrips opposition. Granted, the opposition for the bill was highly vocal (possibly more so than the supporters) but vocal minorities rarely depict actual popular opinion accurately.
…You know you are behind the curve when Canada does something major first…
I have no idea why so many are disturbed that Canada, along with several European countries, are allowing same sex marriages. Although originally from Canada, I now consider myself an American.
The prevailing attitude or argument is that same sex marriages cheapen the institution of marriage. How? Doesn’t easy, no fault divorce cheapen it even more so? Then, what about forcing people to remain with a partner they are unhappy with? Then there are those “arranged” marriages. Or, what about forcing marriage on a couple because of an impending childbirth?
I have always thought marriage should be about love. Let’s promote that idea instead of the hate I hear from those that will not love.
Wow, mbg, way to back up your frivolous claim that more than half the country doesn not agree. Where are your sources? Furthermore, please define exactly how society is declining by allowing two people who love each other to wed?
Based on past elections Ian… I would tend to agree that half that country does not like this (if not more). Or at least half the people voting (and if you don’t vote you don’t deserve a position).
Clearly there have not been elections in the entire country, but only one state allows gay marriage so……
Take that for whatever it’s worth.
….How can ANYTHING cheapen marriage anymore than Zsa Zsa, Mickey Rooney, and Elizabeth Taylor? Geez, Louise!
I don’t know of anyone who REALLY thinks marriage is sacred. It’s a breakable bond, that just involves a whole lot of paperwork and paying of lawyers to divide the “stuff”. It’s for the benefit of lawyers, and for spouses to lay claim to jointly gained properties.
I think Gay Marriage should be pushed by the lawyers and bar associations of America…..since hetro marriage and divorce is way down (less people are opting to get married in the first place) I’d think that it would be a boon to their business to add Gay marriages, as they’re all chomping at the bit to tie the knot. Seems to me the Canadians just looked at the $$ involved in more divorces….and made the prudent financial decision.
The whole gay marriage thing is just too keep us busy, to get us to argue amongst ourselves while the whacked out, power hungry Christian groups keep pushing for more laws to be passed to favor their brand of religion. PLEASE.
There are reasons for society to support marriage, including continuing the population of a society, at which Europe is failing, and the US is barely succeeding. Marriage provides stable environments for rearing of children, as well as the protection of women(pressure not to drop someone for a younger more attractive person.) Divorce has hurt these, but that doesn’t justify further weakening. What other people do may have no effect on your marriage or most marriages, but it’s the marginal case that matters. You might not stop buying a car if the price goes up 1%, but obviously some people somewhere will as sales go down. As for simply letting anyone who’s in love get married, by that logic bans on incest and polygamy would have to be thrown out too.
I know someone who would have never had kids if she didn’t merry another woman… Now they have 1 child, with one more on the way…
I guess that kind of kills your “having kids” logic.
I also know of plenty men who adopt kids who could quite possibly go with out a family until their 18 and leave the foster homes… Now clearly there are cases where gay familes don’t treat their kids very well…… However seeing as I have never heard a news story as such… And have heard of plenty cases where the child was treated bad in a straight family… Well…. Once again… It’s killing your logic…
Could you IMAGINE what a divorce would be like if there were more than ONE SPOUSE? It’s bad enough between two people!!!! It sounds like a bad dream.
If nothing else, let’s establish a RELIGIOUS marriage as separate from a LEGAL/CIVIL marriage. Do “blessings” in the church, in addition to the civil union. That way, is someone wants to be married in a CHURCH, with the blessings and rules of the church, fine. If someone wasn’t a civil union….fine. I’m just sick of all the quibbling over something that doesn’t matter.
It’s NOT my business what two people want to do. If they want the same civil legal standing as anyone else, why not? It’s not the same as polygamy or incest…it’s not the same as beastiality. It’s just two people wanting the same LEGAL rights in the eyes of the court. It’s all about dividing the “stuff” in a divorce, and clear-cut custody in the event of divorce or death. It still protects the children.
Why are we so petty in this country? There are more important issues to attend to.
In 1840, a lot of people were for keeping slavery, but not enough. Things changed…..for the better, I think.
You know, back in the 1919 there was a pretty heated debate about not letting women vote…because they were too dumb, too emotional, too “not male”. The women promoting this weird idea were called “vulgar” woman. Churche men spoke out that it was not the will of god to allow women equality, as women were not equal to man. They were made of Adam’s rib, and therefore under man. (I know, some sects of Christianity still promote this concept.)
All women wanted was equal rights in marriage, education, religion, employment and political life. In 1919..women couldn’t own property, inherit it, or even initiate a divorce. They where possessions, as were the children. A man could TAKE the children and do what he wanted. Widow women went from well-off to penniless, or worse (My great grandmother was widowed with 8 minor children in tow. Her brother-in-law was decent enough to set up a trust for her and the children, but she still had to account for every penny she spent, as an accountant oversaw all her daily affairs, and he considered her a drain on the family fortune. There are little notebooks that itemize a penny for a needle, and 5 cents for some darning thread, and letters which tell her that she should make do without, instead of wasting her dead husband’s money.
Seems pretty backwards now, doesn’t it?
It seems just as backwards to not allow a couple….male/male or female/female….to have the same assurances that one won’t leave for someone younger, or wont’ abandon the spouse and children, or wont’ die and have the family not acknowledge the bond. If two people want to make their lives together, then they should be able to have the same protection under the law as Zsa Zsa Gabor or Mickey Rooney.
It makes as much sense as women voting and freemen instead of slaves.
….Give this same-sex marriage some time, it will be fine. Won’t hurt marriage a bit.
It doesn’t *seem* backwards. It *is* backwards.
“Could you IMAGINE what a divorce would be like if there were more than ONE SPOUSE? It’s bad enough between two people!!!! It sounds like a bad dream.”
Ya… Exactly the same thing as with people of two diffrent genders – More bad, or better off in some cases, but in general the same thing.
Oh and last time I checked both people in a marriage are people. I’m sure it was a stupid mistake… Please be a bit more careful though?
If you honestly believe what you just said (you don’t like it, but it’s none of your business) that’s perfectly fine with me. But I don’t need to hear it because as far as I’m concerned it’s… well I’m sure you get the idea…
As far as the church thing. That’s a great soultion, but in the meantime goverment should ignore religious marriage (which they actually already do (you still need a marriage licence)).