What gives a person the right to take away someone's happiness, by prohibiting them to show others that they want to share their lives? I think marriage is not only about getting babies. It might have been the purpose of marriage 200 years ago. But these days I don't think there is anyone who marries with that purpose. We have to think what the purpose of marriage is in our society. It is not to get babies. It is to organise the society in small societies, to kind of, protect people. 
A hetero couple will say they get married because they love eachother, because they want to support eachother in good and bad days, because they want to share their lives. Why can't two people of the same gender do this? 
I don't want to convince you that two guys or two girls kissing is normal, it's not. But does it mean, if something is not as the norm prescribes, we shoul definitly prohibit it? 
Thanks for reading.

I think this is the worst decision made in Canadian history. Even the Bible is against it.  There was a time when gays couldn't be in the Military, now I suppose they'll be able to  bunk together. Marriage is something that is a sacred union between two adults, and isn't
something to be made a mockery of. There is absolutely nothing normal when you see two gays kissing in public. The Lord made two different species for a reason. To say my opinion is racist is ludicrous.I hope the Premier of Alberta will continue his fight against 
this idiot decision.

Date: 6/28/2005
Name: ticked off
Location: E-Mail: 
Comments:  How dare you ask people to comment about same sex marriage, only if they are against it.  As time passes, prejudice against gays will be like racism.  Maybe you should ask yourself if you want to have a part in that.
 

This site has a lot of good information on Guidelines for Demonstrations, Writing Effective Letters to the Government, Guidelines for Visiting Your MP,  & other valuable guidelines.

The first thing that we should do is take the name sex out of this discussion and use the word gender.  Like hetro relationships homo relationships are not necessarily sexual.

How many individuals in a same gender relationship actually want to be married?  Probably very few.

My aunt and a friend have been living together for over 25 years since both their male spouses died.  They are now in their 80's  and take care for each other.   They are not sexual partners.  Are they married?  No.  The two of them together pay the bills.  Should they have benefits provided if one should die? Probably yes.  Should they have to be married to have these privileges.  No!  Same gender and opposite gender partners maybe should have the same privilege, but changing the definition of marriage is not the proper way to do this. 
 

It is a bit unnerving that a few individuals can make changes to an "institution" that is global in scope and as old as recorded history.   What gives the Supreme Court the right to say that Parliament has the right to make such a decision?   Protecting the privileges of the few at the expense of the rights many,  is this democracy?   I am one of billions who own the name and definition of the word Marriage. Personally I do not think  it should change.

I notice the term human is not part of the Canadian constitution when it refers to consulting adults.  How can this be interpreted. If two adults are in an incestual relationship, will the constitution, incorporate this into the definition of marriage.   I do not believe Canadians or most inhabitants of the planet want the definition of marriage changed.

The definition of marriage not just is Christian.  It is Moslem. It is Hindu.  It is Buddhist etc. It is also not confined to religions as atheistic nations also recognize marriage as the special union of a man and women.  It is global. It is historical.  It is not the concept of the moment, whose definition should be changed by a few in one nation.. 

I heard on the news on today {Feb1st} one of the ministers who said that his constituents would not be very happy with the way he intended to vote.  An elected rep who does not give a darn about carrying the desires of the people who elected him.  Sad,,sad, sad!

Of course ‘homosexuality’ (–being Gay!) Is not hereditary, c’mon, don’t you know its caused by certain bee stings! Get with the latest science.

Just wanted to let you know that I am getting married in Yarmouth (where I grew up and my family still lives) in October of this year to my same sex partner. People need to own up to their hypocrisies, if marriage is simply a religious institution than why should anything legal apply to the term for either straight or gay couples? If gay people are denied the right others citizens have to be married, than lets take the legal rights altogether out of a religious ritual. Straight couples can have their ‘civil unions’ or ‘legal partnerships’ drawn up right alongside of us; one way or the other folks. ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ do not exist anyway they are a mythology that society and individuals are constantly performing, let’s stop kidding ourselves –we’ll all enjoy ourselves much more…Any gay couple who risk condemnation from their peers (many gay people believe that entering into a traditional marriage is doing nothing to further the cause) to enter into a union of marriage are indeed committed and serious about the act, as my girlfriend and I are. (sigh) Gender study should be taught in grade school…but I digress.

Mindy

To: Abbott.J@parl.gc.ca ...snip... Broadbent.E@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Yes to same gender marriage 

Dear Sirs,
I am writing to let you know that I am in favour of same gender marriage and do not see a need to change the terminology.  I realize that the term 'marriage' has been used for thousands of years and it will take some time for people to adjust to the new meaning.  However, I also believe that people will be able to adjust to this change.

Sincerely,

Blessings and Peace
Ann Hazlett

Having noted and accepted this state of affairs, we now find ourselves before a critical threshold in the evolution of society and culture, and we must reflect very seriously before crossing it. After all, the change that is being proposed affects the most fundamental institution and the primary value of society: marriage and family, which have existed throughout human history and predate the state and the law themselves.(S)

Hello, please post this on your website. 

I am a resident of Yarmouth County.  I think that the issue of marriage, let alone gay marriage, needs to be deconstructed.  First, one must look at the notion of a "definition" of marriage.  Whether it is legal or social, the definition of marriage differs in many aspects.  One cannot say that the ideas about marriage have stayed the same from 100 years ago to today.  It is  common knowledge that marriage now has a 50% divorce rate.  And neither can one say that the ideas about marriage are the same from country to country or from community to community.  For instance, some communities condone arranged marriage, multiple marriages, polygamous marriages, or marriages to children.  Also, many people believe that the institution of marriage is oppressive.  A universal definition of marriage does not exist.  It is always changing.  Therefore the current 'definition' of marriage is open to change. 

As time passes new ideas arise and people become more educated.  30 years ago, Gay people were considered mentally ill.  Now, The sexuality of a person has become more personal and up to the individual.  As Pierre Trudeau so eloquently put it, " There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." It is recognized that people can be in a romantic relationship and want to spend their life with someone of same sex.  Single  or in a couple, Gay people contribute equally as straight people  to the amelioration of society, community, and the economy.  They are equal in every other way.  Holding the right to marriage from Gay people would be like holding the right to marriage from Black people.  The latter is an absurd thought this day and age.  However it was not only a few years ago.  And the argument purporting the idea that with Gay marriage comes polygamous marriage or incest is weak to say the least.   It is obvious that no person in Canada has the right to marry their sibling or to marry multiple people simultaneously.  However some people do have the right to marry one romantic partner.  And some do not.  This is unjust and denial of a person's rights. 

Times change.  People change.  Canada should always be changing for the better.  Allowing Gay people their rights is not questionable, it is only humane. 

Rebeca

It seems to me that the definition of marriage *is* important here. If the law changes the definition of marriage, then what is classically defined as marriage will cease to exist, because it will no longer be defined the way it once was. In short, it will destroy marriage. This isn’t about discrimination or inclusiveness; it’s about the destruction of the institution of marriage and the heterosexual family unit. This has already been accomplished in Scandinavia. The gay community there hid their own opposition to marriage during the debate because they knew that legalizing same-sex unions would affect a greater change. According to Norwegian sociologist Rune Halvorsen, “The goal of the gay marriage movements in both Norway and Denmark. . . was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality.” Danish social theorist Henning Bech (also gay) dismissed the idea that gay marriage promotes monogamy as “implausible.” This is because their ultimate goal was not about the "right" to have a legally recognized union with a "partner". Nor is it the goal here in the U.S.(S)

This is one of many opinions at the following site http://www.jimgilliam.com/2003/11/the_definition_of_marriage.php

§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
Release date: 2003-11-07
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.(S)