Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:26:21 PM
@xavroche And that is where i think you are wrong. If a gay couple can marry, why would it be a problem for a 'anti gays marriage person` to be a marriage commissioner? As long as gay couples aren`t refused the right to get married (or have to pay extra etc.)there is no problem. Let gays be gays and anti gays marriage people be anti gay marriage people. As long as they respect the rules: No biting, hair-pulling or punching with closed fist.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:06:07 PM
@xavroche: My point was not is it right or wrong, but that it happens in reality; which @SleepyHallow denied. The marriage ceremony and the paperwork are two different things, and this rule applied to the former. Again, I'm not saying it`s wrong, but it does preclude "choice" eh?
@Johanvb: So it`s not just Canada, eh? Interesting.
I don`t see major issue with 5cats idea of "Union" being the parent term all of us... Thanks @papajon0s1! There was a golden opportunity in Canada to clarify all that stuff, but the Gov`t didn`t do anything positive.
@Squrlz4: It`s my observation that ONE side (liberals) frequently knee-jerks on EVERY issue imaginable.
Point in fact: Who`s talking about "marriage to a tree" on the conservative side? It`s yet another strawman...