There goes Canada…what are the rest of the countries waiting for?

The Supreme Court in Canada said that by failing to appeal a number of lower court rulings that said excluding gays from marriage was discriminatory, the federal government had already accepted that position.

The Liberal government will introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage when the Canadian Parliament resumes sitting in January.

So does it matter that it’s called marriage? That seems to be the big thing, that it should be called the same thing. I’m not really sure that I care what it’s called but then again I do want a particular change that no one seems to be seriously legally considering yet (except perhaps in Holland). Legally marriage should be allowed to be polygamous. Three people kissing in a bar should not be a grounds for any sort of complaint not should three or more people standing proclaiming vows.

Whats this? Mish suddenly becoming pro-relationships? Pro-marriage even? People want relationships, people should learn to exist by themselves first if you ask me. Become familiar with the insides of their own heads before they inflict them on other people. Enjoy existing, the wonders of simply being before trying to be with another. I guess my position is that I want people to like themselves on their own terms first, (hardly anyone seems to sometimes) before liking themselves on someone elses. I managed to live like that dishonestly for 5, honestly for 2 years, before I got caught out. I still believe relationships are inherently bad for people, unfortunately stating this from the inside looks like hypocrisy.

But all that aside, if straight couples can get married, then gay couples should be able to. And since I believe that not only is it possible to fall in love with more than one person, I also believe it is possible to have an open, loving, trusting and sexual relationship with more than one person then I think that polygamy should be legalised.

You know to be honest I don’t think I care what they call it. Civil Union, civil partnership, registered partnership…as long as it means equal rights whats in a name?

Why am I so concerned with the rest of the world? Because it is becoming all the more evident to me, day by day that we are a global society. A long time ago it didn’t matter if you knew what was happening in the next village because it wouldn’t affect you. Now if you don’t know whats happening in the next country you’re out of the loop, and you really ought to be looking a few countries over.

Perhaps this globalisation will lead to the furthering of human rights causes by self-interest: I am a global citizen, I am an earthling. I could work in America, Mongolia, Nepal. I could live in France, Australia, Kenya. And I should be able to have the same human rights wherever I choose to be. But more than this. My neighbours are in South Africa, Pitcairn Island, Trinidad and Tobago. My friends have family in Vietnam, the Philipines, Ecuador. And they should have enough to eat, be able to choose what happens to their bodies, and have the right to legalised love.

So far:

The Netherlands:Since 1998 you could register a civil partnership in the Netherlands. Since 2001 it became the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage.

Belgium: The second country in the world where a gay marriage can be performed…and to do it one of you only has to have lived in the country three months…

UK: Civil Union between same sex couples have been available since 2001. Since November the Civil Partnership Act has become legal!

Germany: Civil Partnerships since 2003 with not quite same-sex marriages law in October this year.

Spain: When he was elected, Jos

6 thoughts on “There goes Canada…what are the rest of the countries waiting for?

  1. I’m not really in the argument about what it should be called either, it’s the principle behind it, not the name. For the benefit of readers who don’t know me, I’m married – to a woman – and yes, I’m a woman too, contrary to popular belief. Just because it wasn’t conducted in a churh or because we didn’t sign a register won’t stop me calling it ‘marriage’

    On the other hand, bringing in legislation to call it marriage should allow married gay women to be a Mrs, rather than the indefinate Ms which I am forced to use on forms. Roll on getting my Phd, then I can tick the elusive ‘Other’ box


  2. Legally marriage should be allowed to be polygamous. Three people kissing in a bar should not be a grounds for any sort of complaint not should three or more people standing proclaiming vows.

    I do agree that polygamous *relationships* should not be treated with the taboo that they currently are. But it seems to me that getting rid of the taboo is more important than legalising polygamous marriages.

    I don’t actually think polygamous *marriages*, whether you regard them as legal formalities or spiritual commitments, are good ideas. Marriage is supposed to be a permanent monogomous commitment between two people. Multiple partner marriages seems to be missing the point somehow.

    Plus, polygamous relationships appear to be more unstable, judging from my observations. They don’t appear to last as long as monogomous partnerships, and since marriage is supposed to be all about stability, the term ‘polygamous marriage’ from my point of view appears to be a contradiction in terms.

    I can think of several monogomous relationships (both gay and straight) which have endured, but I can’t think of a single equal polygamous relationship which has lasted for any substantial length of time with every partner on an equal footing, without it ending acrimoniously.

    (Now that’s not to say they don’t exist at all. But if they do I’m not aware of them, which means they are either in the extreme minority, or kept well hidden from ‘public’ view.)

    I’m going to stop now, because the wine is going to my head. I think I said all I wanted to, anyway…

  3. Plenty of poly r’ships last a good long while. I’ve heard tell of triads living together for years on end. And I assume that you are presumably looking at poly r’ships of your peers, some of whom are too young to be making lifetime commitments right now (or *don’t want to*) and which might actually have been polyamourous-in-multiple-open-relationships rather than a r’ship that involved three people, all in *one* r’ship in a monogamous style, which is what I would term a ‘polygamous marriage’ – a marriage of a committed triad is v.v.different to that of a V, which is more like Utah ;), and again different to a marriage of an open triad or V. I’ve had several mono r’ships and obviously they all fell apart for various reasons (or I’d have 3 extra blokes hanging around constantly, eating all the satsumas and leaving their larp kit on the table). Some relationships fail, even ones which have seemed so enduring, and I think it’s a touch unfair to judge all polys on the known behaviour of a very small number of people. If maintaining a r’ship with 2 ppl is hard work (as it sometimes is) then imagine how it must be for 3+. They often require far more work and while I don’t think that’s why ones you and I know about failed specifically, I think it’s fair to say that that’s one reason they, in general, might be seen as ‘unstable’. Unstable? What’s 1-in-3 ‘real’ marriages ending in divorce about then? We don’t tar all married folk with the same brush after all – "oooh, Jacqui love, you want to make sure you hold on to him, you’ve only got a 33% chance!"

    Argh. I don’t think I’m making any sense at all. And I think I have the old-fashioned view that marriage = closed/mono commitment.That’s conditioning for you. But yes, getting rid of taboos is very important, and tbh, if we’ve barely squeezed gay unions into the country then poly ones are not going to be racing up behind without a few more years of normalizing.

  4. Ok. Well I might regret posting this. But my life and experiences are my basis for what I believe so here goes:

    The reason I believe that threeway or more relationships work is that the first time I got even clse to wanting a relationship was within a group of three people.
    Now that particular group at that particular time did not want a relationship, certainly not as deeply committed one as marriage.

    However the group dynamic, the talking as a threeway, the dynamics of communication between the three people as a three and as pairs within that three (planning birthday surprises for the other one etc. etc.) really made me think of the possibilities. As I said not within that group at that time but it got me closer to thinking that maybe relationships of the right sort aren’t actually all that bad.

    And back to the Mishy comment; after waking up between two lovers, who you love and who love you, one is never the same! 😉

  5. Hello folks!

    Interesting to see passionate debate. Personally I often assess things by looking at their roots.

    Marriage appears to stem from the practical need to prevent arguments over inheritance. The religious overtones came later, and the romantic ones *much* later. Child rearing is of course a team effort, but the team can be drawn from all over…it doesn’t *need* to be just a man and a woman. The trick is defining *whose* child is *whose*…regardless of where the genetic material came from.

    Aside from inheritance issues, and the modern situation of peculiar tax differentials (which need evening out) the real trick seems to be getting the bulk of the folk in the global village to respect same sex and polyamorous partnerships. Both sorts have been pretty common over history, although the latter have been noted for exploitation. Gotta love them Mormons, eh?

    Work for change, but don’t bank on it happening in your lifetime.

    In fact, if you like the idea of freedom at all then maybe consider telling the two main UK political parties just where they can stuff their ‘identity’ cards!


  6. `Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime’ Reinhold Niebuhr.

    Family, connections, community,

    they are all what you make them. And marriage is a way of stating loudly that they’re binding. That you’re binding yourself to them. Therefore it should be an option for everyone; gay, straight, bi, transgender (because currently if you have a sex change you’re still registered as the sex you were at birth and marriage can be a real problem for you!).

    If you are capable of love (so thats everyone then) and you want to get into a legal, public relationship then you should be able to.

Leave a Reply