|
Gay marriage is a constitutional change and should be put to a referendum
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ShadoWolf |
http://www.citizenscentre.com/jbu04-12-20.html
Gay marriage is a constitutional change and should be put to a referendum
Back we go to homosexual marriage, with a vengeance.
And I mean vengeance. The "tolerance" vigilantes are already out in force.
For example, Graham Thomson, one of Canwest's loopier columnists, has denounced Ralph Klein's call for a national referendum as "fanning the flames of public outrage," and leading a parade for bigots to burn down gays' houses.
Thomson also voices the strange, ignorant idea that if we allow democratic majorities to settle matters of minority rights, there will be no minority rights.
In fact, in Canada and elsewhere, all significant minority rights--from women's right to vote, to the gays' right to have sex, to the institution of human rights commissions--were bestowed by democratic majorities who saw wisdom in the proposals.
If not from democratic majorities, where does Thomson imagine these things came from? The Canwest editorial board? It makes you wonder what he was doing in history class. Not thinking, obviously.
But enough about Thomson and his ilk. Until they learn to stop ascribing ugly motives to everyone who disagrees with them, they are incapable of intelligent discussion.
It looks like Paul Martin will bring his gay marriage amendment into Parliament in early February, and will shove it through as fast as possible.
Even the most optimistic conservatives I know think this Martin bill will probably pass. Martin is forcing his cabinet ministers to support it, and Jack Layton is forcing his whole caucus to vote the party line. (More liberation brought to you by the New Democracy.)
So what about Ralph Klein's proposal for a national referendum?
Well, notwithstanding the more hysterical pronouncements of some in the media, it makes sense.
Let's start with the fact that instituting homosexual marriage effects a significant change to our Constitution. It radically alters our legal understanding of the most basic unit in Canadian society, and impacts the constitutional rights of the provinces.
In its recent reference decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged both these points.
Note also that the Court did NOT say Parliament must institute homosexual marriage, only that it may if it chooses.
In other words, the Court has said it's for a democratic majority to decide.
It doesn't matter how often federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler lies to the TV cameras. As with abortion, the Supreme Court says it's a democratic decision.
Now you may recall that the last time Parliament wanted to change the Constitution, with the Charlottetown Accord, it put the question to a direct vote by all Canadians.
This was only common sense. The Constitution belongs to the people of Canada, and they should have the final say over what's in it.
Canadians should therefore appeal to Martin's better instincts (because unlike Chretien, Martin actually seems to have a conscience) to allow the whole country to decide this issue.
And if Martin refuses, Canadians should appeal to the Governor General not to give Royal Assent to Martin's bill until it has first been approved by the people, as is their proper right.
Believe it or not, the governor-general has the constitutional power. And Adrienne Clarkson is imperious enough, and angry enough at the House of Commons, that a mass appeal from the people might convince her to use it.
Regardless, Ralph Klein is right. Only by a national referendum can this issue now be settled.
- Link Byfield |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| I dont care about gay marriage. Let them do whatever they want. I do draw the line at adoption however. And that's only because i believe a kid has a right to have a role model from each sex. Both sexes are fundamentally different and it's important to have both influences in a child's life. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Very good article. There's simply no excuse for making constitutional changes without democratic approval, and Canadians should not let themselves be guilted into letting it fly.
If this country as a democratic majority decides that it wants to institute gay marriage, then that's fine, the people have spoken; but let's not jump the gun until we actually get there. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I dont care about gay marriage. Let them do whatever they want. |
Suppose you get "married" to another man. Should I be forced to recognize that relationship as a "marriage?" What about my rights? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Suppose you get "married" to another man. Should I be forced to recognize that relationship as a "marriage?" What about my rights? |
Your rights? why do you care? How does it change your life exactly? |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Your rights? why do you care? How does it change your life exactly? |
HAHHAA! Exactly...
and I believe Spain just made same-sex marriages legal over there a few days ago... |
|
|
| Spam |
| Bring on the referendum! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
You see. this is why im not a conservative, or liberal or socialist or whatever label you want to put on me. Why? Because if i were a true conservative then id be against this.
I just happen to think that of the 3 choices we have that they are the best to do the job. I dont agree with all their principals but they make more sense than the other parties do.
My thoughts are clear. Do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesnt unreasonably disrupt my well being and as long as you dont ask me to support it. Also, take responsibility for your own actions. |
|
|
| chrismack |
Hmmm. This can turn ugly fast, I think...
A couple (well tempered) comments from a gay guy.
a) Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue, other than the fact that the supreme court has consistently pointed out that not allowing them actually violates the Charter of Rights. Our Charter (which is the part of the constitution that i am assuming is being referenced, since the rest of the document(s) relate to division of powers, election processses, etc. Never mentions marriage in any way. It does, however offer these fundamental freedoms:
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Therefore, like all great democracies, those who are religious and/ or have conscientious objections can choose to express those objections, just as you have. Ie, the Catholic Church would not have to offer it's service of "Marriage", just as nobody forces them to provide "divorce" today.
I on the other hand may choose to express myself as being married to somebody, should I decide that I want to. And if a recognized body (Ie. a justice of the peace) says I am married... then I am.
People who aren't familiar with the Charter will usually argue at this point that this definition would mean I could choose to marry my dog. They would be stupid, because the most important part of the constitution is the first paragraph and is referenced in EVERY supreme court ruling. It says:
"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
Everything we do in Canada is tempered by this overiding clause. If the whole free world allowed dog marriage.... then we might have a problem. But they don't.
2. As far as the idea of "democratic majorities" making decisions on human rights...
We elect a government based on the way we feel they will represent themselves in various positions. The fact that we are in a minority government position today is probably the best time to have a vote on the issue, as every member's vote is important. There are Liberals who oppose gay marriage. There are Conservatives who support it.
(no comment in any of the posts on whether the conservatives will consider allowing their members to vote with their conscience or if they are expected to vote with the party, BTW. I'm thinking dissent on this would not be warmly welcomed )
Most of the MAJOR human rights advancements of the 19th & 20th century would have failed in an open vote or referendum, if that was allowed. Think slavery in the US, Black rights in the 60s, Canada finally allowing "Indians" the right to vote in federal elections in 1950 and in Provincial elections as late as 1965 in Mr. Klein's province of Alberta. Although the posts would make us assume otherwise, Women in Canada were given the right to vote in Federal elections by the government, not by referendum.
Referendums are costly. They are complex. They are divisive. They should be used when we are changing the constitution (remember that the Meech Lake Accord was called "A Bill to Amend the Canadaian Constitution"... because it was going in and changing very specific sections of the document. This isn't.
It is merely redefining a single definition on a single law that has been amended 47 times since confederation. Imagine how many referendums we'd be having.
3. This is one of those issues that the far leaning conservatives use to increase their popularity, because it does provoke strong opinions. Do not imagine for one second that the social conservatives are not trying to drum up support for their beleaguered party by ascribing to the exact same political maneuvering that George Bush used in the last election. His key strategists have specifically stated that they targeted social conservatives and painted Bush as the religious and moral compass by having him (Privately and usually off camera) visit churches around the country to argue against abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research... and essentially tell them that to support Kerry would be to support sin. During the election campaign he made over 300 speeches that were not allowed to be taped or attended by the press - because the message was so strong it would alienate the middle. Our conservatives turn to people like Link Byfield to do the job...
Quite frankly, gay marriage isn't an issue for me. Hell, I can hardly get a date. I don't really see how it affects anybody else though, and if allowing two people who love each other say they are married evokes this much emotion, I have to think there is somethign else at play.
Jayx1, you're a bit late on the adoption issue, because gays have had the right to adopt kids for over a decade. Although I would agree that an ideal 1950s stereotype woudl see all kids having a mom and a dad, that isn't very realistic when over 40% of "straight" marriages end in divorce... and in Ontario, almost as many kids are born outside of marriage than in it. The issue is how we raise kids, not who raises them, I think.
Ok. Ramble completed. Gotta go do lots of gay stuff. (You know, like grocery shopping, buying toothpaste, and adopting a kid or two.)
Cheers.
Chris |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
Gay marriage is a consitutional change? Sounds like complete bull to me.
Let's examine the relevant areas of the Constitution:
91.26 gives exclusive authority to the Federal Government over marriage and divorce. The current federal government is now choosing to redefine what "marriage" encompasses. This is within their authority under the consitution, therefore no changes are required to this area.
92.12 gives authority to the provinces over the solemnization of marriage in the province. This does NOT mean they get to decide who is / is not allowed to be married. Essentially, it just means they get to to decide who is allowed to officiate a marriage and what the paperwork is going to look like. Again, no changes are required here because the actual definition of a marriage is not relevant to this section.
Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
"15(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. "
While sexual orientation is not explicitly outlined, clearly the clause is open-ended, and in 1995, the Supreme Court determined that it should be interpreted broadly and that sexual orientation was analogous to the other grounds outlined. Therefore, again the new legislation is simply complying with the Constitution, it does not require a change to be made to it.
NO where in the constitution does it say a heterosexual couple has the right to the exclusive definition of "marriage" to suit their purposes. Furthermore, I think it would be quite a stretch of both reason and the law for heterosexual couples to argue that they are "disadvantaged" because of their own sexual orientation under legislation which would permit same-sex marriages.
On a final note, we should remember that originally, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as part of the broader Constitutional package) was going to be unilaterally (again, supported by a Supreme Court ruling) implemented by Trudeau against the wishes of 8 provinces. This was a government that only had the support of 40% or so of the population based on the 1980 election. So the statement that all other minority rights have been brought in by way of a "democratic majority" is somewhat misleading as a majority of Canadians did not support the person who drove the process forward, nor were they given the opportunity to vote on the adoption of these minority rights at that time either! |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Suppose you get "married" to another man. Should I be forced to recognize that relationship as a "marriage?" What about my rights? |
I wish you'd just come right out and say that you find homosexuality distasteful (at the very least) and don't feel that gays should have similar rights to hetero couples. Your posting history makes it quite clear...
Since when do you have a RIGHT to choose whether or not to acknowledge someone else's relationship if the state has recognized it? Explain EXACTLY how gays being allowed to marry negatively affects you.
BTW...the writer is partially correct if I understand correctly the recent court opinions...while the Supreme Court did not say that Parliament MUST institute gay marriage, it DID say that instituting it would be consistent with the Charter, correct? ie. if parliament (or provinces) choose not to institute it, and a case goes to the Supreme Court, the gov't will likely lose a challenge to a marriage...ie. either parliament can proactively institute it or we can piss away money challenging it every stage of the way, ultimately with it being implemented anyway.
A referendum on *every* issue is ludicrous...jeez, if there was a referendum on scrapping the GST tomorrow, you can bet the people would vote it gone...regardless of the consequences.
This "two role model" argument is complete bull...look at the # of single parents out there...the # of failed marriages (50+%), the # of intact marriages that are unhappy and/or unhealthy on top of that divorce rate, the # of gay parent households that already exist outside of a legal marriage context, etc...
btw, the adoption option has existed for gay couples for quite some time (something like 20 years?). Gay marriage being legalized is not really related to that issue. Call the Children's Aid Society if you doubt that assertion. They recognize the need to place a child in a loving, healthy environment, after close scrutiny of the couple (str8 or gay) FAR outweighs any antiquated societal discomfort with homosexuality. |
|
|
| MarkT |
I'd really like the opponents of gay marriage to state SPECIFICALLY why they feel that it should not be legalized. Really, no one has presented a single compelling and logical reason why it should be opposed...other than religious and moral grounds which have no business being brought into a LEGAL issue.
If the idea is "live and let live" (so long as you are not harmed or inhibited from doing the same), then what exactly is the problem here??? |
|
|
|
|
