> As a right-wing conservative Christian type, my personal beliefs are that marraige is a sacrament to be entered into by one man and one woman. But, it's none of the government's business. If the state recognizes a union between a man and a woman and confers special status or priveledges on them, they have a responsibility to treat any union between two consenting adults the same way. On the flip side, the government also has no business telling religious groups that they have to recognize those unions as valid. (Not that I know of this happening- just an aside.)
>

The Supreme Court of Canada heard a case last month that will answer all of these questions, in view of our Constitutional right to equality (which the SCC already decided covers sexual orientation) and freedom of religion (e.g. forcing clergy to solemnize marriages that go against their religion).

Once they release their decision, this should put the matter to rest throughout Canada. I'm hoping we'll hear from them within half a year.

Maybe the US will even follow suit and let the USSC define marriage in light of equality rights and current social context and whatnot, instead of the ridiculous (IMHO) idea of putting gay marriage bans on the ballot in Republican states.

Seems to me that whether you're for or against gay marriage, there's no reason to put it to a popular vote. The whole point of Constitutional rights is that you get them even if the majority wants to take them away. Otherwise, why would you need the Constitution?

^v^:)^v^
F"as if Liz Taylor, Larry King and Britney Spears don't make a mockery of the institution"B