|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
again im not a fan of politically correct labels.
A chairman is a chairman for example.
It should be understood that the word man can be short form for man or wo-man. |
i agree w/ this point... im the same way
but saying "man and woman" clearly is not interpreted to mean either "a man and a woman," "a man and a man," or "a woman and a woman"
so i agree 100% wholeheartedly wiht this change. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
I dont think its right to make school forms say:
Parent 1
Parent 2
for example... thats just dumb
Mother and Father should still exist and let the gay couple decide which one they want to be. |
|
|
| Lephaid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I dont think its right to make school forms say:
Parent 1
Parent 2
for example... thats just dumb
Mother and Father should still exist and let the gay couple decide which one they want to be. |
If it was husband and husband and you gave that to a hetero couple and told them to decide what they want to be, though... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| First chance I get I'm leaving this hole of a province and this hole of a country. This isn't just a disgrace to family values, it's a disgrace to humanity. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I dont think its right to make school forms say:
Parent 1
Parent 2
for example... thats just dumb
Mother and Father should still exist and let the gay couple decide which one they want to be. |
As far back as I can recall, my school forms never said "Mother" & "Father" in the first place (and this was a Catholic school of all things!)
It was always "Parent / Guardian"... and for a school to require the signature of two parents in the first place is not right in my mind... what about the multitude of single parent families that are around? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
It was always "Parent / Guardian"... and for a school to require the signature of two parents in the first place is not right in my mind... what about the multitude of single parent families that are around? |
Then they leave the other line blank, you fool. When children enrol in a school the faculty is made aware of their family situation, they know when kids have single parents. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
Sorry, but you should check your definition of ultra vires. A court decision cannot be ultra vires... only a provincial legislature / federal parliament can be. An Ontario court has every right / jurisdiction to examine both provincial and federal legislation. In fact, the Supreme Court can't even touch a case until it has passed through a provincial superior / appeals court first. |
Court decisions may be ultra vires when courts act outside of their authority, esp. when courts act as legislators. A court may not "read in" things into a law - it may only uphold the law or strike it down. The Charter doesn't mention homosexuality, so Vriendis ultra vires. The 2003 Ontario law striking down heterosexual marriage is improper for the same reason. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lephaid
If it was husband and husband and you gave that to a hetero couple and told them to decide what they want to be, though... |
yeah except for one thing. it has traditionally been mother and father who create a child. And that instance is still 99.9% of the case. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Then they leave the other line blank, you fool. When children enrol in a school the faculty is made aware of their family situation, they know when kids have single parents. |
Why is it the school's business to require 2 parents signatures in the first place? Are they supposed to be policing private relationships to ensure that both parents are being consulted?
If I as one parent / guardian choose (or choose not to) share my child's progress with my spouse, what business is that of the school's? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
As far back as I can recall, my school forms never said "Mother" & "Father" in the first place (and this was a Catholic school of all things!)
It was always "Parent / Guardian"... and for a school to require the signature of two parents in the first place is not right in my mind... what about the multitude of single parent families that are around? |
I remember getting mother and father signatures.
it was always mother/guardian and father/guardian
then again im old... LOL |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lephaid
If it was husband and husband and you gave that to a hetero couple and told them to decide what they want to be, though... |
Two men cannot make a child. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Court decisions may be ultra vires when courts act outside of their authority, esp. when courts act as legislators. A court may not "read in" things into a law - it may only uphold the law or strike it down. The Charter doesn't mention homosexuality, so Vriendis ultra vires. The 2003 Ontario law striking down heterosexual marriage is improper for the same reason. |
This has not been a case of a court acting outside it's authority though. A court can certainly read things into law all it wants and does so all the time... it's called statutory interpretation. Our laws are not written to be interpreted by looking up every single word in
Webster's or Oxford and reciting their literal meaning.
Similarily, the Charter has always been broadly interpreted, which also means the inclusion of sexual orientation under section 15. Time and time again it has been considered a grounds for discrimination even though it is not explicitely listed. The grounds listed in section 15 are by no means intended to be an exhaustive list.
Finally, the Ontario court did not "strike down heterosexual marriage". It broadened its interpretation (as it has ever jurisdiction to do under the Charter) to be more inclusive. |
|
|
|
|
