|
It Begins: Extremist Gays Attack Church (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
sexual orientation is not specified...but the relevant section does provide opportunity for extending non-discrimination under the law to groups not explicitly mentioned in the Charter itself...and the courts and legislature have (repeatedly) seen fit to extend that protection to gays.
"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."
i.e. this section's scope is not limited to merely those groups.
is that open for interpretation? yep.
one could argue that if marriage conveys LEGAL rights unto the married persons...and those rights are EXCLUSIVE to married persons (and many are)...then to deny marriage to homosexuals is to withold from them "equality under the law"...no? |
|
|
| Goashem |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
 |
:haha:
honestly i dont know whats the deal with gay wanting to be able to marry so bad. dont they get the same benefits from being common in law? heh and couldnt they just start their own religion like the homosaxon christian church so they wouldnt wait this long ?
besides once they realise how miserable life is when youre married theyll get a divorce. problem solved :D |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
sexual orientation is not specified...but the relevant provision does allow for extending non-discrimination to groups not explicitly mentioned in the Charter itself...and the courts and legislature have (repeatedly) seen fit to use that provision to cover sexual orientation. |
That just relates to discrimination, but having civil unions for gays AND marriage for straights is NOT discriminatory.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...2_17?hub=Canada
| quote: | * Fourth question: Is the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman constitutional?
Supreme Court's answer: The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question. |
|
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ MAYBE.
it's been pointed out before that "same, but different" leaves the door open for unequality under the law. If the law says "spouse"...and spouse is defined as "persons married to one another"...how would being in a "civil union" stack up?
it also begs the question that if a civil union is just as good as marriage...then what's the difference between granting civil unions or granting marriage? to merely appease heterosexuals or religious organizations who feel it tarnishes the traditional definition of marriage?
to play devil's advocate here...the last time I checked, "feelings" aren't protected under the law anywhere ;) Unless heterosexuals or religious organizations can demonstrate that gay marriage explicitly infringes upon or detracts from their own rights...I don't see a legal case for pushing for "civil unions" over marriage.
it's far easier to demonstrate that marriage = marriage, for all legal intents and purposes, than it is to say that civil unions = marriage for those same legal intents and purposes, IMHO (which is not at all based upon any concrete legal knowledge, I freely admit). |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| ^Your comment begs the question is compromise worth it at this point. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Unless heterosexuals or religious organizations can demonstrate that gay marriage explicitly infringes upon or detracts from their own rights...I don't see a legal case for pushing for "civil unions" over marriage.
|
oh but it does...
When the GG signs the bill, not only will the husband-wife relationship be destroyed, so will the PARENT-CHILD relationship.
Husbands and wives, and parents and children will no longer be related by natural or common law. Instead, there will only be civil "legal" relationships. In other words, your son is only your son because the state says he is, NOT because he is your blood relative. Your wife is only your wife because the state says she is, NOT because you were joined in a matrimonial union. Traditional marriage AND traditional parentage are DEAD.
More here:
http://www.enshrinemarriage.ca/english/comment6.aspx
Adscam no swindle next to C-38
By DOUGLAS FARROW
June 16, 2005
Procreation is not among the definitive goods of the institution of marriage, right? It once was, but we’ve abandoned all that. If same-sex marriage is to be an equality right, procreation can’t be one of marriage’s basic, indispensable goods. Marriage isn’t about children anymore. As the Bloc MP, Réal Ménard, put it in the recent parliamentary hearings, it’s “stone-age” thinking to connect marriage to children.
Okay, so what’s with the “consequential amendments” in Bill C-38? (These should not be confused with the largely inconsequential amendments to C-38 that are presently before Parliament.) Why are there several sections of the bill inserting into Canadian laws the concept of “legal parent” and “legal parent-child relationship,” where once these laws referred to “natural parent” and “natural parent-child relationship”?
The answer is this. In order to make gays equal to straights (so the argument goes) same-sex unions have to be made equal to heterosexual unions. That’s what same-sex marriage is all about. But how can they be equal when heterosexual unions produce children? Easy! For civil purposes, strip heterosexual couples of their natural relationship to their children (even their “blood relationship,” another term C-38 removes) and give them back instead a legal relationship, something assigned not by nature but by the state. A legal relationship can just as easily be given to homosexual couples who happen to want children around, presuming of course that they can procure children by one means or another.
There, everybody’s equal now! What’s more, natural parents will not be able to challenge legal parents as to the ownership of a child or demand right of access. Indeed, in some jurisdictions (Quebec, for example) even a child’s birth certificate may be made to show only the legal parents and not the natural parents. Little Pierre has two moms – look, his birth certificate says so.
Funny thing, though. It seems that marriage is somehow about children after all. First we say it’s not, because it can’t be if we want homosexual unions to be strictly on a par with heterosexual unions. Then we say that it is, by demanding for same-sex couples the exact same “parental” status and rights as heterosexual couples. I shouldn’t doubt that the next thing that will happen is that some enterprising homosexual couple will insist that Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which links “the right to marry and to found a family,” implies that they are entitled to the state’s help to procure a child by whatever means necessary. And while we’re paying the bills for the new little clone, or whatever the unfortunate child is, no one will even notice that we took procreation out of marriage in order to permit same-sex marriage, only to bring it back in again as soon as we had same-sex marriage.
Well, some might notice it. But they would not yet have noticed the really important thing. I mean the real price Canadians are paying for same-sex marriage: the handing over of our natural rights to our own children, and of our children’s natural rights to us.
C-38 implies that the state is no longer obligated to recognize these rights. From now on parent-child relationships will be at the state’s discretion. For, in redefining marriage, the state has also found it necessary to redefine “parent” and “family” and “parent-child relationship.” Under C-38, all of these become legal constructs. Marriage and family become creatures of the state. Not something prior to the state that the state is obliged to recognize and respect – the whole purpose and intent of Article 16 – but something at the disposal of the state.
Why are Canadians willing to pay this price? Could it be because they don’t know that they are paying it? Because they haven’t bothered to read the fine print? One thing is clear. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister haven’t bothered to point it out to them. Nor have the lawyers at the Justice Department or the judges in our highest courts. Nor yet the “equal marriage” advocates, inside or outside the House of Commons. All have insisted that C-38 has no price attached to it worth speaking of.
But C-38 is arguably the greatest swindle in Canadian history. A thousand Adscams could never add up to anything like it. What’s a few millions.against our very birthright? What’s a few billions against the foundations of our freedom? From here on we are our children’s parents, and our parents’ children, only at the good pleasure of the state.
Think I’m kidding? Just watch what happens to those who insist on teaching their children that the state has no such authority as it pretends to exercise in C-38, and that same sex-marriage is not marriage at all, just a legal fiction. That is what I intend to teach my children, and anyone else who will listen, as I said to the Legislative Committee on C-38 when I addressed it last week. I’ll let you know how it goes. |
|
|
| MarkT |
edit: my reply is in response to the post above Shadowolf's...I think his is self-perceived bull that tarnishes the parent-child relationship of ANY child who is not the blood relative of their parents (how closeminded...you should be ashamed of yourself for implying that! what about adopted children in hetero marriages??? so those are of "lesser" status than blood relations?)
I honestly don't know...
I sincerely believe that history will prove this to not a big deal...at least not in any negative fashion. It may prove to be a bigger deal for Canada on a global stage...with it being seen as a bit of a pioneering nation (the 3rd) in legalizing gay marriage. If we are this "liberal, progressive" people that we claim to be...isn't this even a logical step for us? An enlightened step?
I suppose many Churches would disagree...fair enough, from their standpoint. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I honestly don't know...
I sincerely believe that history will prove this to not a big deal...at least not in any negative fashion. It may prove to be a bigger deal for Canada on a global stage...with it being seen as a bit of a pioneering nation (the 3rd) in legalizing gay marriage. If we are this "liberal, progressive" people that we claim to be...isn't this even a logical step for us? An enlightened step?
I suppose many Churches would disagree...fair enough, from their standpoint. |
Considering what passes for 'liberal, progressive' these days, I certainly wouldn't want that to happen to Canada. *tongue in cheek* |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
sexual orientation is not specified...but the relevant section does provide opportunity for extending non-discrimination under the law to groups not explicitly mentioned in the Charter itself...and the courts and legislature have (repeatedly) seen fit to extend that protection to gays.
"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."
i.e. this section's scope is not limited to merely those groups.
is that open for interpretation? yep.
one could argue that if marriage conveys LEGAL rights unto the married persons...and those rights are EXCLUSIVE to married persons (and many are)...then to deny marriage to homosexuals is to withold from them "equality under the law"...no? |
I agree 100% that homosexuals should have every right that heterosexuals do. And yes, the right to equal treatment is specified in the charter.
However, the "right" to marriage is not specified in the charter. Marriage is not a legal right and does not convey legal rights; it's nothing more than a legally binding contract which is recognized by various institutions. Minors can't get married, and neither can members of the same family. And at least so far, polygamy is still illegal. How are their "rights" any different from homosexuals?
The answer is, they aren't. It's simply part of the definition. The definition doesn't extend to members of the immediate family, and it happens to say that it can only be with ONE other person. To then force institutions to change their definitions is not granting any additional freedoms toward homosexuals (privileges or status, perhaps, but not fundamental freedoms) - and it is most assuredly impinging on the freedoms of the institutions themselves. True inalienable rights are just that - inalienable, and can't by definition infringe on any other rights. The very notion of competing "rights" means ipso facto that something is horribly wrong with the definition of one or both of them.
I've stated this repeatedly but no one seems to understand or care - it's a definition issue, not a rights issue. If the government wanted to go ahead and rewrite the definition with the consent of a democratic majority then I would never have questioned it, but the way in which this law was passed is THE perfect example of activist courts being used to impose the will of a group on a population that does not support it. Representative Governments, not Minority Rights, are the cornerstone of the civilized world. If the government wishes to amend the constitution, then by all means, put it to a referendum!
It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, you're allowed to shoot a duck but not another human being. Does this discriminate against murderers? You can impersonate celebrities, but not police officers; does this discriminate against con artists? And hey - you can eat at whatever restaurant you like, but not if you don't have enough money to pay the bill; does that discriminate against the poor? Hmm, I'd like to keep an elephant in my house, but The Man says I can't - everyone else is allowed to have pets, doesn't that law discriminate against Zoologists and Ivory Dealers?
I don't have any problem with gay unions at all, but I'm sickened by the tired old dogma that's used to support the manner in which our Liberal courts and government have plowed through the legislation. Anybody who is familiar with the LPC's politics knows the REAL reason for this legislation... |
|
|
| amb_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
oh but it does...
When the GG signs the bill, not only will the husband-wife relationship be destroyed, so will the PARENT-CHILD relationship.
Husbands and wives, and parents and children will no longer be related by natural or common law. Instead, there will only be civil "legal" relationships. In other words, your son is only your son because the state says he is, NOT because he is your blood relative. Your wife is only your wife because the state says she is, NOT because you were joined in a matrimonial union. Traditional marriage AND traditional parentage are DEAD. |
Parent-child relationship dead? BS. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by amb_
Parent-child relationship dead? BS. |
Did you even read Bill C-38 or the article I posted? Those two children will only be connected to their mother by the state, and not by blood or natural law. They will have a LEGAL relationship ONLY, not a familial one. |
|
|
| amb_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Did you even read Bill C-38 or the article I posted? Those two children will only be connected to their mother by the state, and not by blood or natural law. They will have a LEGAL relationship ONLY, not a familial one. |
Yeah I did. I fail to see how civil law affects blood relationships... |
|
|
|
|
