Harper will not win because Ontario will vote liberal....as long as the conservatives don't have a leader from Ontario or Quebec they don't stand a chance.

The rest of the country is basically meaningless when it comes to elections.

At this point I don't even care who gets elected. There is going to me no dramatic changes in any of our lives if Harper is the leader or if Martin is the leader.

And it is going to be another minority government so in another year we will do this all again.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf If you're going to take rights away from 95% of the population, you either need a referendum or a free vote of the people's representatives. ...

I think we addressed your *stupid* idea of rights being "taken away" the last time around.

again, I fail to see what a hetero married couple has "lost" or had "taken away" from them

anyway...not the point...that Harper made this one of his early election issues demonstrates that's he learned nothing from his previous failure to appeal to voters.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut He can talk all he wants but it doesn't make any of those things actually true. Oh, they did create about 350,000 jobs - and destroyed another 450,000. You're right about Harper though, it was an *incredibly* stupid move to kick off his campaign with such a controversial yet trivial issue.

just to be clear, I never said it was all true (not that you implied I did)...I'm just pointing out that Martin is a more effective campaigner than Harper. People get sick of negative messages...they want a feel good platform, not mud slinging.

With those two positions, what is going to stick in the minds of voters? Martin is giving numbers, and more importantly, reinforcing positives...Harper is not being positive, he's essentially talking about taking away rights that have been confirmed by the previous gov't. Most people, even the majority, don't really respond well to that mode of thinking. If he keeps this up, i think he's making a terrible mistake (again).

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I think we addressed your *stupid* idea of rights being "taken away" the last time around. again, I fail to see what a hetero married couple has "lost" or had "taken away" from them anyway...not the point...that Harper made this one of his early election issues demonstrates that's he learned nothing from his previous failure to appeal to voters.

agreed. I really fail to see how my marriage is less valid because a gentleman down the hall from my office married a man two weeks before I married my wife. Please someone explain this to me because the position just doesn't wash.

What may be the most important thing to recognize here is that the Charter gives the right to marry to all Canadians regardless of whom they choose to marry. In order to deny the right of homosexuals to marry one would have to either a) ammend the constitution, of b) use the notwithstanding clause. As I have mentioned before opening up the constitutional debate, at present, would likely result in the end of this confederation (which may in fact be the goal of some of the more radical grassroots members of the Conservatives, however, I do not believe it is party policy). Using the notwithstanding clause is dangerous. By invoking section 33 the federal government would be saying that they reject our own constitution. Moreover, the invokation of this section challenges the rule of law as it effectively lets the government act in a dictitorial manner. Finally, we must remember that section 33 allows for a charter right to be revoked for a period not more then 5 years ("(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration."). Granted the government would always be able to re-enact the section, however, this would be up to the government of the day. Subsequently, we would likely end up in a position where gay marriages are declared illegal during periods of Conservative rule and legal during periods of rule by any other party. This type of uncertainty is simply not acceptable nor is it acceptable to have a federal government that will disregard it's own constitution.... such things occur in totalitarian regimes, not free and just societies.

I find it amazing that someone such as Jayx1 (sorry Jay but you've been most vocal about this) would be so against a party that committed a breach of the Criminal Code yet support a party that has openly admited they intend to breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which trumps the Criminal Code in all instances).

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

Conservatives, LETS GO.

My student house is very politically divided, I doubt I'll get away with posting a conservative lawn sign, but I've ordered one anyways!

canadians still don't forget the face of Mulroney when "conservatives" is brought to mind - never mind the failure to remove the GST... you think we forget how it got there in the first place?

you think we forget that today's conservatives are a rebranded alliance which was a rebranded reform party? do they really represent different interests and values? we weren't interested in the extremes that either of their previous brands wanted to bring to the table.

if conservatives want in, they better start talking about what they are going to do that's so much better rather than making people wanna vomit with the endless repetition of AdScam! speak up about your policies or stfu, conservatives... tell us how yer gonna HELP US.

oh yeah, and ditch this wolf in sheep's clothing called Harper. chances of winning the election may go uppppp.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I think we addressed your *stupid* idea of rights being "taken away" the last time around. again, I fail to see what a hetero married couple has "lost" or had "taken away" from them

Bill C-38:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/ind...4381&List=toc-1


http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/...e-sex-marriage/

The new law, Bill C-38, implements that change by redefining parenthood from natural parenthood to legal parenthood — from an institution defined by biology, to one defined solely by law.

What the law previously treated as an exception to the norm of biological parents, it now treats as the norm. Biological parents no longer have any status in law. Legal parenthood replaces it. What the state gives (legality), it can take away.

quote:

Adscam no swindle next to C-38 By DOUGLAS FARROW June 16, 2005 Procreation is not among the definitive goods of the institution of marriage, right? It once was, but we’ve abandoned all that. If same-sex marriage is to be an equality right, procreation can’t be one of marriage’s basic, indispensable goods. Marriage isn’t about children anymore. As the Bloc MP, Réal Ménard, put it in the recent parliamentary hearings, it’s “stone-age” thinking to connect marriage to children. Okay, so what’s with the “consequential amendments” in Bill C-38? (These should not be confused with the largely inconsequential amendments to C-38 that are presently before Parliament.) Why are there several sections of the bill inserting into Canadian laws the concept of “legal parent” and “legal parent-child relationship,” where once these laws referred to “natural parent” and “natural parent-child relationship”? The answer is this. In order to make gays equal to straights (so the argument goes) same-sex unions have to be made equal to heterosexual unions. That’s what same-sex marriage is all about. But how can they be equal when heterosexual unions produce children? Easy! For civil purposes, strip heterosexual couples of their natural relationship to their children (even their “blood relationship,” another term C-38 removes) and give them back instead a legal relationship, something assigned not by nature but by the state. A legal relationship can just as easily be given to homosexual couples who happen to want children around, presuming of course that they can procure children by one means or another. There, everybody’s equal now! What’s more, natural parents will not be able to challenge legal parents as to the ownership of a child or demand right of access. Indeed, in some jurisdictions (Quebec, for example) even a child’s birth certificate may be made to show only the legal parents and not the natural parents. Little Pierre has two moms – look, his birth certificate says so. Funny thing, though. It seems that marriage is somehow about children after all. First we say it’s not, because it can’t be if we want homosexual unions to be strictly on a par with heterosexual unions. Then we say that it is, by demanding for same-sex couples the exact same “parental” status and rights as heterosexual couples. I shouldn’t doubt that the next thing that will happen is that some enterprising homosexual couple will insist that Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which links “the right to marry and to found a family,” implies that they are entitled to the state’s help to procure a child by whatever means necessary. And while we’re paying the bills for the new little clone, or whatever the unfortunate child is, no one will even notice that we took procreation out of marriage in order to permit same-sex marriage, only to bring it back in again as soon as we had same-sex marriage. Well, some might notice it. But they would not yet have noticed the really important thing. I mean the real price Canadians are paying for same-sex marriage: the handing over of our natural rights to our own children, and of our children’s natural rights to us. C-38 implies that the state is no longer obligated to recognize these rights. From now on parent-child relationships will be at the state’s discretion. For, in redefining marriage, the state has also found it necessary to redefine “parent” and “family” and “parent-child relationship.” Under C-38, all of these become legal constructs. Marriage and family become creatures of the state. Not something prior to the state that the state is obliged to recognize and respect – the whole purpose and intent of Article 16 – but something at the disposal of the state. Why are Canadians willing to pay this price? Could it be because they don’t know that they are paying it? Because they haven’t bothered to read the fine print? One thing is clear. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister haven’t bothered to point it out to them. Nor have the lawyers at the Justice Department or the judges in our highest courts. Nor yet the “equal marriage” advocates, inside or outside the House of Commons. All have insisted that C-38 has no price attached to it worth speaking of. But C-38 is arguably the greatest swindle in Canadian history. A thousand Adscams could never add up to anything like it. What’s a few millions.against our very birthright? What’s a few billions against the foundations of our freedom? From here on we are our children’s parents, and our parents’ children, only at the good pleasure of the state. Think I’m kidding? Just watch what happens to those who insist on teaching their children that the state has no such authority as it pretends to exercise in C-38, and that same sex-marriage is not marriage at all, just a legal fiction. That is what I intend to teach my children, and anyone else who will listen, as I said to the Legislative Committee on C-38 when I addressed it last week. I’ll let you know how it goes. Douglas Farrow is co-editor of Divorcing Marriage and associate professor of Christian Thought at McGill University.

The bottom line is: if you're going to take rights away from 95% of the population, at least the process should be democratic (a referendum or a free vote of the people's representatives).

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

Last edited by ShadoWolf on Nov-30-2005 at 17:33

Let's also not forget that Mulroney was a 2 TERM PM. I believe he was reelected in 87 or 88.

As for notwithstanding clause, doesn't Quebec use that over its language laws?

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard agreed. I really fail to see how my marriage is less valid because a gentleman down the hall from my office married a man two weeks before I married my wife. Please someone explain this to me because the position just doesn't wash.

Your marriage can benefit society through procreation while their union can't.

What once was an exception has become the rule...

quote:

What may be the most important thing to recognize here is that the Charter gives the right to marry to all Canadians regardless of whom they choose to marry.

Yes, the Supreme Court held that, but...

quote:

In order to deny the right of homosexuals to marry one would have to either a) ammend the constitution, of b) use the notwithstanding clause.

Wrong. The Supreme Court refused to say that a law restricting the term "marriage" to hetero couples was unconstitutional. Further, civil unions would be constitutional if they offer the same rights and privileges as marriages.

quote:

As I have mentioned before opening up the constitutional debate, at present, would likely result in the end of this confederation (which may in fact be the goal of some of the more radical grassroots members of the Conservatives, however, I do not believe it is party policy). Using the notwithstanding clause is dangerous. By invoking section 33 the federal government would be saying that they reject our own constitution. Moreover, the invokation of this section challenges the rule of law as it effectively lets the government act in a dictitorial manner. Finally, we must remember that section 33 allows for a charter right to be revoked for a period not more then 5 years ("(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration."). Granted the government would always be able to re-enact the section, however, this would be up to the government of the day. Subsequently, we would likely end up in a position where gay marriages are declared illegal during periods of Conservative rule and legal during periods of rule by any other party. This type of uncertainty is simply not acceptable nor is it acceptable to have a federal government that will disregard it's own constitution.... such things occur in totalitarian regimes, not free and just societies.

The notwithstanding clause need not be used as long as civil unions grant the same rights/privileges as marriages.

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Bill C-38: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/ind...4381&List=toc-1 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/...e-sex-marriage/ The new law, Bill C-38, implements that change by redefining parenthood from natural parenthood to legal parenthood — from an institution defined by biology, to one defined solely by law. What the law previously treated as an exception to the norm of biological parents, it now treats as the norm. Biological parents no longer have any status in law. Legal parenthood replaces it. What the state gives (legality), it can take away. The bottom line is: if you're going to take rights away from 95% of the population, at least the process should be democratic (a referendum or a free vote of the people's representatives).

^^^ Oh my god the sky is falling the sky is falling!

Post all the opinion that you like, the only opinion on gay marriage that matters in any meaningful way is that of the Supreme Court of Canada. The constitution is the highest law in the land and our society is based on the rule of law. Since the constitution states that all persons have a right to marry then all other laws must be in line with it in order to be legitimate. You can't go tinkering with the constitution because it is at odds with some ill-conceived and outdated morality of the minority nor can you go taking away LEGAL rights because they work against your preferance. Really, stop the debate, we're a society that is founded on law, the law has spoken, the debate is over.

Getting back to the intent of this thread; By indicating that Mr. Harper would revoke/suspend charter rights he has only given fuel to the fire that the Liberal spin doctors have long since established. He has played directly into their hands by suggesting that he will cowtow to the demands of the more radical and theocratic members of his party at the expense of the constitution and the rest of Canadians. Whether this is true or not I cannot say, however, truth is meaningless in elections.... perception is everything. Mr. Harper has once again failed to keep his mouth shut and caused tangable damage to his attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Ontario electorate.

I feel very bad for Mr. Harper. He is in the very difficult position of trying to win the trust of a demographic that is highly suspicious of him and his grassroots supporters. He must try to downplay the influance of those supporters and commit that he will disregard their wants when those wants are at odds with those of the rest of the country and the demands of law. Unfortunately, if he were to make such a commitment he is certain to lose the support of the grassroots thus destroying the base of his own party. Tough spot to be in, no wonder he can't detail his policies, speak plainly about his intentions, gain favour in the east, and inflame passion amongst those that support his party. I don't blame Mr Harper for being a wet blanket leader, very few people have the elequence and intellect to pull off the balancing act that is necessary to satisfy both of the diverse interest groups he needs to hold in order to acheive power.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Your marriage can benefit society through procreation while their union can't. Wrong. The Supreme Court refused to say that a law restricting the term "marriage" to hetero couples was unconstitutional. Further, civil unions would be constitutional if they offer the same rights and privileges as marriages. The notwithstanding clause need not be used as long as civil unions grant the same rights/privileges as marriages.

First off, your contention that homosexual marriages cannot produce childeren is incorrect. Thanks to advances in reproductive technologies a viable fetus can now be created using two eggs or two sperms. Subsequently, it is possible for a homosexual couple to reproduce. The ethics of this is another question, however, your argument is based on possibility not ethical considerations. You may now retire this argument from your little talking point sheet as it is no longer effectual.

The Supreme Court ruled that you cannot deny homosexuals the right to marry. This decision effectively destroyed all legal meaning to the prior definition of marriage. If you understood constitutional law you would have to agree with this. Moreover, the simple act of mandating a different term for a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage deliniates between them and (conotatively) marginalizes the former. Subsequently, it is probable that any law mandating a different name be given to a homosexual marriage would be challenged and ultimately struck down regardless of them having equal legal status.

As I stated above, the "civil union" moniker would be struck down thus bringing us back to marriage and necessitating the use of section 33 to deny that right.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down