 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
MarkT
Automatic Static
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Everyone thinks the Conservatives are against gay marriage. They are not. They want a comprimise. They want to have a civil union that is equal in every way to marriage except they dont want to call it marriage. I dont see what the issue is. And the ironic thing here is that HArper is doing it to protect rights. He wants to ensure the right of churches, synogogues and mosques to refuse to marry gays which runs against their religious beliefs. He feels that calling a gay union a civil union will protect those rights. It's a decent comprimise in my opinion.
Please do not say that the conservatives are against gay marriage. They are not. |
if "it's the same, so why call it marraige" is your argument, isn't it equally valid to say "if it's the same, then why not just call it marriage"?
why has this become a semantic argument? Isn't calling it something else just meant to appease people who are morally opposed to homosexuality?
"The Conservatives want a bill that would reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman.
Most constitutional lawyers say that would undermine the equality rights of gays and lesbians. But Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says Canada's highest court still hasn't definitively ruled on that question."
source: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/.../992199-cp.html
"VICTORIA - Dozens of constitutional experts have sent an open letter to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, accusing him of not being honest with Canadians over the same-sex marriage debate.
INDEPTH: Same-sex Rights
Stephen Harper
The group of 134 law professors refutes Harper's claim Parliament can outlaw same-sex marriage without using the Constitution's notwithstanding clause.
Harper has said he will instead amend the government's proposed bill or table a private member's bill. He says his party will maintain the traditional definition of marriage, while offering same-sex couples equal rights and benefits.
The University of Toronto's Sujit Choudry says the Conservative leader's position means he would be forced to override the Charter and has called on Harper to come clean with Canadians.
"We don't think they're being straight, to be perfectly honest. That's why we took the unprecedented step of circulating an open letter among law professors in Canada," said Choudry.
However, Harper says his position is legally sound.
"We will promote the traditional definition of marriage without using the notwithstanding clause," said Harper.
Former Manitoba attorney general and Conservative justice critic Vic Toews, who has been giving Harper legal advice, says the Supreme Court left it up to Parliament to decide. Once a law is passed, it will trump the lower court rulings, said Toews.
"It's not the first time law professors have been wrong," said Toews. "I'm not surprised at their opinion. I disagree with their opinion and we'll see what happens."
source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/nati...esex050125.html
Yet the Liberals are called arrogant, lol...
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here...
it seems that Parliament could pass a law that trumps the lower courts...fine, all that takes is a majority of MPs, right? Ok, so Harper takes power, passes this law...could that law not be successfully challenged in court and struck down as unconstitional? How hard would it be to demonstrate that calling it a "union" instead of marriage is disriminatory? I don't think material differences need to be shown, just that in denying marriage, it's discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Maybe the Conservative Alliance knows damn well that their law wouldn't stand up to Constitutional scrutiny, but taking this stance NOW, FOR THE TIME BEING, may help them get into office...and then, even if their law fails, they'll already be in power and be able to say "well, we did what we said we would do, challenge it", despite knowing they'd likely fail anyway...or worse, then they WILL use the notwithstanding clause.
a lot of "maybes", I'll admit...but isn't that their whole stance on this issue? MAYBE we can get away with calling them unions, despite multiple court decisions that indicate otherwise, despite a majority of constitutional experts feeling otherwise, despite...
|
|
 Apr-14-2005 01:42 
|
|
|
|
|
ShadoWolf
ISOS
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: State of Trance
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Tordan
To me a marriage has always been the coming together of two people who love each other. |
Actually in much (most?) of the world, marriages are arranged. Marriages based on "love" are a 20th century invention, even in the West - maybe that partly explains today's high divorce rate. Marriage is a socio-economic institution for making and raising babies.
"The fact that two people say they love each other does not, in itself, justify a right to the benefits conferred by the state on married couples. The only justification for a state interest in the privacy of love flows from the connection between the political fact that the state has a fundamental concern for its own survival and well-being, the biological fact that all human beings require someone of the opposite sex to create life, and the social fact that children have a natural claim to the love and support of their own mothers and fathers. Accordingly, the only kind of private love that is of justifiable public concern is the love that occurs between [a man and a woman]."
--Dr. William D. Gairdner
http://www.enshrinemarriage.com/eng...eclaration.aspx
| quote: | | Why shouldn't the gays be able to call their marriage a marriage? |
Because it's not a true marriage on its face. It would also taint or cheapen the institution for straights.
| quote: | | If I was gay and the govt was telling me that I can't call my marriage a marriage and that I should call it a civil union instead I'd be pretty pissed off. I can only imagine how they must feel. |
"All government policies are intentionally preferential. If we want welfare or veterans?0†1 benefits, or child-support, or marital benefits, we have to qualify for them. Such policies are ordinary forms of distributive justice through which, for its own good, the state discriminates in favour of some people, and some relationships, and not others. So an absence of "equality" is not a good argument against such policies."
Yet despite all that, Harper has reached out and found a middle ground.
___________________
 Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.
|
|
Apr-14-2005 01:52 
|
|
|
|
|
ShadoWolf
ISOS
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: State of Trance
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
why has this become a semantic argument? |
It's a semantics argument because your side has already won the subtanitive argument. Even the Conservatives support same-sex unions. Only the Christian Heritage Party supports the old pre-2003 order.
| quote: | | Isn't calling it something else just meant to appease people who are morally opposed to homosexuality? |
You mean the majority of Canadians? Why are you forcing your lifestyle down their throats? We need to tolerate and accept ALL views.
| quote: | Former Manitoba attorney general and Conservative justice critic Vic Toews, who has been giving Harper legal advice, says the Supreme Court left it up to Parliament to decide. Once a law is passed, it will trump the lower court rulings, said Toews.
"It's not the first time law professors have been wrong," said Toews. "I'm not surprised at their opinion. I disagree with their opinion and we'll see what happens."[/i] |
Not only are they wrong about the CPC policy, but they're politically motivated.
| quote: | | How hard would it be to demonstrate that calling it a "union" instead of marriage is disriminatory? I don't think material differences need to be shown, just that in denying marriage, it's discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. |
Nope, not according to the Supreme Court. The fact is that, in pith and substance, civil unions would have all the rights and privileges of marriage, so there is no discrimination under the Charter.
| quote: | | despite a majority of constitutional experts feeling otherwise, despite... |
130 of the most rabid and radical professors in the country does NOT constitute a majority. You can get a professor to say anything. Consider how this quack said the war in Afghanistan was illegal.
http://www.rmf.net/mandel5.html
edit: just for MarkT: http://gayandright.blogspot.com/
___________________
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 Apr-14-2005 at 02:35
|
|
|
Apr-14-2005 02:14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:29.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
