|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Rodrico |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
What about my freedom to marry a wife? :rolleyes: |
You cant marry a woman anymore? |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
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!
|
Freedom of speech... you can call your heterosexual union a "marriage". I can call by homosexual union a "marriage".
Freedom of religion... you can go to your Catholic / whatever church that will only marry homosexuals. I can go to the United / whatever church that will open their arms to same sex couples.
Freedom of association... you can get together with your wife and all the other heterosexual couples and celebrate your heterosexuality. So too can gay couples.
You can't used the charter to form a rational basis as to why straight couples deserve some sort of status / priviledge that is any different than that which is attainable by same sex couples.
The fundamental basis of the charter is the "rule of law". The same rules apply to everyone and we all most adhere to them. |
|
|
| Spam |
| 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. |
Correct, but what a marriage IS has changed. They've changed the definition to suit the demands of a minority group that aren't satisfied simply with equal treatment under the law (a civil union, or 'gay marriage' that would be legislated exactly the same, but called by a different name), they want acceptance forced upon the rest of the population, and they want to be 'MARRIED'.
| quote: | | 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. |
Likewise, the constitution does not give homosexuals the guarantee for their union to be called a 'marriage'. So let them have their union, but call it something else.
| 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. |
True, whether or not one agrees with that decision is another question :) |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodrico
You cant marry a woman anymore? |
That depends on your definition of "woman."
The term "woman" is not gender neutral.
:haha: |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
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. |
I agree completely!!! If that were the case this entire debate wouldn't be happening in the first place! But sadly, logic is a rare commodity in politics these days :( |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
That depends on your definition of "woman."
The term "woman" is not gender neutral.
:haha: |
woperson: a member of the female gender. Plural: wopeople |
|
|
| Kytracid |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
What about my freedom to marry a wife? :rolleyes: |
You marry a wife ? I thought you marry a woman who then bears the title of your 'wife'. Either way, how is this law going to change that. So the law will recognize you both as spouses. Isn't that just a legal matter ? How exactly will that change your relationship with your wife ? You still have the freedome to introduce each other as 'husband' and 'wife' right ?
I'm not thrilled about the change, and i agree with most of the people that it's not really something that I would personally feel needs to be done. Then again, to me it seems like legal gargon which basically just generalizes the marriage/union relationship. Unless you're really attached to a legal form, how is this going to radically change how people live ?
I dunno, it seems silly...then again, i remember standing in line in the states as a 'landed alien' so when it comes to legal terms i think there's quite a few bizare terms that are used to describe people and their status. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
They've changed the definition to suit the demands of a minority group that aren't satisfied simply with equal treatment under the law |
Actually, many gays are against same-sex marriage.
http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/tfn/2003/062303.html
FEW HOMOSEXUALS WANT TO MARRY, SAYS GAY GROUP
Canada should not be changing its marriage laws just to accommodate a "tiny, self-anointed" minority within a minority, says the head of a national homosexual group.
Only between 2-4% of Canadians are gay or lesbian, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE) executive director of John McKellar told the Calgary Herald. And of those, he said, "less than 1% are interested in same-sex marriage or even domestic partnership legislation. In other words, federal and provincial laws are being changed and traditional values are being compromised just to appease a tiny, self-anointed clique." McKellar says they are "selfish and rude" in wanting to "redefine society's traditions and conventions simply for [their] self-indulgence."
Formed in 1997, HOPE is a loosely knit group of homosexuals across Canada who oppose "gay pride" and "gay rights." Its members, says McKellar, are "gays and lesbians who live with dignity and discretion, who don't wake up every morning looking for discrimination under the bed and who don't run to the governments, the courts or the human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences."
An indifference to marriage "may be typical of many same-sex couples who have been living common-law in lengthy relationships," according to the Toronto Star. "From among my friends, there are only two couples talking about getting married," Toronto graphics designer Joel Rotsteintold the Star. His partner, Frank Chester, adds that only "a change in the laws around pension benefits" might prompt them to consider marriage. "Otherwise I don't see what we would get out of it, except some wedding gifts," he said.
Stephen Lock, Alberta director for the homosexual lobby group Egale Canada, concedes that there are "a significant number [of homosexuals] who don't want to be engaged and be married because they see it as mimicking heterosexual standards." But he also told the Herald that "there are others who do want to get married. Who has the right to say to these individuals that they can't get married because [others] don't believe in it?"
But marriage, says McKellar, is immutable, regardless of whatever else in society changes. "We're talking about an institution whose four prohibitions-you can only marry one person at a time, only someone of the opposite sex, never someone beneath a certain age and not a close blood relative-have been grounded in morality and in the law for millennia."
Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, says HOPE's position on marriage is exactly what his group has been saying for years. "Most [of the gay community] is not pushing for anything," he told the Herald. "They're quite happy living their lives out and doing what they do."
great interview:
http://www.freedomparty.org/voice/v03a.mp3 |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
Freedom of speech... you can call your heterosexual union a "marriage". I can call by homosexual union a "marriage". |
Yes, and my company and I can call YOUR union whatever the we want to call it, on paper, without the Man telling us what to call it.
| quote: | | Freedom of religion... you can go to your Catholic / whatever church that will only marry homosexuals. I can go to the United / whatever church that will open their arms to same sex couples. |
Am I the only one who sees the problem with this statement?
| quote: | | Freedom of association... you can get together with your wife and all the other heterosexual couples and celebrate your heterosexuality. So too can gay couples. |
And, as I said, freedom of non-association. If I, my organization, my club, my church, my synagogue, my whatever, does not wish to deal with homosexuals, or blacks, or any other god-forsaken "minority" (just what exactly *IS* a MINORITY, anyway?), then we should be free to do so.
| quote: | | You can't used the charter to form a rational basis as to why straight couples deserve some sort of status / priviledge that is any different than that which is attainable by same sex couples. |
There is no friggin' "special status", we're talking about a DEFINITION here! Civil unions would have given them the exact same privileges and the courts shot it down.
| quote: | | The fundamental basis of the charter is the "rule of law". The same rules apply to everyone and we all most adhere to them. |
What? The fundamental basis of the charter is CIVIL RIGHTS. |
|
|
| Ziggy |
I feel I'm getting discriminated as a Canadian citizen. Man and Woman can marry each other, yet I felt in love with a new Mc Chicken sandwich that I hold true feelings towards and city hall turned me down.
 |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
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. |
Wow, I didn't see this before. The only thing you've said in this thread that I actually agree with 100%!
Why all the other mumbo jumbo? That was all that needed to be said! |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kytracid
I dunno, it seems silly...then again, i remember standing in line in the states as a 'landed alien' so when it comes to legal terms i think there's quite a few bizare terms that are used to describe people and their status. |
lol.. i find 'visible minority' to be the funniest one. in the ward where i live if you're white ur considered a 'visible minority'
|
|
|
|
|
