Conservative Position on Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional?

I posted the following letter some time ago, but it did not illicit the meaningful debate that I had hoped. In posting it again, I would hope that the "C"onservatives on this board, rather than claim they hadn't seen the post, will defend their party's, and their own position on this matter.

Please register to see links

Let the debate begin!

In my opinion that forbidding homosexuals the same rights to have their unions recognized as being as legitimate and important as the unions of straight couples is clearly a violation of equality rights under s. 7 of the Charter There is no room for fancy-dancing about it. It doesn't matter one whit that "sexual orientation" is not specifically listed in that section, the section clearly states that the guaretee of freedom from discrimination is not limited to the reasons for discrimination that are listed.

Sexual orientation is protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act...

Please register to see links

Let's face it, the Conservatives think that gays and lesbians are subhuman and therefore are only entitled to sub-marriages. That backwards, bigotted view comes through in the rhetoric of they have spewed through three name changes.

What the Conservatives are proposing under Harper's plan is unconstitutional and inhuman. More than that, it's stupid.

Any service or law eminating from the Federal Government must be unbiased. This does not force religious groups to impliment gay marriage within the framework of their rites. However, at some point these religious groups may be seen as spreading hate against individuals. We have laws against such activity. Perhaps it is time to reappraise the favoured status of these religious groups.

maybe we should buy some lions....

Perhaps it is that time Pete...

Time to buy lions?

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

His views on SSM are racist and bigoted. He is a neanderthal, who belongs in the Royal Tyrell Museum (in Drumheller Alberta) as an exibit piece.

I don;t think that's fair to the dinosaur fossils, No1. They are so much more progressive than Harper and his ites.

One thing that keeps pleasantly surprising me is the number of straight people who are so vocal about SSM issues. Being so adamant about equality without a personal stake in the issue is the kind of support that does some real good. I can talk forever about SSM rights, but I am a dyke who wants to get married so people see my views as biased.

Just wanted to say thanks. Yer awesome.

No problem, Cosmo. I think we do have a personal stake though. Not as personal as yours, maybe, and we'll never know what it's like to be gay.

If we let somebody make you a little less human, we all become a little less human though. I think we're beginning to figure that out on some level as a society.

I find it hard to add anything to Derry's commentary, other than that if we are to strive for a free and just society, then we must eradicate the prejudices of our mothers and fathers, and acknowledge that all are equally worthy of being treated with dignity and respect.

Which may just be redundant to what Derry said anyway...

Plus booze is usually free at weddings, so we want to encourage as many weddings as possible.

Agreed... :P

Most welcome.

Although I am a person with a disability (or 3), so issues of equality in general are rather personal for me.

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

I've noticed that there is a vote for the "No" side, but we've yet to hear from a voice from the right, in defense of the Conservatives' stance...

Was the poll question not clear enough?

It seems no-one wants to attempt to 'defend the indefensible'.

Yeah, now that Johnny Cochrane's pushing up daisies... :P

...but now then there's Mesereau...

*********GROUP HUG********************

Where are you getting those icons What happened to the guy that was in your avatar?

I've scoured the net for a smiley for every occasion...

...and Cosmo convinced me that it was time for my avatar to receive a face lift... :P

I have a program called "Smiley Extra" that has 100's of smileys.

Please register to see links

Please register to see links

It only works on firefox though.

I like the new one. You could also have used blake's Vanni Fucci 'Making Figs' Against God, which shows you making your obscene and blasphemous gestures. I'm a big fan of Blake but, unfortunately, he's not a big fan of Vanni Fucci. Here you are shown with fire raining down on you, whilst being attacked by serpents. It's seems there's trouble ahead for you, Mr Fucci.

[img][/img]

Yeah...I'm a big fan of Blake too, and I tried to use his Fucci as an avatar, but once I sized it down to 100 x 100, you could no longer see any of the detail...and for that reason, I found it more depressing than anything...

As to the troubles ahead, well, I guess not every day can be sunshine and roses...

OK. So if what Harper is proposing is unconstitutional, that would mean that the current law is unconstitutional.

Actually, Vanni, I quite liked your other avatar. Very mysterious! And ya gotta love those smilies!

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?

I see the whole thing as dragging our laws out of the dark ages and into reality. As the separation of church and state widens (yay!), the laws need be updated to reflect that. The definition of marriage that worked even 10 years ago no longer applies as society en masse becomes enlightened. Much like the American removal of slavery laws.

I'm still very confused about why it is such a big deal to some people. What, truly, does it matter to anyone if I marry another woman? How does it affect anyone on a personal level? Sure they may have to examine their own bigotry and find ways to pass this new knowledge down through generations, but what is it in people that makes them so reluctant to do that?

To cite religious reasoning is not even worthy of argument. Not everyone follows the bible. To assume so is the height of arrogance. So aside from religious basis, why would anyone have a problem with SSM???? I don't get it.