Gay Marriage Across the Border
Jun. 30th, 2003 02:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojOK, I must admit, I'm puzzled.
Canada and the US are virtually indistinguishable in so many ways. But when we differ, boy, do we differ.
Within weeks of each other, the Ontario Supreme Court decided that it was discriminatory to ban same sex partners from obtaining marriage licences, since opposite sex partners can do so at will, and the US Supreme Court decided that it was discriminatory to ban same sex partners from having oral or anal sex with each other in Texas, since opposite sex partners can also do so at will.
Both decisions were met with joy by gays on both sides of the border. People were crying, people were deciding to get married, people were feeling like they finally had some status as human beings, as worthy of dignity, respect and privacy as anybody else. Apparently in San Francisco, the rainbow flag that flies at the top of Castro Street was taken down for a few hours and replaced with the American flag. I can only imagine the joy of the people who flew their country's flag with as much pride as they'd flown the Gay Pride flag, feeling like maybe, just maybe, their country finally accepted them at least to some degree.
The Canadian federal government responded to the Ontario Supreme Court ruling with an announcement that they would soon come out with legislation to make gay marriage actually legal. Not just "not illegal in Ontario", but recognized under Federal law. No guarantee that they'll actually do it, but it's a start.
So what do high ranking government officials in the US do? This:
Top US senator backs amendment to bar gay marriage
WTF???
Yeah, OK. Just slap your own people across the face. "No matter what the Supreme Court says, you are still gonna sit at the back of the bus. It's even going to be part of the Constitution! Neener!"
Thank god it's not Bush saying this, and hopefully it'll be all sound and fury signifying nothing, but still. It's a far cry from "That's fine, we're going to follow up on the Court ruling by legislating according to what they've said."
Of course, we have Premier Ralph Klein saying he'll pull out the Constitutional stops to ban gay marriage in Alberta if the Feds decide it's legal everywhere, but he's a bit of a laughingstock and he can't do it anyway. This other thing is apparently legally possible. Ack.
What is wrong with people?
Anyway, here's the text of the article, for those who want to see it:
Frist told ABC's "This Week" program that he "absolutely" supports a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," he said.
US law already defines marriage as between one woman and one man for federal purposes, and allows states to decide not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
No US state currently allows gay marriage, but the northeastern state of Vermont allows civil unions for same-sex couples.
The debate in the United States reignited after Canada announced earlier this month it would legalize gay marriages, which would be available to Americans who cross the border for the ceremony.
Then the US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down state sodomy laws, in a decision that conservative lawmakers believe could pave the way for gay marriages in the United States.
Conservative members of Congress have proposed an amendment banning gay marriage, but constitutional changes require enormous support to pass.
Two thirds of both houses of Congress must approve the measure, which then needs support of at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to take effect.
Canada and the US are virtually indistinguishable in so many ways. But when we differ, boy, do we differ.
Within weeks of each other, the Ontario Supreme Court decided that it was discriminatory to ban same sex partners from obtaining marriage licences, since opposite sex partners can do so at will, and the US Supreme Court decided that it was discriminatory to ban same sex partners from having oral or anal sex with each other in Texas, since opposite sex partners can also do so at will.
Both decisions were met with joy by gays on both sides of the border. People were crying, people were deciding to get married, people were feeling like they finally had some status as human beings, as worthy of dignity, respect and privacy as anybody else. Apparently in San Francisco, the rainbow flag that flies at the top of Castro Street was taken down for a few hours and replaced with the American flag. I can only imagine the joy of the people who flew their country's flag with as much pride as they'd flown the Gay Pride flag, feeling like maybe, just maybe, their country finally accepted them at least to some degree.
The Canadian federal government responded to the Ontario Supreme Court ruling with an announcement that they would soon come out with legislation to make gay marriage actually legal. Not just "not illegal in Ontario", but recognized under Federal law. No guarantee that they'll actually do it, but it's a start.
So what do high ranking government officials in the US do? This:
Top US senator backs amendment to bar gay marriage
WTF???
Yeah, OK. Just slap your own people across the face. "No matter what the Supreme Court says, you are still gonna sit at the back of the bus. It's even going to be part of the Constitution! Neener!"
Thank god it's not Bush saying this, and hopefully it'll be all sound and fury signifying nothing, but still. It's a far cry from "That's fine, we're going to follow up on the Court ruling by legislating according to what they've said."
Of course, we have Premier Ralph Klein saying he'll pull out the Constitutional stops to ban gay marriage in Alberta if the Feds decide it's legal everywhere, but he's a bit of a laughingstock and he can't do it anyway. This other thing is apparently legally possible. Ack.
What is wrong with people?
Anyway, here's the text of the article, for those who want to see it:
Frist told ABC's "This Week" program that he "absolutely" supports a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," he said.
US law already defines marriage as between one woman and one man for federal purposes, and allows states to decide not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
No US state currently allows gay marriage, but the northeastern state of Vermont allows civil unions for same-sex couples.
The debate in the United States reignited after Canada announced earlier this month it would legalize gay marriages, which would be available to Americans who cross the border for the ceremony.
Then the US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down state sodomy laws, in a decision that conservative lawmakers believe could pave the way for gay marriages in the United States.
Conservative members of Congress have proposed an amendment banning gay marriage, but constitutional changes require enormous support to pass.
Two thirds of both houses of Congress must approve the measure, which then needs support of at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to take effect.
