|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
IT SURE IS!!!
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
What a bummer! |
OK, that was indeed funny
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
When our PM makes an ass of himself by refusing to support the BMD plan, he did the right thing because he listened to the "democratic majority". But when 75% of the country likes marriage just the way it is, there's no need for the government to consult us when they feel like changing it.
When the USA takes action against violent dictators they are acting "unilaterally" and "imposing their beliefs" on the rest of the world. But when our government pushes ahead with this garbage legislation despite protests and petitions from millions of people countrywide and strong admonitions from people like the Pope who we claim to respect, we just know BETTER than they do.
When the stupid Americans come up with dumbass names like Freedom Fries, we're all over them. But when it's written into law that we're no longer allowed to use the terms "husband" and "wife", that's okay.
We laugh and laugh and laugh at all the frivolous multimillion dollar lawsuits in other countries. But when CEOs have to screw their companies over because some idiot judge told them that there aren't enough black people at the company, they did the right thing. And when students at a university try to start a "white" scholarship, they get their funds from their OWN POCKETS taken away from them, suspended or expelled, and almost end up in jail, and we all say, oh, the university did the RIGHT THING.
We bitch and moan for hours on end about child labour or unsafe working conditions and then spend billions of dollars nationally each year supporting the companies and industries that do this. And then rape their exports with ridiculous duty charges so they have to cut even MORE corners.
And we whine non-stop about how Toronto is a world-class city and should be treated that way by the rest of the world, then proceed to tax the out of everyone who lives here, cutting away at all our infrastructure money, and give it all to some jobless fishermen on the East Coast.
What happened to us? What happened to this country? This isn't what I remember from the 1980s that I grew up in. People used to have REAL values and ethics, values like hard work and education and personal responsibility and personal pride, not these bull pseudo-values like white male guilt and "levelling the playing field". All Canadians want to do anymore is preach from our moral pedestal while blaming someone else for all the world's problems.
Well I'm sick of it. You've got a problem with me and my beliefs? Fine. you. all of you. me for standing up for what I believe in against a bunch of liberal airheads. Maybe it's high time some of you learned that we don't even CARE what you believe let alone want to impose OUR beliefs, we're just sick and tired of people like YOU constantly telling US what to believe in by telling us what we're allowed to say and what we aren't. We're supposed to have FREEDOM OF SPEECH! |
Amen. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
Uh... last time I checked, it IS Parliament that is now in the process passing the legislation to enact this change. |
THe question is now properly in the House of Commons.
However, the 2003 Ontario opinion is unconstitutional.
| quote: | | Similiarily it was the Ontario Legislature that passed THIS bill in question to adopt the changes. |
True, it wasn't an activist judge that made the change here.
| quote: | | Remember... either of these legislatures could have stepped up and used the notwithstanding clause if they felt either of the courts were so far out to left field. Neither has. |
It's not necessary. The 2003 decision was unconstitutional on its face. Parliament just needs to pass a law on the issue, and it's the only body capable of doing so. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
That should not ever take PRECEDENCE over the democratic majority, or their constitutional rights. When minority rights are given a higher priority than democracy and constitutional rights, it's communism. |
You have a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can still marry. That has not changed.
The constitution does NOT guarantee you the right for that union to be termed a "marriage", nor does it guarantee you access to that instutition exclusively, to the exclusion of certain other people.
In this case, as I say over and over again, marriage has simply been broadened to be be more inclusive. How does that give a minority group (in this case, same-sex couples) a higher priority? It gives them exactly the same priortiy / access to an institution you already have been able to access. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
THe question is now properly in the House of Commons.
However, the 2003 Ontario opinion is unconstitutional.
True, it wasn't an activist judge that made the change here.
It's not necessary. The 2003 decision was unconstitutional on its face. Parliament just needs to pass a law on the issue, and it's the only body capable of doing so. |
Perhaps you should read the decision more carefully. You'll also note the decision was suspended for a period of 24 months in order to give the Legislature time to find their OWN solution to the problem before having the court solution implemented. That's why this is now taking place. |
|
|
| Spam |
If it's a simple matter of semantics, why do homosexuals care so much that they be allowed to 'marry', why are they not satisfied with a civil union that will provide the same legal equality, without hijacking an ancient religious institution?
On a side-note, when did Canada start implementing newspeak? Has it been happening for very long? When will we be taught how to use doublethink? Because I think I could use some of that right now.
On a side-side note, this doesn't make it so you are no longer a husband or wife, or no longer allowed to call a person that. It's just a change to the wording in the laws to close up all the loop-holes that are guaranteed to open up if left alone. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
You can still marry. That has not changed. |
Yes it has changed.
I can no longer marry a wife. I can only marry a "spouse."
| quote: |
The constitution does NOT guarantee you the right for that union to be termed a "marriage", |
Yes it does. BNA Section 91: "26. Marriage and Divorce."
BNA Section 92: "12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province."
| quote: |
nor does it guarantee you access to that instutition exclusively, to the exclusion of certain other people. |
It need not explicitly do so.
Why?
Because marriage is, on it's face, the union of a man of a woman.
| quote: | | Marriage is by nature heterosexual, for it contains a very special union between a man and a woman, a bond that gives rise to future generations through the ability of procreation. No other union shares this ability. This is not discrimination, it is reality. |
| quote: |
In this case, as I say over and over again, marriage has simply been broadened to be be more inclusive. How does that give a minority group (in this case, same-sex couples) a higher priority? It gives them exactly the same priortiy / access to an institution you already have been able to access. |
because they did it in such a way as to deprive me of my rights. There were other ways to acheive the same ends that would not have done so. |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
| 50 years ago, people would be disgusted if a black person and a white person drank from the same water fountain or took the same bus. Your objection to gay people getting married is the same thing. If something isn't special to you unless others can't have it, then you're just being selfish. It's not communism. It's freedom. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
If it's a simple matter of semantics, why do homosexuals care so much that they be allowed to 'marry', why are they not satisfied with a civil union that will provide the same legal equality, without hijacking an ancient religious institution?
On a side-note, when did Canada start implementing newspeak? Has it been happening for very long? When will we be taught how to use doublethink? Because I think I could use some of that right now. |
This is why I think the best solution (and have thought so all along) is for the government to get out of the "marriage" business altogether.
Leave "marriage" to individual churches to define as they see fit. If the Catholic church wants to restrict it to heterosexuals, fine. If the United Church will allow gay marraiges, good for them.
The government should only be involved in registering "civil unions" which can be obtained by either straight or gay couples. A "civil union" would simply confer the legal, civil rights of survivorship, power of attorney, tax benefits, etc. that previously existed and which clearly there is no rational basis to withhold from a gay couple any more than a straight couple. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
You have a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Nothing more, nothing less. |
And I often get the feeling lately that that is the ONLY constitutional right that Canadians are actually aware that they have.
It may interest you to know that there are 33, yes, count 'em, thirty-three OTHER clauses in that document, not including subclauses! Among them are such things as:
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of religion
- Freedom of association, which incidentally implies freedom of non-association
Food for thought!
|
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
50 years ago, people would be disgusted if a black person and a white person drank from the same water fountain or took the same bus. Your objection to gay people getting married is the same thing. If something isn't special to you unless others can't have it, then you're just being selfish. It's not communism. It's freedom. |
What about my freedom to marry a wife? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
You have a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can still marry. That has not changed.
The constitution does NOT guarantee you the right for that union to be termed a "marriage", nor does it guarantee you access to that instutition exclusively, to the exclusion of certain other people.
In this case, as I say over and over again, marriage has simply been broadened to be be more inclusive. How does that give a minority group (in this case, same-sex couples) a higher priority? It gives them exactly the same priortiy / access to an institution you already have been able to access. |
Amen. |
|
|
|
|
