|
Why Stephen Harper won't win the election... (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Regular force (including navy and air force) is about 60,000. Reserves at about 14,000.
So just which soldiers you going to send again? |
Ive read before we could, if put to task, field a groun expeditionary force of about 50,000 soldiers in an emergency. It was about a year ago....Jack Granatstein whining away in the National Post. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
Here's how a civilized country deals with the issue (civil unions enacted after a free vote of Parliament).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm
'Gay weddings' become law in UK
Hundreds of gay couples are preparing to form civil partnerships in the coming weeks as the law changes after decades of campaigning.
At least 1,200 ceremonies are confirmed as being scheduled already, according to figures from councils compiled by the BBC News website.
Registrars are preparing for the first ceremonies, with couples permitted to register from Monday morning.
Campaigners says the law ends inequalities for same-sex couples.
The first ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act can take place in Northern Ireland on 19 December, followed by Scotland the next day and England and Wales on 21 December.
Under the law, couples who want to form a partnership must register their intentions with local councils. Unlike marriages, the signing of the legal partnership papers does not need to happen in public.
Bookings coming in
Hundreds of couples are expected to go ahead quickly, with Brighton conducting 198 ceremonies before the end of the year. Overall, the city has taken 510 bookings for the coming months, thought to be the highest in the country.
Other cities which have seen strong interest include London, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and Edinburgh.
PROVISIONAL BOOKINGS
Brighton and Hove: 510
Westminster: 140
Manchester: 88
Newcastle: 80
Birmingham: 70
Leeds: 60
Edinburgh: 76
Sheffield: 58
Nottingham: 50
Glasgow: 30
Cardiff: 24
Belfast: 20
Liverpool 20
Londonderry: 6
Aberdeen: 5
Source: Councils; not all ceremonies booked for December
Meg Munn, minister for equality, said the government expected 4,500 couples to get "partnered" in the first year.
"This is an important piece of legislation that gives legal recognition to relationships which until now were invisible in the eyes of the law," Ms Munn told the BBC News website.
"It accords people in same-sex relationships the same sort of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples.
"We know there are people who have been together maybe 40 years and have been waiting for the chance to do this kind of thing, because of the important differences it makes to their lives.
"They have the same concerns as married couples - tenancy, ownership, pensions and inheritance."
Alan Wardle, of gay campaign group Stonewall, said the importance of the change should not be underestimated.
"Our view is that civil partnerships are transformative for the lives of individual couples and their rights, but also for society more generally.
"Society now legally recognises gay relationships for the first time.
"It's a big day but 21 December, when the first partnerships take place, will be even bigger because that will see gay and lesbian people removing discrimination."
But a spokesman for the one of the UK's major Christian groups told the BBC they believed same-sex couples should not get the same rights as married couples.
"If you transport something unique, like marriage, into a different context, there's always a cost. And the cost here is in terms of reduction of marriage and the undermining of it," Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance said.
Reticent councils
Retailers are already beginning to cash in on the new partnerships.
FAMILY AFFAIRS
There was a pause as my mother took this in - and I waited and eventually said, 'So what's it to be? A cup of tea or a Scotch?'
Percy Steven on telling his mother he was gay
A range of "Mr and Mr" and "Mrs and Mrs" cards will hit Asda supermarkets this week.
And sets of "Darling, Dearest, Queerest" embroidered towel and soaps went on sale at Superdrug stores on Friday.
Meanwhile, three short advertisements were published in the Births, Marriages and Deaths columns under the heading Civil partnerships in Monday's Times newspaper.
The heading is a new addition to the paper, which has carried family announcements for nearly 221 years.
Campaigners have focused on councils which have been equivocal about the new law.
Bromley in south-east London had initially planned not to offer public ceremonies. Lisburn in Northern Ireland also overturned a proposed ban.
Ms Munn said any councils dragging their feet needed to comply with the both the spirit and letter of the law.
"The legislation requires that every authority must offer a civil partnership. The basic level of that is a simple signing of a register - some couples may just want that alone.
"But if any councils are saying they won't allow [public] ceremonies, for couples who want that kind of celebration, then it's time they came into the 21st century."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm
Published: 2005/12/05 11:19:43 GMT
© BBC MMV |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
...
Some people are already taking churches to court because they refuse to marry gays citing the charter for their rights. This is mainly where most canadians oppose gay marriage. Its not that they oppose gays being married, its the justified worry that it will lead to a loss of freedom of religion. Of course the media will never give you that angle of the story. All they want to project is fear. |
until there has been a SUCCESSFUL lawsuit, don't bring that up...
*denying* rights because "the potential" for other rights to be infringed upon is a pretty weak position to take.
on what ground can you imagine that the Supreme Court will rule that a gay couple's marriage rights trump a Charter right to freedom of religion? The public outrage would be *enormous*. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Here's how a civilized country deals with the issue (civil unions enacted after a free vote of Parliament).... |
the rights of a minority ought never be determined by the majority. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
the rights of a minority ought never be determined by the majority. |
And there is also a thing called tyranny of the minority... |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
And there is also a thing called tyranny of the minority... |
it's actually the tyranny of the majority that is more often discussed in political philosophy.
to suggest that minorities have more "power" than the majority is laughable. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
it's actually the tyranny of the majority that is more often discussed in political philosophy.
to suggest that minorities have more "power" than the majority is laughable. |
Not quite, when the majority can't do much against laws and legislations that promotes minority rights at the expense of the majority.
Probably a bad example, but take for instance bilingualism. Now the anglophones are the majority in Canada. A lot of them don't care about French. But the govt decided that French must be on every product in Canada. French services for govt is to be available everywhere.
Is this a bad thing? That's up for debate.
But it is an example of minority pressing its right over the majority with perceived expense of the majority. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Not quite, when the majority can't do much against laws and legislations that promotes minority rights at the expense of the majority.
Probably a bad example, but take for instance bilingualism. Now the anglophones are the majority in Canada. A lot of them don't care about French. But the govt decided that French must be on every product in Canada. French services for govt is to be available everywhere.
Is this a bad thing? That's up for debate.
But it is an example of minority pressing its right over the majority with perceived expense of the majority. |
French is an official language of the country...it ought to be everywhere. For the rest of Canada to deny that is exactly an example of the tyranny of the majority.
The issue ought to then be why is French an official language in thef first place? (which is a separate matter on it's own).
and yes, the tyranny of the majority is more an issue...don't take my word for it, go study historical political philosophy. For commentaries on the potential tyranny of the majority, you can look to John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville, for starters. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| ^I'm quite aware of tyranny of majority. But I also think that tyranny of minority is just as dangerous. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
actually our soldiers are some of the best in the world, right up there with the Yanks, Brits and Australians. Yes, the army is underfunded big time, but the quality of our troops is still very high. My friend went on a soldier exchange to the US back in October and his RCR battalion defeated American Ranger troops in wargames on 3 of the 4 exercises. This isn't anything new either...our ground forces and pilots have been kicking their asses in wargames for decades. |
The irony being with American's own equipment a lot of the time too...:p |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
The issue ought to then be why is French an official language in the first place? (which is a separate matter on it's own).
|
There is a simple answer to that one...
Trudeau cozying up to the french for political advantage. This is why the rest of canada muddles along through bilingualism yet quebec is allowed to get away with french only. |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Not quite, when the majority can't do much against laws and legislations that promotes minority rights at the expense of the majority. |
In terms of same-sex marriage, what 'expense' to the majority are you talking about? No priest will be 'forced' to perform same-sex marriage. There may be some couples who will try to sue, that happens with everything.
Other than that, how does letting gay people marry detract from anyone's rights in ANY way?
I know there are still many that think same-sex marriage is just morally wrong, that right now seems debatable, but in many cases, history has shown that many human rights that we take for granted emerged out of Supreme Court intervention, BECAUSE at the time what was popular was not was was best for the country. Again, the right or wrong of interracial marriage was just as 'debatable' at one point. I hope you look up the history of interracial marriage and see just how parallel the issue is with same-sex marriage.
Parallels:
- people argued that it was against nature, it was unnatural, it threatened to destroy the family, people did want to be forced to have to marry what they saw as illegitimate couples
- in the US, it was up to the Supreme Court to strike down all state laws banning interracial marriage |
|
|
|
|
