Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Do you, Adam, take this man Steve, to be your lawfully wedded husband ...
July 14, 2002 11:29 AM   Subscribe

Do you, Adam, take this man Steve, to be your lawfully wedded husband ... "... a panel of Ontario judges ordered Parliament to broaden its definition of marriage to include gay men and women, the first decision of its kind in Canada. " Rulings on cases in BC and Quebec to follow.

Good news for the Canadian Tourist industry, at any rate. So far the only heartbreak in all this is the utter lack of Crate and Barrel, Williams Sonoma, and Pottery Barn stores in Canada for these people to register at.
posted by kristin (13 comments total)

 
While there is a paucity of such stores today, there are two (soon to be three) Pottery Barns in Toronto and at least one Williams Sonoma. No lack of potential customers, either!

BTW, I'll be more worried when people are allowed to marry their pets or CPUs. Can't be that far off.
posted by xiffix at 12:43 PM on July 14, 2002


I'm not sure why this would be good for the tourist industry. Are you saying that gay couples will come to Ontario to get married? If so, then if the Ontario government is truly leading the way, then the tourists will return home with a worthless piece of paper that won't be recognized there.

Of course, if that's not what you're trying to say, then by all means, feel free to set me straight. It helps me understand if you type slowly, though.
posted by websavvy at 12:54 PM on July 14, 2002


This was really only a matter of time; the Supreme Court of Canada extended all the rights of spouses to "common-law partners" -- including homosexual couples -- two years ago. All that was missing was marriage in name, really. As the lawyer in the article said, simply the obvious choice.

BTW, the Pottery Barn in the Eaton Centre has a free olive oil bar where you can dip bread into about 50 different kinds of olive oil. Yeah! What?
posted by transient at 10:09 PM on July 15, 2002


Kristin, you're post is neither provocative nor insightful but quite possibly one of the most broadly hateful and openly ignorant failed attempts at humor I've seen on the MetaFilter homepage. You've not provided any focus to this issue that warrants discussion. As a person not living in Canada what is your concern? Are you aware of this issue as it pertains to your own country and its laws?
posted by yonderboy at 11:54 PM on July 15, 2002


Unfortnately, your idea was never implemented, because I'd love to have a more proactive way to screen out your posts in the future. "Adam and Steve..." "these people..." - indeed!
posted by JollyWanker at 4:22 AM on July 16, 2002


Do you, Adam

Sorry, I'm spoken for.
posted by adampsyche at 4:38 AM on July 16, 2002


Imminent Death of Metafilter Predicted after Controversy, Followed by Kissy-Kissy Make Up, Fails to Break Out on Equality Thread.

Also, War Is Over.

posted by dash_slot- at 7:14 PM PST on July 15 to SillyFilter

Didn't take long to be disproved, eh?

I surely didn't see what you guys saw.

posted by dash_slot- at 6:47 AM on July 16, 2002


yonderboy and JollyWanker: I think you could be reading something into kristin's post that wasn't intended. It certainly didn't seem to me the way it apparently seemed to you.

On-topic: I'm glad this has finally come to pass. It's long overdue, and I've never understood the objections to it anyway.
posted by biscotti at 9:28 AM on July 16, 2002


dash slot and biscotti: What do you think is kristin's opinion on the article, does she make an effective point? Why do you think the 'Adam and Steve' reference is not an attempt at humorous insult? What do you think she means when she makes reference to 'these people' going to those stores? This isn't an off the cuff remark, she's typed it, previewed it and posted it, she's considered her words carefully.
posted by yonderboy at 8:43 PM on July 16, 2002


First point -- Kristin is Canadian, albeit living in the States at the moment. This does pertain to "her own country." Though I wasn't aware of some imperative which stated that posts could only be about issues relative to the poster's own nation. Nor that which demanded that a poster include their personal opinion on a topic when they add a FPP, for that matter.

Second point -- Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn and Crate and Barrel are extremely popular stores for gift registries for couples of all persuasions. If you take mentions of those stores to be some sort of "gay people shop at there" snipe, perhaps you're adding your own subtext from your own personal hangups? Hmm, possibility?
posted by Dreama at 1:05 AM on July 17, 2002


yonderboy: I didn't get any impression of any opinion from kristin's wording, myself. Yes, using "these people" could possibly be construed as having some deeper meaning, but I think leaping to the conclusions you leapt to based upon your interpretation of what she said is a bit unfair, she could have used the term "these people" to just mean "this group of people", you know, it doesn't necessarily indicate a slight. As for "Adam and Steve", it's a standard phrase used by people who disapprove of homosexuality, I know that, I just don't see that it's impossible for someone to use it in a good-natured way rather than in the way you assume kristin used it (it would certainly be helpful for kristin to weigh in here to clarify things). All I'm saying is that perhaps it might be a bit more reasonable to ask someone what they meant by something, rather than just assuming the worst. If kristin meant to be insulting, then I'll be just as annoyed as you are, but I'd rather give her the benefit of the doubt.
posted by biscotti at 8:30 AM on July 17, 2002


First, of course there is no such imperative; my point in asking was to offer a venue for a valuable discussion while clarifying her original comment. I didn't know she was originally from Canada, but that makes the absence of any real insight on her part all the more strange. So a simple extrapolation of the question remains; what is her awareness of the issue (legally and otherwise) and what is her personal concern regarding it? Interestingly, the article does not mention the impact on tourism or commerce but websavvy addressed that point quite effectively.

Second, I need not add any subtext (nor is there any personal source from where it could be drawn) when she sets a sarcastic and disingenuous tone with phrases like 'at any rate' and 'the only heartbreak in all this is the utter lack of...'; knowing now that she is from Canada makes it read more directly like, 'oh well, at least we Canadians can cash in on the tourism, damn, if we only had more of those stores for these people'. Certainly that is not the only redeeming result of this legal decision, but it seems her only conclusion. The lack of any substantive points makes the gratuitous ones stand out that much more.

biscotti, I understand each of your points, individually, but the use of these phrases combined with the tone she imparts ought to be enough to convince anyone otherwise. Engaging in debate with her on the merits of the issue itself would be more appropriate and we would have had she included her opinion in her original post or a follow-up, but maybe she doesn't wish to do so. It's possibly more helpful for her to just leave it without clarification. Does she still have the benefit of your doubt? Why would she clarify?

And as far as the issue itself, try here. It seems less venomous posts produce more balanced discussion.
posted by yonderboy at 3:39 AM on July 18, 2002


yonderboy: I don't get the same tone from her post as you do. I can see why you feel the way you do, but I think it's a bit hasty (going by the information at hand) to jump to the conclusion that she's anti-gay. She has the benefit of my doubt because I'm willing to accept that it's possible that she was either attempting to be funny, or merely didn't think about all the possible interpretations of the words she chose. I'd like to think that she'd clarify because it's clear that we're having problems understanding where she's coming from. But this thread appears to be mostly dead, so it seems unlikely that she will. The written word is notoriously hard to wield effectively when it comes to imparting tone and I've been misunderstood enough times to want to extend the courtesy of benefit of the doubt to others.
posted by biscotti at 8:43 AM on July 18, 2002


« Older This...  |  Something fun I ran into at th... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments