Ontario men wed following court ruling

[nfotxn]

Finally I can live my dream.

My dream to be a mail-order bride.

Modeling my relationships after heterosexuals isn't exactly #1 on my list of accomplishments to make here but it's good to have options. It's good to know that even in an ultra conservative "post 9/11" [barf!] political climate where political dissent and advocacy of "vocal" minorities somehow equates undemocratic sentiment we can still hope for equal rights. It's good to have a taste of real freedom.

Comments

awesome! tax-free benefits for our loved ones

[gusmacroy.livejournal.com]

but just 2 words of advice: prenuptial agreement.

[jrjarrett.livejournal.com]

My dream to be a mail-order bride.

I got a stamp right here :)

[mathan.livejournal.com]

Why even say anything about modelling the relationship after hetrosexuals? A relationship is a relationship whether it's two guys, two women, or a man and a women. I know straight, gay and lesbian couples who have open relationshps, and I know people who have closed relationships.

I cite the example of some former friend of Cary xtc_cub who tried to imply that he and John were living a so-called "hetrosexual" life because they live in Kitchener-Waterloo, don't fuck behind each other's back, and are not in an open relationship. WTF? They are simply living their life the way they want to.

A marriage is more about celebrating the coming together of two people, In my mind. Whether it's two men, two women, or a straight couple. It can be done any way you want whether you elope, do it in a church, get the paper work done at city hall, etc.

I mean, look at the number of gay couples who have already held committment ceremonies, independent of this ruling? Quite a few... And why wouldn't you want to celebrate your committment to each other?

Doing it your own way? Gay and straight people have been doing that for years! And besides, more and more straight peope are saying, "Fuck the wedding, we'll stay common law"

So... what the fuck does it mean to model a relationship after something a hetrosexual does? To me, that view is becoming really dated.

What this ruling does is make sure we are truly responsible for our actions, and maybe make some of us truly think before we act. It'll be interesting to see what happens in divorce law, alimony, etc. :)

[ericdabear.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more.

As it stands, I have domestic partner benefits (I'm still covering my ex (his benefits suck) and I live in a local environment that is pretty accepting.

But I like the idea that I can get married (if I want to) .. and that I need to think long and hard about it because the issue of divorce would be real, too.

Bullshit

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

So... what the fuck does it mean to model a relationship after something a hetrosexual[sic] does?

It means imitating their customs instead of making or own, or even better, discarding irrelevant ideas like government-approved relationships.

We shouldn't be aping heterosexuals' archaic rituals, we should be helping them move past antiquated concepts like "partnership = monogamy" and "government sanctioning = legitimacy."

What this ruling does is make sure we are truly responsible for our actions, and maybe make some of us truly think before we act.

Please. This is utter bullshit. Suddenly people will say "Oh, now that the government says gay marriage rituals are ok, I'll have to be responsible!" Are you serious?

Re: Bullshit

[mathan.livejournal.com]

It means imitating their customs instead of making or own
Okay, but the customs are not based on the fact that these people happen to be straight. That is quite a small detail. In terms of history, most of the customs actually come from a combination of the community and the church.

Most people I have spoken to about their wedding, both within my family and friends of mine - most agree that they are doing it for their friends and family.

That said, lots of people do it their own way and do create their own customs - whether straight or gay. After all, in my family: my Aunt and Uncle got married at City Hall. Kirsten and Barry got married in a church. Erika and Francois eloped and had a private ceremony. Tim, if he's married to Bernard yet, will probably get married at City Hall or however the process is done in Nicaragua. Pagan friends of mine have a specific hand fasting ceremony. The list goes on. Even within the church ceremony, in many cases there are ways to make the ceremony unique. Why? Different cultures have different traditions - western, asian, etc...

government sanctioning = legitimacy
I agree, the government sanctioning my relationship in terms of a marriage license is a farce. My relationship is legitimate, regardless of what the government thinks. What this does is, points out to the rest of the world that we have the exact same things that hetrosexual people think are unique to themselves.

partnership = monogamy
I hope, in my example of Cary and John, you're not trying to imply that their relationship is based on a hetrosexual model. I would have agreed up to about 10 or 15 years ago, but these days that kind of thinking is realy out of date.

Re: Bullshit

[mathan.livejournal.com]

Woops, that should have read "Tim and Bernarda" :)

Re: Bullshit

[xtc-cub.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'm imitating anyone really when it comes to relationships in the hetro sense.
I enjoy being in the relationship I have and if I choose to go for the paperwork and be recognized in the eyes of the law and church, why not?
I can fully understand it's not for everyone. To some, it's kinda funny and pointless. To others, it a union that I think deserves just as much attention and legitimacy as any other, be it hetro or otherwise.
In some cases we're even better than the hetro's when it comes to monogamy and making things work. In this day and age you can see the tables are turning.

This is my thought: If a piece of paper from City Hall will make you happier, then do it. We now have this right and should take advantage of this great opportunity. If you don't feel the need for it, then don't.

I think there are several smaller issues when it comes to this topic and we seem to be bleeding them all into one discussion. Talk about them seperatly, and it might make sense for someone else who might be reading this.

[tcbear.livejournal.com]

So would that be To Russia with Love?

It does make you wonder with the mass exodus of attractive, though toothless Russian females what the big Russian bears back home are doing over too much vodka ;-)

In all honesty the only thing that legalizing "marriage" per se for homosexuals is that they will get the government benefits associated with marriage...although likely the rules on adoption or how it will work with children are not going to change very soon. But I thought we were well on are way to the tax benefits and everything anyhow as common law couples. Ehhh...I guess as Iain says its just another option.

[mathan.livejournal.com]

David cub4bear makes an interesting point. Right now, common-law relationships are not a choice you have. I need to look into what the law actually says, but after one or two years of living together with your partner under the same roof, in the eyes of the government you are common-law. There is no choice, that is how it is.

And it does bring up several issues. David's being that there is no choice between whether you want it or not - you have it, period. For myself, I do like being recognized by the government - not for my own need as my relationship with Scott is legitimate to me and those in my life who matter. However, I only want to follow part of the law. *GRIN* i.e. it totally fucks up Scott's OSAP, etc.

If I make more than Scott does, I am expected to pay for things such as Scott's tuition. Well, Scott and I keep seperate finances and HE is responsible for his own actions as am I. As long as we pay the bills, rent, etc.. I'm good. The rest of the money is our own to deal with.

Gay marriage is idiotic

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

Gay marriage is not about choice, it's about remaking gay relationships into pseudoheterosexual relationships.

What about REAL freedom of choice? If I move in with Mark and live with him for more than a year, we'll be considered a common-law couple. I don't want that, and he doesn't. But thanks to all these homos who really want to act like heterosexuals, I don't have a choice -- it's common-law or nothing, despite what Mark and I want.

So much for choice.

I don't need to participate in some tacky heterosexual ritual to "celebrate my relationship" with Mark. I do that every time I kiss him.

Re: Gay marriage is idiotic

[five0xpres.livejournal.com]

Do me a favor and get thee to a doctor so they can remove that tree trunk from your ass, M'kay?

Homo on a stick isn't too appealing.

You don't want to get married, fine. But there are those out there who want legal recognition of their relationship instead of constantly being marginalizing because of their sexuality.

BTW, I don't want to act like a hetero, I like dick too much...I just want the laws to be applied evenly no matter who's team someone plays for. But apparently that's too much of a concept for some to grasp.

Re: Gay marriage is idiotic

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

You don't want to get married, fine.

My point was that because of common-law "marriage,", I *can't* choose not to get "married." Choice has been taken away from me, not given.

Re: Gay marriage is idiotic

[mathan.livejournal.com]

Other than you and I agreeing that our own relationships are legitimate without the need for government intervention, what is your argument against common-law recognition for gay people?

The one that stands out for Scott and myself is that it completely fucks up Scott's eligibility for OSAP. Also, the tax laws, I believe, are not in our favour either, especially when I was working full time.

Given that we keep our finances completely separate (there are lots of people I know who do this), the tax law's assumption that everyone combines everything together is also rather outdated.

Re: Gay marriage is idiotic

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

Other than you and I agreeing that our own relationships are legitimate without the need for government intervention, what is your argument against common-law recognition for gay people?

It's involuntary.

Gay marriage is hardly idiotic

[plaidninja.livejournal.com]

So anyway now that all the boobs out there are done shouting lets really talk about this.
I'm not sure I understand your venom on this issue. I'm pretty much indiferent to marriage. I certainly don't want to waste my time on it, but I'm eager for those that do want it to have the freedom to do so. From your tone (and yes I'm reading into your words here, you can set me straight if I'm incorrect) I'd assume you think the idea of gay's marrying as some sort of betrayal. An Adolf meets Eva kind of betrayal. What's up with that?
When you say "Gay marriage is not about choice, it's about remaking gay relationships into pseudoheterosexual relationships. do you honestly believe that? It seems overly simplistic given the many motivations people have for getting married. In addition that statement implies that the values behind marriage are not homosexual values and a homosexual relationship must be twisted and reformed to fit into the mold of marriage. Given that marriage has moved outside of the relm of religious institutions to become an institution unto itself, I can't see how gay values do not fit into marriage. I would suggest that the values behind marriage Are homosexual values. Just because they are not the only values that exist in the homosexual community doesn't make them any less valid.

Re: Gay marriage is hardly idiotic

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

I would suggest that the values behind marriage Are homosexual values. Just because they are not the only values that exist in the homosexual community doesn't make them any less valid.

What about everyone else?

Re: Gay marriage is idiotic

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

A marriage is not about celebrating one's relationhip. A wedding is about celebrating the relationship. (And you can think weddings are tacky if you want, but personally, mine's going to be hip, creative, and oh-so-stylish.) But marriage is different, and much more important.

Marriage is about recognition and dignity, and I'm sorry that those concepts don't mean more to you.

On an activist level, marriage is about visibility. And I don't visibility in the usual sense of "gay visibility"; I mean visibility of our relationships. Middle America already knows what a gay person looks like, but they don't know what a gay relationship looks like. Even shows like "Will & Grace" or "Dawson's Creek" will show gay characters, but they won't show gay relationships. (And by the way, those shows both suck.)

Visibility is important for more than just gay activism; it's important for new generations of gay youth. They need to know that there's more to being gay than "the scene". According to the year 2000 American Census, 22% of male same-sex households have children, but you wouldn't know that if you were only familiar with "the scene". (For female same-sex households, the figure was %33.)

When you say "remaking gay relationships into pseudo-heterosexual" relationships, you seem to be implying that heterosexual relationships are different from same-sex relationships. I don't know what you mean. Why is it different? Why does gender matter?

Perhaps you think that heterosexual marriage is about perpetuating gender roles. If so, you're being cynnical, as well as being wrong. Not even straight people think marriage is about gender roles anymore.

The only other difference I can think of between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships is that same-sex couples can't get married. And if you're saying that same-sex couples shouldn't be able to get married because they've never been able to get married, you're being inherently conservative.

The fact is that same-sex couples have lived in marriage-like relationships for hundreds of years (as written evidence proves). And I'll take it as self-evident that those relationships have suffered because they haven't had the community support that married couples receive. When a couple just "lives together", family, friends, and acquaintances are usually uncertain about the level of committment in the relationship. (I know I certainly am.) But everyone knows what marriage is. Once a couple gets married, friends (and even strangers) will tend to do what they can to support the relationship.

If you were against all marriage, I would understand where you were coming from, even though I'd disagree. But by saying that marriage is more valid for heterosexuals than for gay people, you're insulting a relationship I might one day be in.

(Which is fine by me, because I don't respect your "relationships" either.)

Read what Bebout has to say

[cub4bear.livejournal.com]

Ted, your personal attacks on me are not appreciated. I'd appreciate it if you attacked my arguments and didn't resort to personal attacks on me.

Rick Bebout argues against gay marriage quite eloquently:

http://www.rbebout.com/getfree/lcc.htm

Marriage is about recognition and dignity

And speaking of dignity and equality, this is what he says:

Equality. Dignity. Choice. Words we ever hear in the Great Gay Marriage Debate. Are they considered concepts? Or what students of propaganda call "glittering generalities"? Thoughtful sense? Or cheap sentiment?

Miss ("I abhor cheap sentiment") Bette Davis -- and that incisive mental device known as a "Bullshit Detector" -- expose the atttiudes likely hiding behind the mask of platitude:

* Equality -- as sameness.

Even as Canadian law and the Charter of Rights recognize that treating all of us as if we were exactly the same can make some of us less than equal.

* Dignity -- as My dignity! To hell with yours...

Both "sides" in this so-called debate want the state to back their own beliefs. And to impose them on the rest of us. They may resort to religiosity -- but they lack true respect for freedom of conscience or religion.

* Choice -- as just two choices. Or no choice.

Marriage mavens would make you "free" to choose marital status -- or no legal status. Or to be locked up with no choice in the "common-law" status of involuntary matrimony.

nothing means anything

[jwall.livejournal.com]

If you fill out enough paperwork, you can legally empower yourself under any pretense you can fathom to pull out of your ass.

For example: I have two corporate identities registered with my local Chamber of Commerce that qualify for non-profit and small business tax breaks/incentives. Neither of these “businesses” do anything save occupy a line each in the commerce registrar, but both Harmful Exploits ltd., and the Atlanta Annex of Irreproducible Results (AAIR) are valid state income tax deferments I claim every tax season.

Even more amazing, I applied to the Atlanta Black-Owned Business Chamber and was accepted without so much as a phone call. So if I wanted to, I could take out a zero-interest loan to invest in my neighborhood (DeKalb County, 4th District). I wouldn’t be obligated to start paying it back until my investments turned profitable, or I wanted to claim my payments as tax breaks.

There’s a government form for everything here. I can only imagine the fabulous plateaus of bullshit I could perpetrate were I a citizen of a socialist filing cabinet like Canada or the U.K.

I always love a good cock fight...

[imattv.livejournal.com]

honestly...I do...

who doesn't really?

it's as fun to watch the strutting in the ring and the thrusts, parries and peckings of somebody else's extensions of self ... as it is to follow the
antics of those who are just there... because a bunch of people have gathered in a circle...(9 times out of 10...mostly to be close to others with a vested interest in something or those who just really like being close to other men in a hot emotionally charged circle, --which is way okay in my book)

regardless my own personal opinions on the matter...(and trust me.... I have them.),
but
These sorts of debates become less and less about the subject and more about motive.

all I'll say.... is that one should have and express their opinions freely...but remembering that they are "OPINIONS" often based in fact but also education, experience and up-bringing?...Your opinion or by virtue of just having one....doesn't make you right better or even close to being a part of the solution...

choir preaching and issue clouding are the single greatest obstacle to growth, change and progress the world has ever known
and the powers that hold the key to every status quo you've ever thought about, know this more than anyone.

My humble opinion?

Be passionate about people-- not protocol.

Regardless of it's personal meanings to every gay person on earth...(or even it's lack of meaning to others...)

--it's some kind of progress in a very scope -limited world.

It's cause for celebration...not dissonance.

Now if one of you will be so kind as to bring me a good hatchet...
--we'll fire up the webber and get this feast started.


that is all.

Accoutrements to the dream!

[cartmatt.livejournal.com]

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2003/06/10/dining/20030611cake.slideshow_1.html

I like the Wedgewood one. :)

Re: Accoutrements to the dream!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

One word! fabulous!

Re: Accoutrements to the dream!

[cartmatt.livejournal.com]

The last one is just too pretty to cut... :(

[ranger1.livejournal.com]

Very well said. It sums up my own feelings pretty well.