|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ShadoWolf |
You were warned...
“Man”, “Woman”, “Wife”, “Husband”, “Widow”, “Widower” Banished From all Ontario Law
Terms, when referring to spouses, are banned from all government programs, services, documents
Toronto, February 25, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With the obscenely rapid, two-day introduction and passage of its same-sex “marriage” Bill 171, the Ontario government has advanced a revolutionary change in the way all laws and government programs and institutions refer to marriage and married persons. Everything referring to spouses must now be gender neutral.
No longer can a married couple be referred to as “husband and wife” or “man and woman”. The terms “Widow” and “widower” are also struck from the government dictionary. Considering the massive size and pervasiveness of government, this is certain to gradually lead to a general devaluation of marriage throughout the province – all for the purpose of imposing “equality” for that tiny number of same-sex couples that chooses to “marry”, taking advantage of activist judge imposed re-definition of marriage.
“Spouse” is redefined in the new law, to concur with the re-definition of “marriage” that now includes same-sex couples.
A perusal of the bill shows substitutions for previously used spousal terms in numerous places throughout 73 Ontario Statutes as follows:
“Widows”, widowers” replaced by “surviving spouses”
“A person of the opposite sex” replaced by “a person”
“Wives, husbands” replaced by “spouses”
“Two persons of the opposite sex” replaced by “two persons”
“The wife or husband” replaced by “spouse”
“A husband or wife” replaced by “spouse”
“The husband and wife” replaced by “the spouses”
“A man and a woman” replaced by “two persons”
“Husband and wife” replaced by “spouses”
“Cohabited as man and wife” replaced by “cohabited as a married couple”
“Same-sex partner” replaced by “spouse”
Following is the list of Statutes affected by the marriage redefinition language requirements:
Absentees Act
Accumulations Act
Assessment Act
Business Corporations Act
Change of Name Act
Charitable Institutions Act
Child and Family Services Act
Children's Law Reform Act
City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2)
Commercial Tenancies Act
Compensation for Victims of Crime Act
Consumer Reporting Act
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act
Co-operative Corporations Act
Coroners Act
Corporations Act
Courts of Justice Act
Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994
Declarations of Death Act, 2002
Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000
Education Act
Election Act
Employment Standards Act, 2000
Estates Act
Evidence Act
Execution Act
Family Law Act
Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996
Fuel Tax Act
Gasoline Tax Act
Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act
Human Rights Code
Solemnization of marriage by religious officials
Income Tax Act
Independent Health Facilities Act
Insurance Act
Land Transfer Tax Act
Legislative Assembly Act
Loan and Trust Corporations Act
Marriage Act
Members' Integrity Act, 1994
Mental Hospitals Act
Mortgages Act
MPPs Pension Act, 1996
Municipal Act, 2001
Municipal Conflict of Interest Act
Municipal Health Services Act
Northern Services Boards Act
Nursing Homes Act
Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997
Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998
Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan Act
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
Ontario Works Act, 1997
Partnerships Act
Pension Benefits Act
Perpetuities Act
Police Services Act
Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting Crimes Act, 2002
Public Libraries Act
Public Service Pension Act
Retail Sales Tax Act
SARS Assistance and Recovery Strategy Act, 2003
Securities Act
Substitute Decisions Act, 1992
Succession Law Reform Act
Tenant Protection Act, 1997
Tobacco Tax Act
Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993
Trillium Gift of Life Network Act
Trustee Act
Victims' Bill of Rights, 1995
Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
Seven years ago, Andrew Sullivan and I conducted a fierce debate in Slate about same-sex marriage. Along the way, I hazarded this prediction:
"Andrew, three years after we permit gay marriage, it will be illegal for schools to send home printed forms with one blank for the mother's name and one blank for the father's."
Did I say three years? In Canada, it's taken barely one.
In the province of Ontario, the words "wife," "husband," "widow," and "widower" are now all to be stricken from the law. The words "mother" and "father" cannot be far behind.
Ontario's action is a reminder that same-sex marriage is not just the extension of an existing legal status to previously excluded persons. Same-sex marriage is a revolution in the definition of marriage for everyone - a revolution not just in law, but in consciousnessness.
And one effect of this revolution - and for many proponents, one of the revolution's aims - is to make forever unthinkable the idea that husbands and wives each have special duties to one another, and that a husband's duties to his wife - while equally binding and equally supreme - are not the same as a wife's duties to her husband.
Once we lose that knowledge, we lose the basic grammar of marriage. It is one more reminder that in the same-sex marriage debate, we are debating not marriage's change - but marriage's overthrow.
--David Frum |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| Did you expect anything less from a former speech writer for Bush? Barbara must be rolling in her grave... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | “Widows”, widowers” replaced by “surviving spouses”
“A person of the opposite sex” replaced by “a person”
“Wives, husbands” replaced by “spouses”
“Two persons of the opposite sex” replaced by “two persons”
“The wife or husband” replaced by “spouse”
“A husband or wife” replaced by “spouse”
“The husband and wife” replaced by “the spouses”
“A man and a woman” replaced by “two persons”
“Husband and wife” replaced by “spouses”
“Cohabited as man and wife” replaced by “cohabited as a married couple”
“Same-sex partner” replaced by “spouse”
|
LAME! :rolleyes: :whip:
Im ALWAYS against changing the language to suit politically correct whims.
I was actually reprimanded in court by a female judge once for saying "laymen"
And before you all pounce i was doing the honourable thing by witnessing for an accident. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
The bill is nothing overly shocking, nor does it really change anything in reality. Basically all those definitions have had their "new" meanings read in in place of the old ones since the Ontario same-sex marriage court case back in 2003 or whenever it was.
All this bill does is some housekeeping to make the legislation reflect this. If the government wanted to maintain the former meanings despite what the court had ruled, it would require the use of the notwithstanding clause, and good luck finding a party / leader in Ontario who would want to even remotely consider the use of that . |
|
|
| arek |
| so can I merry my computer? |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
The bill is nothing overly shocking, nor does it really change anything in reality. Basically all those definitions have had their "new" meanings read in in place of the old ones since the Ontario same-sex marriage court case back in 2003 or whenever it was.
All this bill does is some housekeeping to make the legislation reflect this. If the government wanted to maintain the former meanings despite what the court had ruled, it would require the use of the notwithstanding clause, and good luck finding a party / leader in Ontario who would want to even remotely consider the use of that . |
The 2003 decision was ultra vires.
Not only that, but the definition of marriage is under federal jurisdiction.
What this is is an attack on heterosexuals. It's straight-bashing: we can't be who we want to be at law.
I think this law puts to rest the argument that same-sex marriage doesn't affect everyone else. Clearly, everyone now is affected by it. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
The 2003 decision was ultra vires.
Not only that, but the definition of marriage is under federal jurisdiction.
What this is is an attack on heterosexuals. It's straight-bashing: we can't be who we want to be at law.
I think this law puts to rest the argument that same-sex marriage doesn't affect everyone else. Clearly, everyone now is affected by it. |
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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Lephaid |
| I wholeheartedly agree with this (removal of gender discrimination from a government insitution). |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| sweet. im glad to see being changed to support this new law. its about ing time imo. thats all i have to saw about this bc i dont wanna get into a n post battle over it. |
|
|
|
|
