28C my fat fookin' arse
Feb. 15th, 2004 03:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcIt’s hot. Not hawtt, hot. Sticky. Oppressive, ubiquitous, insidious. The hair on my arms, chest, legs matted to my body. No breeze. Last week we hit 40C but today seems hotter. Ew.
Calgon, take me away!
I’m quite pleased to be following the SF queer marriage stuff.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
querrelle noticed how little of the coverage is rancorous, with most accounts falling into the quasi-neutral or laudatory quadrants of the discursive spectrum. As a gaynadian, my take on is that, whatever happens, it’s all good for Canada. If the marriages are upheld in SF and Massachusetts, more Canadians will support queer marriage--many MOR Canucks react viscerally to any suggestions that the US be more socially progressive than Soviet Canuckistan. Conversely, if the marriages in either/both jurisdictions are ultimately invalidated, some (perhaps many, perhaps not) MOR Canucks will see queer marriage support as a way to validate this “we’re more evovled on issues of justice” notion.
In many ways, what makes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (en français ici trump the US Bill of Rights (seulement disponsible en anglais) are an additional 200 years of modernity, a genuinely multicultural worldview, and widespread knowledge of the atrocities of war.
In working with activists and AIDS prevention folks from around the world, I cannot overestimate the value of the Canadian Charter, which is derived largely from the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s allowed public discourses on justice issues in Canada to largely focus on fairness and equity, rather than hyperbole. “What I like” or “what suits me” doesn’t as often trump “what is fair.” And I think the conversations--about queer issues, racism, sexism--are richer and more complex as a result.
Sorry.
Calgon, take me away!
I’m quite pleased to be following the SF queer marriage stuff.
querrelle noticed how little of the coverage is rancorous, with most accounts falling into the quasi-neutral or laudatory quadrants of the discursive spectrum. As a gaynadian, my take on is that, whatever happens, it’s all good for Canada. If the marriages are upheld in SF and Massachusetts, more Canadians will support queer marriage--many MOR Canucks react viscerally to any suggestions that the US be more socially progressive than Soviet Canuckistan. Conversely, if the marriages in either/both jurisdictions are ultimately invalidated, some (perhaps many, perhaps not) MOR Canucks will see queer marriage support as a way to validate this “we’re more evovled on issues of justice” notion.In many ways, what makes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (en français ici trump the US Bill of Rights (seulement disponsible en anglais) are an additional 200 years of modernity, a genuinely multicultural worldview, and widespread knowledge of the atrocities of war.
In working with activists and AIDS prevention folks from around the world, I cannot overestimate the value of the Canadian Charter, which is derived largely from the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s allowed public discourses on justice issues in Canada to largely focus on fairness and equity, rather than hyperbole. “What I like” or “what suits me” doesn’t as often trump “what is fair.” And I think the conversations--about queer issues, racism, sexism--are richer and more complex as a result.
Sorry.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-14 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-14 09:02 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-14 09:03 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-14 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-14 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-14 09:38 pm (UTC)No no, I mean that literally.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-14 09:42 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-14 09:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-14 09:46 pm (UTC)Thought not.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-14 09:49 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-14 10:46 pm (UTC)Boring legal stuff
Date: 2004-02-14 11:19 pm (UTC)If the Marriage Act in Australia (which, as a result of agreements before Federation placing the marriage power in our Federal Constitution) were amended to widen the definition of marriage to same sex couples, think what would happen.
For a start, one would be brought under the jurisdiction of the Family Court, which is not, let me assure you, a development to be welcomed, and smothered with the accumulated weight of jurisprudence. There are a host of legal consequences, including the fact that you would not (as yet anyway) be able to make valid pre-nuptual agreements (which non-married couples can make in NSW under the Property (Relationships) Act.)
The weight of social and legal tradition would come crashing down on top of the libertarian lifestyle. Its more than a wedding ceremony, its a binding legal commitment. Ignoring any religious issues, which may matter to those persons who care about such things, a marriage is a binding contract, in effect. Leaving a marriage is not quite as straightforward as terminating a Domestic Relationship.
Although under the Family Law Act now, divorce is still "guilt free", this does not really satisfy the need of much of the proletariat to be able to "blame" someone when it all goes wrong.
What if there were same sex marriages, and then after political agitation, a future Federal goverment were to change the Family Law Act to put blame back into divorce. Imagine adultery being a ground for divorce again. Woo-hoo! Earlier versions of legislation before the Family Law Act had "sodomy, bestiality and necrophilia" as grounds for divorce, apart from cruelty; that could lead to some interesting cases.
I wonder whether, as an alternative available to all, of any combination of genders, might be the Scandinavian approach of registered civil unions be considered -- they could give the recognition needed and wanted, without the encumbrances.
Just a thought.
Re: Boring legal stuff
Date: 2004-02-14 11:27 pm (UTC)Re: Boring legal stuff
Date: 2004-02-14 11:42 pm (UTC)Its eventually going to happen, and its a good thing; its just that I have found a lot a gay men (haven't discussed it with enough gay women) support the idea, but when you put the consequences to them, look startled.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-15 02:41 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-15 04:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 09:07 am (UTC)I hope you don't mind, but I've forwarded your last two paragraphs to many of my friends.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 01:54 pm (UTC)