Conservative Position on Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional?

My goodness, DasFX ... this is one of those times when I realize you must be young. Maybe Pea and I are old enough to be your grannies!

There are tons of studies on this topic. Both Italian researchers and researchers from the University of Padua (Muslim) have found genetic links. Here is another interesting link on the topic:
--

The only people out there who "act gay" that I have ever encountered are people who are on a quest for their own sexual identity. This generally means young people who may be testing the waters. Being Lesbian became somewhat chic in recent years, but there is a vast difference between dabblers and people whose identity is inherently homosexual. I don't know of one single person who has opted to live a committed homosexual lifestyle who is not gay. It's irrational to think that anyone would choose a difficult path if they had a choice. Rather than swimming upstream for no apparent reason, it's much saner to invest ones energy into other pursuits.

A most interesting link is:--

If you're truly interested in the scientific aspect of homosexuality, there is an abundance of information available. I can provide you with unlimited links.

Of course. Religion is discrimination (ancient tradition) and it has special constitutional rights to allow normal laws around discrimination to be avoided: like not allowing women to sit on some god organization's board of directors, run a franchise/branch outlet on her own or even deliver the services -- which no real business would get away with.

But it's the whole point. If we allow that (and we not only do, but guarantee it right in the Charter) then when a religious organization does something that other religious organizations don't happen to like -- too bad for them.

This is a constitutional religous rights issue. Same-sex marriage is beside the point. A religious organization started marrying same-sex couples. It's wasn't the decision of some mayor, like in San Francisco.

If Toronto's mayor had declared that same-sex marriage was okay (it's what happened around what's called "alternative punishment" for posession of an ounce of pot or less, totally at the discretion of the Toronto police force as to whether you get busted for trafficking or get a ticket: not tying our courts up over nothing and paying more taxes instead of wasting them; but there's a lot more to it than that, the usual around Toronto, insane tax plundering -- which is improving very moderately, finally, due to the "deal with the Devil" who happens to be from Toronto, that may still not only be defeated by the christian rural bible thumping alliance but crash the government so that we can GET RID OF THEM and vote in a "liberal" majority for the unbelievable stupidity of the Harperites) and then Toronto city hall had married same-sex couples and then others in south Ontario wanted the same in their towns and were denied so took it to court and set a precedent for Ontario, it'd be a totally different story.

And it seems to be the story; nothing to do with Toronto but totally skipping how this all started. The United Church of Canada, one of the outlets in Toronto (Layton's district, Toronto-Danforth), married same-sex couples, maybe six of them in one ceremony and it was all over the news.

THEN they went to city hall to get the legal end of their licenses registered and were denied due to the 1867 definition of marriage, that doesn't know anything about the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The 1982 constitution conflicts with lots of things in the 1867 constitution.

And city hall, whichever one it was, did the right thing. It's up to the courts to interpret laws and make judgements on them; not city halls. Half of one of the couples happened to be a constitutional lawyer, took the case to the highest court in Ontario, the Ontario Court of Appeals, presented his case, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes it airtight, there is no legal argument against it, which has been proven quite amply, right up to three days of every possible issue being thrown at the Supreme Court of Canada (because the Minister of Justice was smart and asked the most qualified lawyers in the country, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada for advice: there's no point in bothering with legislation if the Supreme Court is going to rule it as being unconstitutional) and over many hours in three sessions on three separate days, the Supreme Court heard every argument around, but it's not a church.

Courts don't make laws, they just interpret them. The Supreme Court of Canada didn't set a precedent, it wasn't a case, the federal government/Dept. of Justice asked questions and the Supreme Court heard all arguments and found that it's constitutional for same-sex couples to marry and is unconstititional to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

But if this gets screwed up by the christian evangelical rural freak party, the United Church of Canada will be sueing the federal government over violation of their religious rights, and they'll win. There's no possible way they can lose unless all religious rights are taken away by amending the Charter and removing freedom of conscience and religion. Then no religious group will be able to discriminate and the United Church of Canada will still be able to marry same-sex couples.

Women will start sueing other religious groups, they'll have to abide by normal laws of discrimination and they won't be able to discriminate against anyone.

As in, if the reform-alliance is stupid enough to defeat this, we can start sueing every religious organization around, citing the discrimination against the United Church of Canada: whilch will NOT be discriminating, it'll be the only religious organization around that isn't and everything else will be forced to stop all discrimination "we" don't like, in all kinds of various "we's" in many majorities until every religious group is doing what we want, is decorated in a "non-offensive manner" to us, is playing music that doesn't offend "us", is marrying same-sex couples -- they'll discriminate themselves into oblivion. It'll open the door to use their own discrimination against them.

But Harper is a really smart rural hick, along with all of the christian reform-alliance rural freaks. They can't even do basic math. And just like the Harper harping away about over 2 million pages of documentation/financial records collected by forensic accountants (which I'm sure he's read and totally understands ) around the Quebec marketing campaign, Harper trying to play lawyer with no legal education/experience and flopping on his face as a result, he's too stupid to understand what'll happen if "Parliament" <gag> tries to overrule not just same-sex marriage but the whole Charter of Rights and Freedoms and particuarly freedom of religion.

Right and that's the whole point. Not whether it should or shouldn't be, it is and is going to stay that way until someone incredibly stupid spits all over freedom of religion in a hopeless attempt to "ban" the constitution; I mean same-sex marriage.

Then, religious discrimination (which is entirely subjective; other religious groups think that same-sex marriage is not only discriminatory but an insult to their marriage profits, I mean "values" and marketing and such) will be up for grabs. They'll have to abide by normal anti-discrimination laws after they get their asses sued off. With any luck, class action suits, they'll all go bankrupt.

But it's kinda hard to argue live and let live, tolerance, while trying to force beliefs about what "discrimination" amounts to around private organizations. Lots of restaurants won't let you in if you're not wearing the "proper attire." Discrimination? Who put a gun to your head and forced you to go a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, "high class" (class system discrimination) restaurant/hotel/whatever, and why should people who don't have as much money have to sit in cramped seats in the back of airliners?

It's discrimination. Why should only "rich people" get to sit in "first class" with lots of room, much better service ... discrimination is everywhere if it's turned into a religion to be taken literally around everything.

It costs more money to put fewer seats into an airliner or anything else, to provide more room. it costs more money for better food and wine (which is totally subjective; better to whom?) and a totally different (and much more expensive) interior design than McDonald's, at a "nicer" (more expensive) restaurant.

You don't have any right to discriminate either. If you want to open a "high class" restaurant with expensive everything, no dress code, charge McDonald's prices and have constuction workers covered in crap sitting on your nice $500 chairs, then go it -- and go bankrupt.

Just because you (and/or I and maybe we could even find 100 other people) happen to think that something is discriminatory doesn't make it so. Same-sex marriage is very offensive to some people and they don't know that they're discriminating and you'll never convince them that they are: which is why we have courts and laws. Tolerance has to work in all directions: or you'd be discriminating by forcing your beliefs on others. You think you're right, but so does everyone else. Whatever anyone believes, it's true. To them.

The United Church of Canada cannot be singled out and discriminated against; but for that to work, no other religious group can be either. I'm aware that religious groups get to "be discriminating" and am aware that every private organization does the same. Try getting a job as the receptionist of a major corporate head office, first impression aside from the money spent on the entrance, being obese, missing teeth, not knowing how to dress, taking showers once a month, brushing your teeth twice a year -- looking, sounding and smelling like a homeless slob. I wouldn't hire anyone like that to make the first impression clients get, aside from the entrance/decor, which would be a waste of money if a repuslive slob ended up greeting everyone.

I don't have the right to get married (and certainly not while already being married, heterosexual) at a Greek Orthodox church: I'm not Greek Orthodox. If that's their policy, then it is. And I take my business elsewhere and won't waste any energy holding a grudge for nothing.

People who go to specific god buildings expect specific things. If they don't get them, they don't show up. It's like any other marketing. You don't have to invite someone into your home just because they knock on the door. If you want them off your property, you have the right to discriminate. Freedom of association.

A convenience store doesn't have to carry steaks just because you want it to. It doesn't have to allow you inside if the proprietor doesn't want you inside, or outside if it's private property.

So why should religious groups that don't agree with same-sex marriage or homosexuals period (or a military) "have to" allow them in? It's private property, not a public park. They provide the services that their clients expect. If you're not in their target market then you're not: and it applies to everything.

The "new conservatives" (rural socialist losers) wrote in their election platform last year that they would ignore the Supreme Court of Canada around Charter issues.

No one has to "think" about it. They put it in writing. It's only the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Supreme Court of Canada, who cares about that? I don't know how stupid they think we are but I really think it's more of a case of them being stupid rural hicks.

Layton's opening remarks when "parliament" <gag> started, was about the (United) church in his riding that chose to marry same-sex couples and what a great day it was for Canada.

I don't know who these reform freaks think they're messing with, but we'll disband the whole insult to the word "structure" and "systems" if they screw this up. They're sitting right on our land, not in a legal District or anything else and the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor had 63.17% of the GDP of the Canadas, pays out 70% of all confederate revenues on average, has almost 60% of the population of Canada in it, same-sex marriage is already legal in Ontario, specific legislation to make it so while the worthless confederates (due to the worthless christian rural alliance) all provincial laws have been changed and nothing is going to change it back.

If backwards hick provices like Alberta want to use the notwithstanding clause they can go ahead. But no one and nothing is telling us what to do. Where's that emoticon self-righteous (so oblivious) Albertans use to end posts with ...

I see 4 couples today went to court in New Brunswick to legalize it. The judge will give her decision next week

Also the first same sex divorce in BC was granted today

Around which issue in which post? Same-sex marriage is constitutional without question, denying marriage (not civil union or any other label) to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, without question.

But freedoms are freedoms and no one/nothing should be forced to be involved in anything that is against his or her beliefs, or it's discrimination against them.

Religious rights (freedom of conscience and religion) have to apply to all.

The United Church of Canada cannot be discriminated against, singled out and told what it won't do anymore than another religious group should be forced to marry same-sex couples or do anything else that would interfere with their freedom of conscience/religion.

All sides. It has to be that way or something is going to be discriminating ... which means that religion has to stay out of civil affairs. We cannot have a political party, certainly not at the federal level, not in this secular country, with a christian evangelical leader and calling themselves "conservatives" and "right" based on religious discrimination. Leave that up to Jesusland. Canada is comparable to the Netherlands (Holland) with regard to secularism, which is more than just separation of Church from State, let alone legislated. It's real, it's what the majority of Canadians expect from their political leaders -- no talk about gods or "morality" based on religious discrimination.

Does this mean the polygamist community in Boutiful BC (and Colorado City USA for those of us in the U.S.) will finally have the charter of rights and freedoms apply to them as well? Last I checked they are a minority.

Ah Ranger, what can easily be called Jesusland can accurately refer to Islam land, and Budhist land, Hinduism land and every other land with the exception of Canada, Holland and Massachussets.

What you define as majority is astonishingly a minority in the world community as has been the case with the US led war in Iraq.

A majority does not mean it is correct, it only means it is "acceptable" by the law of the land.

What Canada, Holland and Massachussets have done is an attempt to force society to be educated via law. It's a good beginning, now society as a whole will judge.

interesting new, seems that SSM will probably stay in quebec no matter what. André Boiclair just announce that he will take his chance for successing landry in the PQ and he have very good chance to succeed. and since he's openly homosexual, i guess that if he win the next election, even if bill C-38 dont pass he will probably do something about it...

It looks like they will be sitting until it passes. The Bloc and NDP are for it and 30 liberals and Harperites are against it. So it will pass fairly easy.

Can we quote that enough?
Thanks Derry, it feels like a brand new day!!

We want to be able to defend our race as a moral race.
Religion, is starting to being seen as a problem more and more. Morality means allowing religious practise, but then religion [the religious] turn around and tries to take away the freedoms of certain groups. Its like being tolerant of a bully - we want to include them and be nice to them, but boy they mnake it hard to do that.

If they had a practise that didn't reach out into the "rest of the world" as so many religions have in their doctrines, there would not be a problem. But thats a right too I guess - I am certainly asking everyone to 'do what I want', and so others can have that right also.

Something different about religion though, is that its based on FAITH and not fact, which leads to political actions, even military actions, in the name of that faith. I am speaking of both Christianty and Islam here. Asking 'everyone' to participate in that violence, or be call un-patriotic, is typical of the manipulation based on faith....

Lets continue to separate religion and politics, a movement that was nearly complete 20 years ago in the western world, and only brought back recently, esp with GW Bush using/fooling christians to get elected.

NOTTINGHAM, England - The U.S. Episcopal Church on Tuesday defended its decision to ordain an openly gay bishop, refusing to back down from a confrontation that threatens to split the 77 million-strong Anglican Communion.

Bishop Suffragan Catherine Roskam of New York told the Anglican Consultative Council that the church believed "a person living in a same-gendered union may be eligible to lead the flock of Christ."

In February, leaders of the 38 national Anglican churches chastised the U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, asking them not to attend this week's meeting of the Consultative Council, an international body of bishops, priests and lay people that meets every three years.

But Anglican leaders also asked the North American churches to send representatives to explain the theological reasoning behind the consecration of V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, and the decision by the western Canadian diocese of New Westminster to authorize the blessing of same-sex unions.

Official church policy declares gay sex "incompatible with Scripture" and opposes gay ordinations and same-sex blessings.

"Our actions around the question of homosexuality have deeply distressed a number of you," acknowledged Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, head of the Episcopal Church.

"(We) recognize that the Episcopal Church has not reached a common mind on the matter of homosexuality," he added. However, he said, "the overwhelming majority of Episcopalians are committed to living a life of unity in difference."

The U.S. church laid out its position in a 130-page document, "To Set Our Hope on Christ." It argued that "members of the Episcopal Church have discerned holiness in same-sex relationships and have come to support the blessing of such unions and the ordination or consecration of persons in those unions."

In this, the document said, Episcopalians were in a theological tradition of debate and difference stretching back to the early Christians.

"We believe that God has been opening our eyes to acts of God that we had not known how to see before," said the document, prepared by a committee of theologians.

Conservative Anglicans, however, accused Episcopal Church leaders of ignoring the views of many members of their flock.

"We're up against a winner-takes-all approach that does not brook any dissent and will slowly but surely stifle it," said Chris Sugden, leader of the traditionalist Anglican Mainstream group.

Addressing the Nottingham gathering Monday, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams acknowledged that the North American churches' actions had caused "outrage and hurt" among many Anglicans.

"We can't ignore the seriousness of what divides us," he said. "But if there is no easy solution, and there is not, we can at least think about this simple suggestion. If it is difficult for us to stand together at the Lord's Table as we might wish, can we continue to be friends?"

That may prove difficult. The issue of homosexuality has opened a rift between Anglican liberals — many of them in North America — and conservatives, who are strongest in Africa and Asia. Many fear it cannot be bridged.

The six-member U.S. presentation team includes one bishop who voted against Robinson's ordination, Charles Jenkins, and another who backed him after expressing doubts, Neil Alexander.

In a letter issued to U.S. bishops on Friday, Griswold said the delegation "indicates that those of differing points of view can live with mutual affection and make common cause in the service of Christ's mission."

But the conservative American Anglican Council said the composition of the group "represents a revisionist theology and radical wing of the Episcopal Church."

Unifiers fear conservatives will set up parallel structures to bypass the church hierarchy, a move that could speed a permanent split.

"What I hope for is an understanding that the grace of God allows us to live together in fellowship, accepting that we may disagree strongly on certain things," said Tony Fitchett, a lay council member from New Zealand. "I'm an optimist by nature."

Of course it is unconstitutional, to deny anyone or any group equal rights is unconstitutional, aside from criminal gangs, and those who operate outside of the laws of Canada.
The Churches are also engaging in a way that denies people their basic rights. God didn't say, everyone but gays are welcome to go to church. In fact you would think the churches would reach out to those they consider to be such sinners, the way their leader did.
The problem with many church goers today is that they feel they are above everyone else, and if you don't subscribe to their beliefs you are not going to heaven, you can't be a good Christian, or follower of the particular faith in question.
Muslims are being put down for being to rigid, too fundamentalist, too narrow in their view. Well what about the fundamentalist Christians? Are they not just as rigid, are they not abiding by a very narrow view, and who are they to judge who is and is not going heaven? Didn't Christ himself say, Judge not lest ye be judged.

Yeah but the hard liners only quote scriptures that are conveinent to them. But you know they are rightous and "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." Ps.92:12:

Oh no hang on maybe not: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."Isa.57:1:

I dunno all the scripture and bible contridictions really confuse me.