Um, OK, you're obviously a true believer in different-sex marriage, and I'm not gonna waste my breath arguing with you further about it.

However, I would like to correct the perception that Canada is somehow more "homogenous" than the US. One third of Canada's population is French-speaking, while two-thirds speak English (many in both groups speak other languages, as well). Nearly 20% of the population are immigrants (according to the 2006 census, of a total pop of 31.2 million, nearly 6.2 million Canadians were immigrants). I think Americans may perceive Canada to be "homogenous" because there are fewer black people and Latinos/as there than here. But the proportion of the population that is of Asian or aboriginal origin is higher.

Anyway, I don't think that has much to do with the popularity of SSM (although French Canadians are, on average, more socially liberal than English Canadians and Americans). Canadians (Spaniards and Dutch as well) are more liberal and less religious than Americans. I'd say you should look for your explanation there. Although it's hard to make that argument for South Africans, and they've adjusted to SSM, as well.

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:49 PM in response to Marriage in California

Do you have kids, Greg? 'Cause you pun like a dad ...

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:29 PM in response to New Hillary Ad In Oregon Uses Tim Russert As Foil

I'll second that motion.

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:28 PM in response to New Hillary Ad In Oregon Uses Tim Russert As Foil

Although even if it is snark, it isn't funny.

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:20 PM in response to Hillary denied her victory lap

I really, really hope this is snark.

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:19 PM in response to Hillary denied her victory lap

Damn Canadians.

Posted at May 16, 2008 1:33 AM in response to Sweetie?

Huh? My comment was meant to support spotthedog, not Clinton.

Posted at May 16, 2008 1:26 AM in response to Betrayal

In Canada, lots of LGBT activists I knew were pretty pissed at the couples who pushed the Halpern litigation forward in the 1990s, when most people thought the Supreme Court wasn't ready to embrace same-sex marriage. But the litigation itself, and the big wins in the various provincial courts of appeal, and the public conversation they evoked, changed the climate. Once people talked about it, and saw that the sky didn't fall as SSM was legalized province by province, public opinion swung in favor.

The fact that public opinion might not be in favor is no reason not to challenge injustice. Even the failures have value. For example, the CA domestic partnership statute (itself a victory compared to prior non-recognition of same-sex relationships) closed off the procreative rationales that conservative state courts had used, as well as the bizarre "hets need marriage more than gays because straight men are irresponsible about their children" argument used by the NY Court. Every time we have a public conversation about this, the idea of same-sex marriage gets more familiar, less outlandish. More reasonable people might be persuaded. (On the other hand, there's always the risk of a constitutional amendment. But in a liberal state like California, that risk is fairly low, knock wood.)

Posted at May 16, 2008 1:17 AM in response to Marriage in California

Kozmik. That is so untrue. The LG litigants who argued for equal marriage absolutely REJECTED the argument you attribute to "LGBT". The challengers want access to marriage -- not to take it away from straights. When one of the judges asked the challengers' lawyer whether California could solve the equal-protection problem by getting rid of marriage altogether, and calling everything a "domestic partnership" instead, she unequivocally rejected it. She said something along the lines of, "We do not want marriage to be taken away from heterosexual couples. We want it to be extended to us." Her whole theme was (and I'm paraphrasing), "Names are important. Marriage is important. It speaks to the dignity and respect that the government accords to our relationships." They want to be married, not in a "registered domestic partnership."

I've heard the occasional libertarian advocate that govt get out of the marriage business altogether (something that would never happen, because most straight couples want to be "married" in the eyes of government, too). I've heard many anti-SSM advocates claim that LGBT want to end marriage between straights. But that is not what the challengers asked for, or want. They litigated this all the way to the Supreme Court because RDPs aren't enough: the challengers want to be "married." The don't seek to replace marriage with domestic partnerships. The pitch that LGBT want is to take marriage away from straights is an anti-SSM talking point. But it is completely false. Don't fall for it.

Posted at May 16, 2008 12:50 AM in response to Marriage in California

I scored a layup, and while I was celebrating, Obama dunked over me! Then the buzzer went off, and the game was over! No fair!

Posted at May 15, 2008 11:12 PM in response to Hillary denied her victory lap