2417 others browsing the Canadian Forums! Join us!

Conservative Position on Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional?

Conservative Position on Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional?

View Poll Results: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?
Yes	12	35.29%
No	11	32.35%
Yes, and how could the radical right truly believe that 133 law professors are left wing?	11	32.35%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

DasFX

#31

RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

You ask for an opinion, yet you give no background information on the issue. What is the Conservative position?

This is what is says on their website:

"Definition of Marriage
The Conservative Party will fight to give a greater voice to Parliament. We will ensure that issues like marriage are decided by Parliament, not the courts."

Nothing there I find objectionable! As for calling the man a Neanderthal, chances are none of you have ever met Mr. Harper so what really can you base it on? He has a view and he is saying it, is that a freedom we have. How does it further your cause to make personal attacks on those who have the opposite view?

This discussion is very one sided, for someone who is undecided (like myself), nothing I've read has compelled me to side with the pro SSM side.

So rather than making comments about who should or shouldn't be in the Royal Tyrell Museum (a fantastic place by the way!) and attacking the other side, please articulate your argument in a logical manner.

Derry McKinney

#32

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Quote:

What is the Conservative position?

What Harper has said in public is that he would restrict marriage to being between one man and one woman. Since courts in eight jusrisdictions have found that definition to be unconstitutional, Harper would have to invoke Notwithstanding.

What Harper has said in public, alnog with what you found on the CPC site is the cleaned up for public consumption version.

The Conservatives have a very long history of being anti-gay. Some of their MPs have even said that they would outlaw homosexuality if it was up to them. Harper himself has stated that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice".

If you go conservative web-sites you will see a lot of gay-bashing, much of which comes very close to being hate speech. While such sites do not set official policy, they do give a very clear view of what the party faithful are thinking and saying. It's a good way to get to know a party from the inside out without joining.

Quote:

This discussion is very one sided, for someone who is undecided (like myself), nothing I've read has compelled me to side with the pro SSM side.

There are those judges that sent Harper the letter on constitutionality and there are the rulings in those eight jurisdictions.

If you want reasons why you should side with SSM, consider this. What if it was your son or daughter who was being deprived of the right to marry?

It isn't like SSM affects anyone not joining in on one, so why would we stop it? Because we don't agree with what they do in bed? That's none of our business.

Jay

#33

Re: RE: Is the Conservatives'

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Cosmo

As for Jay's comment ... perhaps I am confused (it is early in the day), but isn't that the point? That the existing laws are, indeed, unconstitutional?

If this is the case, then why didn't the supream coart say so?

That's their job.

Cosmo

#34

Re: RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitution

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by DasFX

This discussion is very one sided, for someone who is undecided (like myself), nothing I've read has compelled me to side with the pro SSM side.

So, if I understand correctly, your personal "default" button resets to a prejudicial view of SSM? I observe this because your comments suggest you side with the school of Harper.

Again, I ask: Why is this an issue for people? Why would anyone choose to stop two same sex people from marrying? If you leave religious rhetoric out of the equation, what remains?

You say you are undecided. What would make you decide against SSM? Or, conversely, what would make you a supporter? How do you personally rationalize who should or should not do a thing?

It's an honest question, DasFX ... understanding how people draw their conclusions fascinates me. I honestly do not comprehend why people are against SSM. If you don't want to marry someone of your gender, feel free not to. Since I do want to marry someone of my gender, why should I not be allowed?

Cosmo

#35

Re: RE: Is the Conservatives'

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

[If this is the case, then why didn't the supream coart say so?

That's their job.

Geez, Jay, that's the ten dollar question, isn't it? I submit that perhaps the law makers are fallible. Perhaps the original laws were created from a narrower view. The view has changed. Before 1929 women were not allowed to vote. That has changed. SSM is just another step in the same progression toward an equal society.

You may want to take a tour through this website ... illustrates my point that laws are not always correct.

Jay

#36

RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

The Supreme Court isn't a law maker. They either uphold laws, or declare the law as unconstitutional.

Derry McKinney

#37

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Quote:

If this is the case, then why didn't the supream coart say so?

That's their job.

Because they were never asked. A case has never gone before them, it was provincial and territorial courts that struck down the existing law in their jurisdictions.

Most legal experts agree that the present law in unconstitutional though, so it is extremely unlikely that it would hold up at the Supreme Court level.

Jay

#38

RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Martin outright asked them, and they declined.

They had no problem saying the church would be protected from any one forcing them to perform a SSM, so its not as if they won't comment on constitution matters when asked. They even went so far as to say, any introduction of SSM into the current definition would not produce an unconstitutional definition.

Derry McKinney

#39

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

They declined because a case had not come before them to be argued.

The questions they answered were on the proposed legislation, which Martin sent to them to be sure that it would withstand legal challenges.

Jay

#40

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Sort of....

4) Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage constitutional?

The Supreme Court declined to answer the question of whether the opposite-sex requirement for marriage is consistent with s. 15 of the Charter, as answering the question “serves no legal purpose” (para. 65). The government had already clearly indicated that it accepted the lower court rulings and intended to proceed with legislation allowing same-sex marriage. There was “no precedent for answering a reference question” (para. 6

that has already been answered by the lower courts and relied upon by “thousands of couples” (para. 67). In the Court’s view, “uniformity of the law is essential”. It would be preferable for Parliament to legislate to achieve uniformity of the law, as that is “the very reason that Parliament was accorded legislative competence in respect of marriage” in the Constitution. If the Court answered this question, it could undermine the government’s own stated goal of providing access to civil marriage across Canada and risk creating legal confusion (paras. 69 and 70).

--

Derry McKinney

#41

RE: Is the Conservatives'

May 27th, 2005

Isn't that what I just said? "They declined because a case had not come before them to be argued," is the same as, "There was no precedent for answering a reference question."

Jay

#42

RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

There appears to me to be more than that, by the quote I posted.

Jay

#43

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Since many on the left around here like to call on the "hate laws" and since Mods around here arn't likly to pick up on this sort of behavior, I thought I would mention what is really happening here.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoisonPete2

However, at some point these religious groups may be seen as spreading hate against individuals. We have laws against such activity.

Quote: Originally Posted by Derry McKinney

maybe we should buy some lions....

Quote: Originally Posted by Derry McKinney

Time to buy lions?

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

Lions and a whole lot of Prozac, most likely...unsedated, I don't think they'll go too willingly...

Some of these posts are calling for Christians to be thrown to the lions, meaning these posts are calling for the death of (in part or in whole) Christians. I say Christians for two reasons: 1.) They represent the largest religious group (or groups) in Canada. 2.) The historical context of using lions (by the Romans) to kill Christians.

Hate Propaganda

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Aren't stupid laws fun?

Derry McKinney

#44

RE: Is the Conservatives'

May 27th, 2005

We're just looking for fresh meat for our prospective pets, Jay.

Jay

#45

RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Tell that to the judge.

DasFX

#46

Re: RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitution

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Cosmo

Quote: Originally Posted by DasFX
This discussion is very one sided, for someone who is undecided (like myself), nothing I've read has compelled me to side with the pro SSM side.
So, if I understand correctly, your personal "default" button resets to a prejudicial view of SSM? I observe this because your comments suggest you side with the school of Harper.

Again, I ask: Why is this an issue for people? Why would anyone choose to stop two same sex people from marrying? If you leave religious rhetoric out of the equation, what remains?

You say you are undecided. What would make you decide against SSM? Or, conversely, what would make you a supporter? How do you personally rationalize who should or should not do a thing?

It's an honest question, DasFX ... understanding how people draw their conclusions fascinates me. I honestly do not comprehend why people are against SSM. If you don't want to marry someone of your gender, feel free not to. Since I do want to marry someone of my gender, why should I not be allowed?

One of the arguments against it has been about where does one draw the line? What if someone wants to marry their brother or sister, or his or her pet dog? How can one prohibit this when you look at the charter? How about polygamy? These are the arguments from the conservatives, how do you respond?

Vanni Fucci

Free Thinker

#47

Re: RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitution

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by DasFX

Quote: Originally Posted by CosmoQuote: Originally Posted by DasFXThis discussion is very one sided, for someone who is undecided (like myself), nothing I've read has compelled me to side with the pro SSM side.So, if I understand correctly, your personal "default" button resets to a prejudicial view of SSM? I observe this because your comments suggest you side with the school of Harper.
Again, I ask: Why is this an issue for people? Why would anyone choose to stop two same sex people from marrying? If you leave religious rhetoric out of the equation, what remains?
You say you are undecided. What would make you decide against SSM? Or, conversely, what would make you a supporter? How do you personally rationalize who should or should not do a thing?
It's an honest question, DasFX ... understanding how people draw their conclusions fascinates me. I honestly do not comprehend why people are against SSM. If you don't want to marry someone of your gender, feel free not to. Since I do want to marry someone of my gender, why should I not be allowed?One of the arguments against it has been about where does one draw the line? What if someone wants to marry their brother or...
Quote has been trimmed

DasFX

#48

Re: RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitution

May 27th, 2005

Sanguinity, the marrying of one's immediate sibling is prohibited under the Marriage Act. Also, incest is prohibited under Section 155 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Polygamy is prohibited under Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada

...and you didn't mention pedophilia, but it too is prohibited under Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

**************************

Could these laws (aside from pedophilia) not be overturned through a constitutional challenge along the same lines as SSM.

What real basis do we have in prohibiting sanguinity and polygamy.

The same arguement could be made. If you don't want to marry your brother or have 3 wives, you don't have to, but for people that want to, they should be allowed.

I'm not adovating these points or retorts, just playing both sides.

The Philosopher

#49

RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

On top of that gay marriage could be added to the criminal code. IF, it is added to the criminal code then does it not fall under the same types of arguments as sanguinity and polygamy. The Conservative argument IS a viable one that is yet to be defeated.

The reason is in the nature of it. This argument deals with potentiality instead of actuality. IF I wanted to marry more than one partner than I could go to the constitution and show how my belief in bigamy is protected there (religious beliefs). Purely based on the constitution I could say it is justified.

The Conservative speakers I have met haven't been necessarily bigots but fear other things they value. Whether gays get married isn't completely their concern. Sure it may be spin but it is no good to create a useless law. Instituting gay marriage is a useless law. IF they have the right to marry by the courts then the courts will continue to marry them. If gay marriage is made legal then churches will still refuse them.

Legislation has to be made so that churches that do not wish to marry gays do not have to and those (I believe there are like 6 of them) who do want to can marry them.

I've felt in the last year or so the Liberal Party having so little credibility left has decided to rest on old conservatives stigmas of intollerance. I mean the moment one member called Belinda Stronach a political ***** they called the party mysogynous even though they have female members.

Cathou

#50

Re: RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitution

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by DasFX

Sanguinity, the marrying of one's immediate sibling is prohibited under the Marriage Act. Also, incest is prohibited under Section 155 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Polygamy is prohibited under Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada

...and you didn't mention pedophilia, but it too is prohibited under Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

**************************

Could these laws (aside from pedophilia) not be overturned through a constitutional challenge along the same lines as SSM.

What real basis do we have in prohibiting sanguinity and polygamy.

The same arguement could be made. If you don't want to marry your brother or have 3 wives, you don't have to, but for people that want to, they should be allowed.

I'm not adovating these points or retorts, just playing both sides.

isnt that exactly why SSM is different ? homosexuality as far as know is not a criminal act, pedophilia, incest, zoophilia and polygamy are... and for me you cant try to compare homosexual marriage with either zoophilia and pedophilia, the main difference is that it's still between 2 granting adults. and it's a huge difference...

Knightman

#51

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

The conservitive mind and the religious may have thier say all they want but they have no right to force by setting into legislation thier paticular view of a lifestyle choice. None whatsoever.

(fictitious example)

If my boyfriend and I (male) want to continue living togeather after we met at the local S&M club several years ago and he still wants to maintian a relationship with his girlfriend (actually female)which I am cool with who by the way is now pregnant with my child which occured one night at the same club and we like to hang out on the local clothing optional beach and smoke bongs all day.

That is our bussiness and no one else's so long as our lifestyle choice is not inflected on anyone else.

(end of fictitious example).

Everyone should have the right to do what they want, when they want and how they want so long as those choices to not affect another individual, period.

It would be nice if people would simply lighen up a bit on some of these issues.................

peapod

#52

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Well you would be wrong there. I think the child would be effected. Please you know dam well most people do not live like that, but use the blunt tool, its all you have.
I can tell you horror stories about nice middle class hetrosexuals that molest their childern, I can even tell you what some priests have done. I hope your attempt to vilify a group of people makes you feel good.

Azalie

#53

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Hard-Luck Henry

This reminds me of Martin Niemoller's lines about moral failure in the face of the Holocaust. It's sadly become a little cliche, but if we aren't prepared to stand up for the rights others, we can't expect others to stand up for us:

'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'

Did somebody mention free booze? :P

Which also reminds me of a lyric from "Ich Bin Ein Auslander" by Pop Will Eat Itself:

"And when they come to ethnically cleanse me, will you speak out, will you defend me? Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright. Trampled underfoot by the rise of the right."

I realise that's more about genocide, but I see it as a statement against any form of discrimination as well, and the need for all to stand up and speak out against it. It's not okay to turn a blind eye to issues that affect people and their lives. If it was happening to you, could you pretend not to care? I think not.

Derry McKinney

#54

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Quote:

Could these laws (aside from pedophilia) not be overturned through a constitutional challenge along the same lines as SSM.

What real basis do we have in prohibiting sanguinity and polygamy.

Gays are a recognised minority that has been discriminated against. The others in the examples aren't, with the exception of religious groups that believe in polygamy.

In those cases, the minority is not being deprived of the same rights as the majority...they can marry one person.

Cosmo

#55

Re: RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitution

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by DasFX

One of the arguments against it has been about where does one draw the line? What if someone wants to marry their brother or sister, or his or her pet dog? How can one prohibit this when you look at the charter? How about polygamy? These are the arguments from the conservatives, how do you respond?

Puleeeeeze. The question is whether same sex couples can get married. The old straw man argument of drawing in all the other possibilites is not only getting tired, it was absurd in the first place.

But for those who choose to cling like barnacles to their bigotry, any misdirection can serve as an anchor.

Besides, if you want to marry your brother, sister or pet ferret, I say go to it. Who am I to decide? And don't trot out that old saw about procreating monsters. That argument doesn't hold water. If that is in any way a question, then every person need be tested before having babies to ensure they don't carry some weird recessive elephant man gene or something.

Again, I ask: What is it to you? How does my ability to marry a woman in any way infringe upon your right to marry who you choose?

The problem I keep running up against is that I have yet to get a direct answer from anyone opposed to SSM. No one can give me a reason why it should not be supported.

Cosmo

#56

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Azalie ... hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the quote for my sig.

Azalie

#57

Re: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitutional?

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Cosmo

Azalie ... hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the quote for my sig. :)

Hey, I don't mind at all. :)

Azalie

#58

Re: RE: Is the Conservatives' Position on SSM Unconstitution

May 27th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by DasFX

Sanguinity, the marrying of one's immediate sibling is prohibited under the Marriage Act. Also, incest is prohibited under Section 155 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Polygamy is prohibited under Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada

...and you didn't mention pedophilia, but it too is prohibited under Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

**************************

Could these laws (aside from pedophilia) not be overturned through a constitutional challenge along the same lines as SSM.

Except that same-sex marriage is not against the law, and those other forms are. Allowing same-sex marriage on a political level is not the same as it is on a legal level. There are churches which have already married same-sex couples, but those couples are not recognised by the government as being wed, and thus do not receive the tax benefits and other benefits that they would if they were a different-sex couple.

The debate on same-sex marriage, as I see it, can go one of two ways at this point: it can either be fully recognised by the government and allow same sex married couples to gain the political recognition they desire (and, in my opinion, deserve), or it can be outlawed and banned, as with the other potential forms of marriage.

A third possibility, but one which doesn't really let the matter move, is to let it stagnate and hope it goes away.

Please let us not forget that there was a lot of protest to treating people with darker skins as equals. There was protest to allowing women to vote. There was protest to allowing women to work. There was protest to allowing women to be ministers (and probably still is, but there are women ministers). There was protest and outrage at any form of homosexuality or, god forbid acceptance of it, in popular media. Today, do we think twice about any of this? No one says much about Ellen Degeneres these days and Will & Grace is a popular show despite the fact that one of the two main characters is an openly homosexual male.

We have come this far in accepting others. Why should we not allow same-sex couples to marry? No one says that you, as a person, (rhetorical you, not specifically you) will be *forced* to marry a same-sex partner, you won't be *forced* to accept it if someone in your family chooses to marry a same-sex partner, and it will in no way undermine any marriage you (again, rhetorical) may have with a different-sex partner.

Again, I point out that same-sex couples have already been wed in Canada. It's completely legal. They just don't have any official standing at a government level that different-sex wed couples have, and the benefits that go along with it.

I don't see a problem with allowing them the same rights as different-sex couples. Do you?

Jo Canadian