Well, of course, in BC same sex marriage was already legal. The passage of bill C38 merely endorses what was already the law, and brings all legislation affecting marriage into line with the law. Nevertheless, it is nice to see Parliament recognise that equality is for all Canadians. I am quite proud to be a citizen of a country that puts equal rights in first place, and resists all of the self-serving, pedantic and specious nonsense that passed for debate by the reactionary Conservative-Reformed-Alliance.

Bang on krisb !!!!!

time we quite catering to the minority ..

no more ramps for those who have difficulty climbing stairs ...

no more expensive curb cuts at corners for those on wheels ....

no more subsidized urban trasnit for those who cannot afford or do not wish to afford a car ....

no more bike lanes for those few who ride bikes ...

no more sidewalks for those few who use sidewalks ....

no more city parks for those few who use them ....

no more city tennis courts for those few who use them ....

no more city ballparks for those few who use them ....

hey ... where do we stop with catering to these minorities .. ??? After all, democracy means "majority rules" .... right??? ;-)

BTW, which minority do you belong to that I am making subsidizing?????

So I guess what your saying is that its now OK for two gay males to adopt young girls from 3rd world countries....

What about incest if we no longer have moral family values... where do you draw the lines....

If you really want to talk about minority rights than why can't a family member collect the same benefits that two gay lovers can collect if they live together.

IMO a marrage is a religious term for the bonding of a man and a woman for the creation of a family unit. Governments have NO right to legislate religion. This is a right in the Charter.

If the sodimites wanted to have equal benefits as a married couple, than maybe government should have looked at passing a dependents bill that gives equal rights to all dependents rather than the discriminatory anti-family bill C-38.

I honestly think most gay people are people with a mental illness involving acceptance and devient sexual problems. I think their attack on the church and the appologists that support this have no real moral values, but rather these people buy the slogans that don't require them to think on their own.

It is quite simple.

For those people who practice a religion and most likely wish to be married with the blessing and ceremony of a Church, no right has been removed. In fact, some Churches accept the practice of gay marriage.

We cannot be myopic when suggesting that all religions reject gay marriage, just as we cannot be myopic and suggest all Churches reject mechanical or chemical birth control. The facts are quite the opposite.

No one is forcing people to marry, no matter what the gender mix is.

As the mayor of PG would say. This is about censorship.

Censorship has been removed by the state and now remains in the hands of the Church as well as individuals.

For all those who purport to be against censorship, this ought to be a day to celebrate.

The kind of comments by Chadermondo are what I meant by self serving, specious argumants. What has marriage got to do with whom people are allowed to adopt? There are laws and agencies which devote inordinate amounts of time checking out the suitability of adoptive parents for the specific child involved. It is not an easy process. I have been through it and it is very thorough. However, I would note that since gay men don't like sex with women, probably the safest place for a girl child would be to be adopted by a homosexual family unit. After all, incestious rape of a girl by a father infers that the father is heterosexual, like the raping priests and ministers we constantly hear about.

You draw the line at the law. Incestuous rapists should be in jail, and has nothing to do with homosexual men, who do not rape girls, by definition. Dah!!

Nor, I might add, do most people, homosexual, *** or straight. Criminals rape, and they can be found in any, and all, groups.

IMO marriage is for companionship primarily. After all, God initially made Eve as a "Helper, meet (suitable) for" Adam. That's a helper, note, a companion, note, not as an incubating chamber for his children. Marriage was not primarily religious, but even if it were, so what? Since the religious groups were stopped from dictating to people what they could and could not do, and stopped burning them at the stake for minor infractions of Church law, people have left them in droves. Non-Church goers have as much right to marry as the religious, and for them civil marriage is, and has been for a long time, one of the options.

As to Chadermondo's comments about tax benefits for family members, well, start a political movement to bring that about. I do not disagree with you and may well support it. It is a good point. If you are as successful as gays have been, in 30 years or so it will become law.

Good-now let it go. No more Gay Pride Days with their foolishness. Just hope they stay together "until death parts them." Let them collect pensions and survivor benefits. And let them not bother for more considerations-but let us all live in peace. The lesbians can get artificial insemination if they want children, and the guys can do without. This stupidity has to come to an end. I did not care if they got married before, and I do not care now. It has become a rather "boring" subject.