Canada Issues Warning To Gays

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/072505canada.htm

The Canadian government Monday issued a warning to gay travelers following the refusal of some governments - including the US - to recognize Canadian same-sex marriages and in the aftermath of the executions of two gay men in Iran.

"As we welcome new legislation in Canada that extends access to civil marriage to same-sex couples, we must also acknowledge that many countries still do not permit such marriages," said Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew.

"Same-sex couples should know what this will mean for them when traveling internationally."

[ollie79]

1. civil unions yes

Marriage no, you can't redifine that. Silly.

[Bluebear]

2. I hope that's sarcastic!

[ollie79]

6. of course

Just getting irritated by the Homophobes!

[ret5hd]

3. why not? because marriage really a function of religion?...

then why is the govt involved at all?

if it's not, then why cant it be redefined?

oh, never mind, ollie.

[w13rd0]

4. Canada just did...

...and in Canada and Spain, it's the law now. And where is it that marriage is defined in such a way that it can't be changed? If we are talking about civil contracts, it isn't.

[noamnety]

5. I'm not sure what you mean by "redefine"

Historically, there is evidence of gay marriages in Asia (particularly Fujian), ancient Rome, Greece, Istanbul, North America and Africa.

So if you think right now that marriage doesn't include gay marriages as part of its definition, that in itself is proof that it can be redefined.

If it can be redefined to exclude gays, it can be redefined to include gays.


Edit: oops, just saw you were being sarcastic. :)

[kbm8795]

8. Gee and marriage has been redefined

over and over and over again - at the conveinance, of course, of heterosexual cultural changes. What the wingnuts refuse to recognize is that government is supposed to technically stay OUT of marriage - that's why we have protection for spouses in testifying in courtrooms, etc. We learned during the Schiavo case that wingnuts believe government should not only interfere with marriages, but arbitrarily dissolve them if...well, if an outsider wingnut demands it. . .

Canada is right for issuing a warning - and I hope it affects tourism to the U.S. - I don't think a single conservative even THINKS about how difficult it must be for a married couple to travel to destinations that refuse to recognize they have a commitment. Can you imagine a married Canadian couple traveling to Virginia, for example...and being told that they not only cannot visit each other in the hospital, but aren't even recognized as anything but casual friends? Next they'll be told they can't stay together in the same hotel room. . .

[marbuc]

10. Not sure what the issue is

If you're objecting to the term "civil marriage," I read this as recognizing that the Canadian government does not have the jurisdiction to define marriage in anything but civil terms. I think the rights and responsibilities are the same for all marriages in Canada, same sex and opposite sex alike.

I personally think government shouldn't "bless" relationships at all, but simply recognize the legal status of marriage, and grant and protect the associated benefits. If a couple then want to have the marriage sanctioned by a church then so be it.

[Canuckistanian]

7. Beware of anything Pettigrew says

He's a LIBO... Liberal In Name Only.
You Might remember him from from Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"

[getmeouttahere]

9. Amazingly, I don't remember....

and I've seen the film at least 4 times...refresh my memory

[Canuckistanian]

11. He was the one with Tom D'Aquino stumping for Globalization

Saying what a benefit this would be for the developed countries.

[getmeouttahere]

12. Ok, yeah...

I'm just remembering what the politician, I believe from Sarnia, was saying about having a just society...I really liked what that guy had to say