Beyond Same-Sex Marriage

who knows what will come of CBCpravdas latest important story:

San Francisco-area couple calls for global orgasm for peace Dec. 22

a world without scruples or sense.

Too funny! I wonder when the time will come that I can marry my socks or jar of Vaseline?

With homosexual marriage becoming standard fare and soon (likely) to have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriage, just think of all of the confusion that will be thrown into the system when common-law homosexual relationships become recognized by the courts. Think of all of the college students and fraternity brothers and sorority sisters that will now be fraternity spouses and sorority spouses!

Sow to the wind and reap a whirlwind!

This is a republical conspiracy!
Karl Rove is taking the long view!!
By defining downward the definition of married, spousal eligibility for pension funds balloons astronomically, thus support is gained is invalidating spousal claims in general.
Presto!!!
Half the US debt vanishes!!!!
Those evil republicans...

What's wrong with polygamy and polyamory anyway? Really, while watching the SSM debate I fail to see why people devote so much time energy to preserve traditions and pigeonholed definitions of what a family is. Times change, get over it and just live your lives for crying out loud.

Things went wrong when a marriage license became confused with a state issued shagging license.
A feel good permit from a feel good government.

“I wonder when the time will come that I can marry my socks or jar of Vaseline?”

Does that mean only men of certain faiths will be able to get rid of their old socks?
I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you!

This is not something that can be solved by tinkering with legislation.
Now that Pandoras Box is now open, the only long-term solution is for government and legislators to get out of the "marriage" business altogether.
Consenting adults are free to enter into any form of civil contract that they wish, and let them deal with their churches with regard to "marriage". Who is zooming who, and in what orifice, is no-ones business but their own.
The courts deal with contractual break-ups, child custody, and property issues routinely. Judges can continue to do so regardless of whether or not there are 1, 2, 3, or however number of parties involved. Get used to it, get over it, IMHO.

(...3...2...1...BOOM!) :)

Broadening marriage to include multiple partners has been explicitly on the legal agenda for a long time now. The first I saw of it was in a document on the Queen's University faculty of law web site from about 2001, which seems to have become elusive. I think Martha Bailey was an author, but I'm not sure. Kate O'Beirne in her book "Women who make the world worse" says that the idea, and the advocacy, goes back to US radical feminists at least as early as the late 1980s.

Reducing the age of consent for adolescents is something which is SAID to be on the left-liberal agenda, but I have seen no documentation for that.

Not so mad, Mike.
A major reason the homosexual lobby is pushing the issue is to force social legitimization of their lifestyle. By separating the issue, churches are left free to state that marriage belongs to the church while contracts belong to governments. This means that churches can robustly condemn homosexual actions as sin according to the strictures of their moral framework. But...

There's a problem: the European example has shown that if this route is taken, churches by and large withdraw from engaging the homosexual community altogether, further marginalize themselves and become socially irrelevant (not to mention useless at one of their stated primary tasks, thus turning themselves into hypocrites).

Let the yelling and screaming continue...

Now that the gate is opened on the definition of marriage,I am going to marry my farm for tax reasons,my adult children for inheritance reasons,and my dog to prove a point.

By the way,they will all be entitled to survivor benefits.

How could a few college professors and radical family activists hope to equal that “mainstream” effort?

Has this person never heard of the courts? Obviously he chose to overlook that path. Why?

Not quite

Mark said:

"The courts deal with contractual break-ups, child custody, and property issues routinely. Judges can continue to do so regardless of whether or not there are 1, 2, 3, or however number of parties involved. Get used to it, get over it, IMHO.
".

As the unfortunate person who will be forced to pickup the tab for this nonsense I will NOT 'get over it'.

Do any of you pot-smoking-lefties ever give any thought to the social or economic costs of your decisions? No of course you don't, otherwise you would be called conservatives.

WIth every bit of social "progress" -- abortion, "single-parenting", same-sex marriage -- the rights of children (upon which Canadian society used to be founded) -- have been diminished. It is amazing how many times issues such as same-sex marriage are discussed and children are not even mentioned; they don't even enter into the discussion, and when they do it is clear that whatever rights they might have take a back seat to adult "rights".

This is one of the downsides of Canada's "advocacy-based" approach to rights (which the Liberals love so much) -- it's not so much a matter of what is fair and equitable as what group has the self-interest and funds to do the advocating. It appears that children have not done as good a job at petitioning the government for advocacy funding as other groups.

Ah, I am thankful that Harper has minimised the Reformists. No more listening to Reform MPs pontificating on the "Homosexual Agenda".

People, the fact is that irregardless of how you feel about GLBT sex and marriage. It's going to happen, it has happened for tens of thousands of years, and will continue that way.

I personally see it as a lot sadder that a gay man and/or lesbian woman would enter a loveless heterosexual relationship and raise children in that environment; then a loving same sex couple raising an adopted or foster child.

Think how Ted Haggard's wife and children feel that he never loved his wife enough to tell her the truth, and that he was outed in such a mortifying way for them.

JAB AKA Blah

All of you Dog Marriage proponents will have a bit of a legal problem since marriage require this small legal component called "informed consent". Say to Rover, "Will you marry me?" and watch him wag his tail. Now say, "Will you agree to take responsibility for my credit card debt as required by the marriage laws of the state?" and watch that tail go CRAZY. Of course Rover will marry you. But will he agree not to have sex with the neighbor's dog when she's in heat and break your heart. Remember. INFORMED CONSENT. It's the reason the severely mentally retarded can't marry. They have to know what they're signing up for.

Eventually, the left will want to claim that there's nothing wrong with adults having sexual relationships with children. They'll demand that those opposed to such a thing prove that it's harmful to the children and/or to society. No matter what proof is offered, they'll reject it, claiming it's a "human right", that it's in the Charter, and the courts will probably strike down all age of consent laws as "unconstitutional" in that it discriminates on the basis of age.

Right?

The left used the Charter thing about equality between the two sexes as a false argument that the Charter actually was also saying that "sexual orientation" is protected by the Charter... and, by extension, marriage, as traditionally (and properly) defined was, therefore, unconstitutional and that there could be SSM. If the left can do this, and it already has, then can anyone prove that the left won't launch the same kind of vast, conspiratorial campaign via the state apparatus and the MSM to make it legal to have carnal relations with anyone of any age without restriction? How about polygamy? Polyamory? Different-species marriage? I swear that the left assured us just a few years ago that they wouldn't ever push for gay marriage, that the pensions and other issues wouldn't constitute a 'slippery slope' to SSM, but they made it happen anyway. Can't trust the left. The left is so extremely insane a collective that nothing is beyond them.

Religions have to deal with the homosexual issue as per their beliefs. Christianity, if followed according to the Bible does not condone the homosexual act of sodomy. Islam will not tolerate the homosexual lifestyle period. So what's going on?
We have Christian religions not only condoning the same-sex lifestyle, they're allowing them to be "married" in their churches.So much for the Bible's teachings on that score!
There can be no end to the possibilities from these actions. It's made a mockery of Christianity and the tenets of the major religions.
Time will tell. Congregations have been slowly dwindling and this issue may be the last straw for many adherents.

The Liberal/ Left will not pass a Conservative Bill to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to sixteen to protect our kids from predators.
That boggles the mind.

Liz J: The Liberal/ Left will not pass a Conservative Bill to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to sixteen to protect our kids from predators. That boggles the mind.

This is going off-topic, but you should read this: justice.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html

A:

Bill C-2 is just another worthless piece of liberal trash legislation. These were the same morons who replaced the Young Offenders Act with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, remember? And it's been a smashing success, eh? I bet you feel much safer, as a result of the YCJA.

The real opponents of a raised age of consent are the gay lobby, who resent the legislation as it narrows the field from which to choose new victims - er, partners.

And the idiot left can support this notion, and simultaneously fail our children and politicize the issue, while demonizing the Conservatives in the process.

Rank hypocrisy. It's enough to make one's skin crawl.

just keep adding the years and decades, we will have at some point 'marriages' which include dozens of humans with their vows intertwined, some in the group married to multiple others, some to same sex in the group, some to single partner but the partner to multiple others.

then the age of consent will continue to drop.

then marriage to favorite pet. after all, by that point bestiality will be legal and common place because the only objection will be on moral grounds not mental health of economic or whatever. think Im kidding ??? its called PRECEDENT and emphasis on RIGHTS. then people will start to marry themselves.

then marriage to deceased ancestors, inanimate objects, ghosts, distant planets etc etc. think Im kidding ? there was a case in france a woman lost her betrothed just before the ceremony and a special permission was granted from the president. google it if you feel like.

any sort of configuration you can think of.

we can thank the gay agenda for this little pandora's gem.

Its sad how quickly discussions on this topic degenerates, but anyway I must disagree with the assertion in the main article.

A couple of years ago I was at a house party and the topic of SSM came up (most of the party goers immediately steered clear). Being of generally libertarian orientation I argued that consenting adults should be free to enter whatever arrangements they wanted without government interference. My opponents in this discussion were a gay couple (one who was a parliamentary assistant to an NDP MP) who were very active in support of SSM. They disavowed support for polygamy so fast it made my head spin.

On a side note none of the polyamorous people I know seem particularly political about their lifestyle, they prefer make their own private arrangements. As far as I can tell, the push for polygamy is more likely to come from the religious side than from the ploy community.

"Do any of you pot-smoking-lefties ever give any thought to the social or economic costs of your decisions? No of course you don't, otherwise you would be called conservatives."

First, some of "lefties" don't smoke pot. Second, yes, we do give thought to the social and economic costs... SSM would add over $2billion to the economy, increasing tax revenues, creating jobs, etc. And you moron, if you were a TRUE conservative you'd know that conservatives would NEVER get involved in a marriage battle like this. I believe "Live and let live" is their philosphy.

And to the author: I love how you explain the slippery slope theory with yet another slippery slope... Someone call Chicken Little. I think the sky is falling again!!

SSM would add 2 billion to the economy....
While you're at it, why not go for the gusto and claim a trillion, maybe 2 trillion.
Even some conservatives smoke pot, but the pot smoking lefty generalization shoe fits. Put it on.
enough

Lesbians impregnated with sperm from homosexuals could have 'straight' children, following their reasoning that one is born 'that' way. Will they be tolerant? Will they join a group of parents and carry banners in Straight Pride parades?
Can only hope I have enough years left to see the next development in this mad, mad, mad, mad world.

Marriage is an historic religious institution. In this case it's the government which has broken the unwritten agreement of separation between church and state.

The Liberal government and it's socialist allies were free to issue certificates of civil union, which most would have agreed with, however, they chose to conspicuously and maliciously go after the word 'marriage' - causing unneccesary division throughout the country.

To make matters worse, it was a dictate, rather than democratic process which imposed the new law and redefinition on Canadians. This should have been a ballot question as real democratic countries have done. Instead we have an imposed redefinition which at least half the citizens don't logically understand, therefore they don't recognise or believe it. Nor should they.

I am a little surprised that people are reacting to the suggestion that the left wants to re-define the family with shock and amazement.

Back when SSM was being debated in this country, there were a handful of Conservative MP's who suggested that maybe the best "fair and balanced" approach was for the state to get out of the business of "marriage" altogether.

Remember that, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is almost exactly the same as a business partnership. You sign a document, and then the law goes away until either one of the partners dies or the relationship is dissolved (in marriage, it is called "divorce"). The only difference (from the state's point of view) is that, in a business partnership, only business assets are involved. In a marriage, personal property is involved.

The state adopted the term "marriage" because that's what most people knew the relationship as. Then, the state "borrowed" the religious rules for defining what constituted a marriage.

- Must orally take an oath (marriage vows) in front of witnesses (for both the bride and groom)
- Must have sex on your night of marriage (it's in the books).
- Must be to the exclusion of all others (adultery is breech of contract and, thus, grounds for divorce).
- Must be between a man and a woman.

Then, along comes the invention of government benefits (CPP and "survivor's benefits"). This opened the door to the SSM argument that they didn't have the same entitlements ("rights") under the law. Remember that that is what all of the court cases that opened the door to SSM were about.

BTW Travis: The homosexual couple you had your conversation with may have been against polygamy. But that means absolutely squat because all a polygamist has to do is say "You changed the requirement of 'Must be between a man and a woman' for homosexuals...so, why won't you change the requirement of 'to the exclusion of all others' for me? I have rights too...blah, blah, blah."

Trying to counter the polygamist's argument with "Well, a gay couple that Travis met are against it" will not hold any water. The point is, if you remove a restriction for one group...sooner or later the others have to fall for the exact same reason (a particular group finds it denies them their concept of rights).

Anyway, these Conservatives (I think, quite rightly) asserted that, since the government no longer saw eye-to-eye on the criteria for defining "marriage"...then maybe the government should do the honorable thing and stop "borrowing" the term. The law would, from this point on, grant only Civil Unions (to both gays and straights) and the Church could have the term "marriage" returned to them (a "marriage" under religion would automatically imply a "civil union" under the law).

But the gay and lesbian movement would have nothing of it. Why? No one is sure. All they kept saying was that this proposal was against the concept of equal rights.

I, for one, wasn't at all confused by the reaction of the activists. Of course they didn't simply want "equal rights under the law." They NEEDED a redefinition of marriage. A rule with new, and "revolutionary" leftist ideas is IT IS NEVER THE END...IT IS ALWAYS ONLY THE BEGINNING.

The real aim of the left is to redefine societal norms. In order to do that, they need control of the young. To accomplish this, they need control of the concept of "family". And they can't move against the family unless they first control the concept of marriage.

That was always the real purpose behind the push for SSM. It's just Phase 1 of a larger assault on societal norms. The equal-rights-under-the-law argument could have been easily settled (and was) by granting same-sex couples the same CPP benefits (since that was the only thing that they didn't have under the law). But, that wasn't enough for them. Didn't anyone else here, at the time, wonder why it wasn't enough for them?

I am surprised that this is taking people by surprise. I am pretty certain that it is not just a latent side-effect of the SSM issue...it was planned all along.

I think you misinterpreted my example Bryceman. I was disagreeing with the assertion in the original article:

"the core constituency for a radical deconstruction of marriage (polygamy and polyamory included) will be largely the same activist community that is pushing for same-sex marriage right now"

My example was to counter that assertion, not to any claim by polygamists.

Also, your assertion that

"The equal-rights-under-the-law argument could have been easily settled (and was) by granting same-sex couples the same CPP benefits (since that was the only thing that they didn't have under the law). But, that wasn't enough for them."

is demonstrably false. Shortly after SSM was ruled legal in Ontario I met a lesbian couple who drove all the way up here from New Brunswick to get married. Their stated reason was because NB authorities would not let the non-biological mother adopt the daughter they were raising together because they were not "married" (and yes being married was a requirement of the adoption law and it was being used to prevent them from establishing some legal rights for their child). Regardless of whether or not you agree with the adoption, it wasn't "equal-rights-under-the-law".

Now I realize that these are personal examples and you may not accord them much weight, so I challenge you to talk to a few homosexuals in the 40+ age bracket. Trust me, you won't have to talk too many before you find one who was forced to stand in the hospital hallway while their partner suffered and/or died.

If you can't recognize the injustice in being told that you are not 'family' and forced to wait 50 feet away while your lover dies and not being permitted to be at their side, not being permitted that last goodbye, then nothing I can say or do can help you.

To a very large extent the attitudes that lead to that behavior have dissipated in our society, which is a good thing. But make no mistake, it happened far too often (and not so very long ago) not to have impacted how many view the SSM debate.

Irwin daisy makes some good points about how SSM was introduced. Certainly more discussion and debate would have been a good thing. Similarly I agree that civil union would largely satisfied the legal requirements, leaving the rest (mostly) a semantic debate and thus much less divisive.

However, Irwin Daisy fails to note that marriage is one of the institutions in our society that really didn't have a good separation of church and state in its implementation (as bryceman explained). So saying that the government violated the separation of church and state is an invalid argument. There was no clear separation (and there still isn't).

While I largely agree with ID's criticisms of how the Liberals introduced the legislation, I also put a lot of blame on the Conservatives. They failed to make a strong case in favor of civil union.

Travis:

First of all, I appreciate your contesting what I had to say in an honorable and respectful manner. Now, with regards to your points:

OK, I understand that your example of the gay couple that was against polygamy was meant to argue against the assertion that the same groups that push SSM are pushing for polygamy. I don't know that your example properly counters that assertion. We all know that the average person on the street (no matter what their political or moral slant) is usually not representative of the position taken by the "organization" that they support. Yes, your example is anecdotal. But, I wouldn't slam it simply for that reason (too much of that going on). I just don't think that it properly argues agains the notion that the same organized groups (who stand to make a profit) who pushed for SSM will be there for polygamists.

You say that my assertion that the benefits issue gave same-sex couples equal treatment under the law is "demonstrably false."

With respect, it is demonstrably true.

My answer to your point about a same-sex partner not being allowed in to an ICU to say 'good-bye' to their partner: Don't confuse hospital policy with the law. They are not the same thing.

If you want to assert that hospital policies (which hospitals try their damndest to make consistent from hospital to hospital) of letting only legal spouses and children into ICU wards is on the low-end of the compassion scale...I will not argue. But admission to an ICU ward is not a legal right that is determined by elected representatives passing a bill that is approved by the senate and then given Royal Ascent - it is a privilege to be granted or revoked by hospital administrators. Should hospital administrators be lobbied to change or relax that policy and to show more compassion? Probably. But we don't need an Act of Parliament on the issue of SSM to do it.

Your example of same-sex partners wanting to legally adopt their partners' children fits in nicely with the crux of my original post - this is not about marriage under the law - it is about redefining the family. I think you've made my point for me. They couldn't push this idea until they had marriage - "civil unions" wouldn't have given them the political clout they need to redefine the family.

All I am saying is, once that is done, the door will be open to polygamy. You will hear of groups of women from places like Bountiful, B.C. arguing about how their husband's CPP survivor benefits should be distributed among all 15 wives. When that is turned down by the government because the legal definition of marriage still has that "to the exclusion of all others clause", they will sue. And they will win by arguing that the definition was changed once for SSM - so it should be changed again.

Once the legal restrictions are off, the polygamists will have open-season on a practice that most others (gay and straight) find appalling. Imagine someone coming home to tell their spouse that they are marrying a couple of other people. Imagine the legal consequences of divorce. But, most of all, imagine the impact on the children of such messed up situations.

The old way may have had flaws. But, it sure as hell beat whatever is in second place.

"I met a lesbian couple who drove all the way up here from New Brunswick to get married. Their stated reason was because NB authorities would not let the non-biological mother adopt the daughter they were raising together because they were not "married" (and yes being married was a requirement of the adoption law and it was being used to prevent them from establishing some legal rights for their child)".

If a child is being raised by her mother and grandmother, does this mean that the grandmother must marry the mother in order to have legal rights concerning their child? And if so, why not? If two lesbians can be the "mothers" of a child, then why can't a grandmother also be a child's mother? Clearly, there's a closer biololgical relationship, and who is to say that the love that a grandmother has for her child and her grandchild is somehow less worthy than that held by two lesbian lovers for each other? When will Canada end the awful discrimination caused by associating parenting with sexual relations?

That's a good point Richard.

Here's another one: The legal decisions that opened up our society to same-sex marriage said that homosexual couples should also be able to have their "life partners" entitle to receive their pensions and CPP survivor benefits.

But, imagine a situation where you have two men (or women) who are straight best-friends. What if they are both single and never plan to marry anyone at all. Why can't they designate each other as beneficiaries of their pension plans.

Answer: Because they don't ejjaculate on each other.

That's what our laws are now centering on. Not what's best for the family. Not what's best for even the individual. But on where you get your sexual jollies. The actual impact on third parties (especially children) is immaterial to the new way of thinking.

How about if we just boycott SAN FRANCISCO and hurt them where it hurts the most right in their bank accounts

Bryceman:

Except as I said this wasn't the average gay couple off the street. In any case, your example from Bountiful comes from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

As for the door being open to polygamy, it already is and not because of SSM. From what I can see, a challenge on the grounds of religious freedom has a good chance of succeeding.

I'm not confusing hospital policy with the law, the fact is that people were refused access to their partner's bed side because the policy used the legal definition of family and THE LAW said they were not family. Seriously, if the person you have committed to spend the rest of your life with isn't considered family then who is? I can't believe that you would reduce the concept of family to mere biology.

Explain to me how you would feel if visiting your dying wife at her bedside was merely "a privilege to be granted or revoked by hospital administrators". Then explain how you would react if they revoked that privilege and said "well the law says you aren't family".

Calling a homosexual couple and the children they are raising a family is not a redefinition of family. It is merely acknowledging the facts on the ground. What other term is applicable? What other term provides the social and legal support necessary to aid in the raising of those children?

Travis:

What I am saying is that if hospital policy says that you can only enter the room to be with a dying loved one if they are considered "immediate family under the law", then it is the hospital policy that is flawed.

If I understand your position correctly this is what you think:

Hospital policy is immutable...it was handed down to us by some Supreme Being...it must always stay as written and currently interpreted...and since hospital rules can never be changed, then any changes in hospital policy must come from changing the law so that the words the hospital uses in its definition ("immediate family") are changed by proxy. Therefore, the only way to get a gay lover into an ICU or pallative care ward is to change the law.

I am saying that that is not the case. That's ridiculous. Instead of waiting for government to change the law, the hospital can simply change its policy. It can be done much more quickly and without public controversy.

For goodness' sake...this isn't just about same-sex couples. What if a person is dying in a hospital ward and both their spouse and children are all already dead? Then I would think that the hospital policy should also be bent a little to allow a grand-child in, for example. Changing the law to indirectly force changes in something like hospital policy is like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun (and going through all of the permit-acquisition steps just to get there). It's way over the top.

Alberta once had a law that said alcoholic beverages were legal - but (for some reason) Vodka was banned. When they decided to allow the sale and consumption of vodka - it did not require a legal redefinition of "alcohol" - it just involved removing the restriction on Vodka.

I have said (and stand by) the assertion that the only thing under the law that same-sex couples were denied before the legalization of SSM was government benefits. That was all they had to argue with...and you can't find one example of a successful court challenge to the laws against SSM except those that were seeking entitlement to pensions.

Yes, now the door is open to the issue of adoption. And I say that that's what they wanted all along. Never the end - always only the beginning.

The article is wrong. Gay marriage and polygamy are being pushed by different collections of individuals. Gay marriage is primarily advocated by gay and lesbian activists, while polygamy is primarily being lobbied for by very traditional religious groups like those at Bountiful.

Soren, which religous groups do you consider to be "traditional"?

Also, in the homosexual population there are very low participation rates in same-sex householding, let alone SSM.

The advocacy for SSM would have gone no place if not for the broader group of radical leftists.

But if this is really about "live and let live", as Rodeojock claimed earlier, then, why is polygamy banned?

See, SSM was not banned, it was both tolerated and protected, prior to enactment of SSM. The push to merge SSM with marriage came from the people who wish to abolish the special status of marriage.

The social institution of marriage was not created by the government. It was recognized. And as part of that recognition, society, through the state authority, enacted a preferential status for marriage. This goes beyond mere tolerance (live and let live) and beyond protection (guarding against unjust intrusions on privacy). Preference requires a very good reason or it will collapse.

Marriage integrates the sexes and combines that with responsible procreation. Men and women can procreate outside of marriage, but that is the reason that society prefers to combine the two aspects in one foundational social institution which, by definition, is normative. Marriage is for all of society, not for special interest groups. Even those who never marry benefit from the preferential treatment for marriage as a social institution.

But the core of marriage is extrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement which is sex-segregative and where children are involved depends on parental relinquishment (or loss). Adoption does not bestow marital status. Third party procreation is extramarital when husband and wife engage in it, so it is also not at the core of marriage.

If SSMers push for moving the center of what the state recognizes, and privileges, from the core of marriage (sex integration combined with responsible procreation), then, only the secondary and tertiary aspects of marriage are emphasized. Repositioning the center to the peripherary is precisely what "civil union" status is about. And since that is what SSM is also about, this changes much more than mere semantics.

So, remove the core of marriage, and what is left? An empty vessel into which the Left can pour their own new fangled meaning. This is done in the name of "diversity". And the emphasis switches from preferential status to mere portected status.

As I said, three types of relaitonships: tolerated, protected, and preferred. SSM demotes marriage to the protected status. Marriage becomes non-preferred. No unique status for marriage. The merger effects a replacement and it abolishes the core of marriage from what the government recognized in the first place.

Marriage is unique. It means more than what the SSM campaign can admit. So another straight forward effect is that the government -- society as a whole -- gets its hands tied -- you can no longer based marital status on what marriage uniquely does: integration of the sexes and responsible procreation. You are restricted by the limitations of the one-sexed arrangement.

That applies to all of society. It is not live and let live. It is not mere protection. It creates a situation in which marriage is demoted, not expanced, and in which the one-sexed arrangement becomes the benchmark. A very low benchmark.

Choosing the one-sexed arrangement --- whether or not it is sexualized is irrelevant to society ---- is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.

Imposing the SSM template as a replacement for the conjugal relationship is interference and denies to all of society the special status accorded marriage.

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/

No Bryceman, I don't think hosiptal policy is immutable. As I said ealier, hospital policy has changed and that is a good thing. And yes, hospital policy did change faster than the law, but that doesn't mean the law is immutable. It doesn't mean the law didn't need to change too.

I simply don't accept that access to a dying partner's bedside is something that is appropriately left to the whim of some bureaucrat. I note that you haven't answered how you would react if you were denied acess to your wife's bedside. Would you only go after the bureaucrat while saying that the law he used to justify his position was perfectly sound? I doubt it.

And that was just one example among many. What if you were denied the right to be consulted or even just informed on medical matters regarding your ill wife? Or what if your wife's estanged family waltzed in after she died and carted everything in your house away because the law recognizes only them as the next of kin?

You claimed that equality before the law was established by granting CPP benefits. That is simply not the case.