Alberta Mulls Ways Of Getting Around Gay Marriage Law

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/062905alberta.htm

The list of ways to keep same-sex marriage out of Alberta is steadily shrinking, but that hasn't deterred provincial politicians who are determined to try.

With passage of same-sex marriage legislation in Ottawa, Alberta's Conservative provincial government was talking about its next move.

The province has already argued unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court of Canada that altering the traditional definition of marriage is a change to the Constitution and therefore requires a formal constitutional amendment.

Snortin' Norton flapping their beaks again.

Secular people will sue, JPs out of work will sue. :D

They are OUT of options.

All "civil marriages" in Alberta will be civil unions. If you want to go for a religious marriage, find a willing church.

Probably the best solution.

eom

As long as there were no legal consequences (e.g. benefits) attached to "marriage" by a religious outfit.

"Getting out of the civil marriage business would keep us from doing that."

Under that scenario, Alberta would register legal domestic relationships of all kinds under another name, such as civil union. Those who want that relationship recognized as a "marriage" would have to go to a church.

Morton concedes that might leave non-religious couples who want to marry in the lurch.

I'm also not convinced that the province could simply not exercise its powers under the Constitution, which include jurisdiction over "the solemnization of marriage in the province".

What it would be doing, if no one were able to get married except by a religious outfit, would be discriminating against people who couldn't find religious outfits to marry them -- as long as that religious "marriage" was still recognized by the province for any purpose, or the religious official was empowered by the province to perform it, i.e. if the parties didn't *also* have to register a civil union in order to give their relationship the same effect as registered civil unions.

That is, Those who want that relationship recognized as a "marriage" by whom or what? would have to go to a church.

And what, then, of divorce -- which is under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament? Could civil-unioned people in Alberta get divorced under the national Divorce Act? Of course not. And in most provinces, there are still distinctions between married and cohabiting when it comes to division of assets (not much difference when it comes to support, e.g.). How would an Alberta civil-unioned couple's property in Ontario be treated?

Basically, they're evil morons. And they're not going to get away with any of this.

That is, down the line, homophobes could claim, "see what happened in Alberta? They destroyed marriage as we know it! It's their fault!"

No, I think in this particular case, it's a bad idea.

.
Is conservative Alberta opting for a caldron of discrimination? Indeed.

"Ted Morton, a Calgary Tory who has been outspoken on the issue, figures there are two options: In the short term, take the province out of the marriage business altogether, and in the long term, seek a constitutional amendment that would effectively kill C-38."

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/062905alberta.htm

Hmmmmm, so Morton thinks that denying "civil" marriage to all in Alberta is feasible legally? I'd say "no." Economically? Again, I'd say "no."

So what is Morton saying? Morton is openly stating that his own homophobia (and of his political party) is blinding the realities of law, economics, and politics, in the short-term and in the long-term.

What does this say about Morton and others similar to him that bleat about being Alberta's Tory conservatives: stupid, utterly stupid!





.