Almost Canadian

Playing devil's advocate here, all of the items highlighted above could be achieved by a change in the legislation that doesn't require one to be married but to be a relationship of some permanence as the legislation in BC, and from January 1, 2020, Alberta does insofar as division of property is concerned.

I have no issue with same-sex marriage as, to quote Greg Giraldo, they are perfectly entitled to be just as miserable as the rest of us!

Contains content that some will find offensive:

Shard

Is there not the civil partnership option in Canada?

However, even with that in the UK, many wanted the regular 'married' status, and now have it. The debate here is whether civil partnership can be extended to hetro couples or even friendships. Personally I think it should.

scrubbedexpat099

There is a lot to be said that the Government should get out of the business all together, leave it to the individuals concerned, if they want to enter into some sort of contractual agreement then let them.

Shard

Yes, definitely.

Almost Canadian

There isn't and, to be honest, the civil partnership is a cop out anyway. I fail to see the need for it now that same sex marriage is available.

Each Province has its own methods of dealing with some of the issues. BC, and as I said, soon, Alberta, have the ability to divide "matrimonial" property in an almost identical way to married couples if cohabitation for a minimum period of time is established. Albertans can become Adult Interdependent Partners based upon certain criteria, one of which is executing an agreement, that confers some obligations and entitlements but nothing that I suspect is in any way comparable to the all encompassing provisions of the civil partnership offered by the UK.

Tumbling_Dice

Your opinion, I disagree. Let's just leave it at that.

Tumbling_Dice

Yes, the government should be concentrating on making sure everyone in society has the tools needed to succeed and flourish, with success being down to individuals and what use they make of the tools.

Trudeau has a pretty poor record, as far as I can see, across the board, including his own standards. That, in summary, is why he is having trouble against a fairly lightweight opposition.

Oakvillian

No, let's really not.

I provided some specific illustrations to show how, in a world where marriage is defined in such limited and limiting terms, same-sex couples are discriminated against as a matter of law.

That is, objectively, incompatible with an "opinion" that you are not being discriminatory by believing - in the face of the evidence - that no such discrimination occurs.

I don't care what religious beliefs you claim, or on what basis you make your assertion that marriage is somehow defined by the rules in your book and your book only. That, clearly, is an opinion that you hold. But where that personal belief-based opinion impinges on the "basic human dignity" (your words) of others, then that's not OK.

Oakvillian

I kind of agree - but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... if same-sex couples wish to be referred to as "married," and to have a ceremony officially recognizing that "relationship of some permanence" (I like that phrase!) then what is it that gives others the right to say that that relationship may not be called a marriage, plain and simple. The only basis for denying that equality seems to be religious.

While others (I hasten to add, not your good self) have suggested in this rather derailed thread that governments stay the hell out of interpersonal relationships, I would venture to suggest that the organizations who most need to stay the hell out of anything to do with people who are not members of their particular institution are religions, of all kinds and denominations.

Vulcanoid

'Canada' has no consistency on that, because civil partnerships would be a Provincial responsibility, while Marriage is a Federal one. In many but not all Provinces, legal rights can be obtained through either living together for a period of time, having children together, or registering your relationship. Not all of these are required to be conjugal - Alberta's Adult Interdependent Partnerships were their desperate attempt to avoid equal marriage 15 years ago, and accidentally now look highly progressive, as they allow any two adults living together and financially and emotionally interdependent to register their r/s and gain benefits, whether they be romantic partners, siblings, friends, etc.

Shard

That's pretty good.

Almost Canadian

It is, sort of. It does allow, for example, a brother and sister to become AIPs. In addition, it only confers benefits upon them if other legislation states that a criterion for a situation applying is being an AIP. So, for example, it does not automatically confer pension rights upon each AIP, as marriage would. From that perspective, I anticipate that the civil partnership legislation in the UK covers more bases.

BristolUK

You have misread me.

You suggested that Scheer had not been guilty of similar double standards.

I pointed out that he was attacking Trudeau, who had apologised several times, while Scheer had previously said an apology about a past behaviour should have been the end of the matter. It was Scheer's double standard I was referencing so the one of your own was a reference to one of his.

Tumbling_Dice

I am confused now, but if I have misread you. I apologise.

It ultimately shows, does it not, that politicians should stick to crafting policies instead of flinging mud hoping it will bring an electoral advantage. Let them be judged on their policies instead of their ability to act like big children.

CanadaJimmy

https://abacusdata.ca/a-sensational-...-race-remains/