Canadians Moving to the US
- Thread starter mattmoses
- Start date
I don't know that I could be accused of treating anyone as second class...however, I do get tired of all the whining about how much money Alberta sends to Ottawa, and how they'd be better off separating or joining with the States...I get even more tired of how people in Alberta insist that integration with the US is in our best interests...but more than anything I'm tired of people from Alberta treating those of us who live elsewhere like welfare recipients...
It's a religious tradition and you would deny others their rights to maintain it.
Harper clearly stated that he would do away with it.
He has steadfastly refused to say that they would not, even when asked directly.
His policy, if you can call it that, on SSM would clearly make gays and lesbians into second class citizens by denying them the same rights as other Canadians. He also never disciplined the yahoos who said they would like to outlaw homosexuality.
Reverend Blair said:
Actually, I'd like to interject here...
The institution of marriage transcends religion, and has always been a legally binding contract. Religious organizations wrapped the intitution in ceremony, and called it their own. So, in fact, the only right they have to marriage is the ceremonial aspect of it, which is not the aspect that SSM proponents are fighting for.
"For taxpayers, however, it’s a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That’s why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law."
- Stephen Harper on pay equity, NCC Overview, Fall 1998.
"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."
- Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.
"You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, in Report Newsmagazine, 2001
I think Vanni posted this link a while back, so I will post it again
Very interesting quotes, to say the least.
- Stephen Harper on pay equity, NCC Overview, Fall 1998.
"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."
- Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.
"You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, in Report Newsmagazine, 2001
I think Vanni posted this link a while back, so I will post it again
Very interesting quotes, to say the least.
RE: Canadians Moving to t
Then there were his asinine comments about our bridge here. Way to Stephen...it's the middle of an election campaign and you need votes, so ridicule a landmark that most Winnipeggers not only like, but are proud of.
Then there were his asinine comments about our bridge here. Way to Stephen...it's the middle of an election campaign and you need votes, so ridicule a landmark that most Winnipeggers not only like, but are proud of.
Vanni Fucci said:
The question is in my opinion, is there anything of importance at stake whether or not to recognize gay marriage as a marriage or a civil union.
The fact of the matter is that both a marriage and a civil union offer the benefits, rights and responsibilities conferred on heterosexual marriages.
There is one major difference between the two, civil unions do not come with the social approval and acceptance as marriage does.
Laws serve a greater purpose than just enforcing rules, they are sometimes intended to be educational. If the law allows gay marriages to take place, it will soon become more acceptable and equivalent to heterosexual marriages by society.
The law can help confer "cultural" and "social" legitimacy as well as deny it.
This is merely a phase, being against homosexual marriages should not be taken as someone being homophobic or a bigot. It is simply not common and has no history. This isn't about moving forward or backward, its about change.
Sometimes people can be very frightened of change.
no1important said:
Very interesting policies, to say the least. Obviously, Harper has moderated his stance on these and other issues, something that his opposition said he had to do. Now that he has done this, the comments are that he has a hidden agenda. Hard to win with attitudes like that opposing him.
RE: Canadians Moving to t
The comments reveal a hidden agenda, Blue. He is against the Canada Health Act, but can't say so because people won't for him if he does. Meanwhile two prominent Conservatives are writing anti-health care plans while a third prominent Conservative cheers them on.
He has said nasty things about immigrants, minorities, and non-Alberta parts of Canada, but we're supposed to forget all of that because he didn't really mean it or has changed. Meanwhile people in his party keep saying anti-immigrant things, bitching about the rest of Canada, and showing that they are far less than enlightened when it comes to minorities.
The comments reveal a hidden agenda, Blue. He is against the Canada Health Act, but can't say so because people won't for him if he does. Meanwhile two prominent Conservatives are writing anti-health care plans while a third prominent Conservative cheers them on.
He has said nasty things about immigrants, minorities, and non-Alberta parts of Canada, but we're supposed to forget all of that because he didn't really mean it or has changed. Meanwhile people in his party keep saying anti-immigrant things, bitching about the rest of Canada, and showing that they are far less than enlightened when it comes to minorities.
I think not said:
The other question is should laws be a means of social engineering? If half the people want something and half don't, which is the case at least for this issue, is it right to disregard the half that don't want it, when there is no legal differences between a civil union and a traditional marriage? If the issue was that civil unions would not have the same rights and benefits as a hetero marriage, then I could see the need for change. But given that at least half of the population does not want this, and there are no additional or less legal rights or benefits, then I see no reason to change. This cannot even be argued as the tyranny of the majority, etc.
People are not necessarily afraid of change, but they are resentful of having something forced upon them that brings such a massive change. The supporters of traditional marriage now take massive amounts of abuse from the supporters that verges on hate, which only reinforces the resentment of something they do not support being forced upon them.
It's all a matter of social acceptance. The term civil unions are intended towards being "different". They aren't different. They are human. Your definition of traditional marriage falls into the lines of a religious wedding. States have "borrowed" that phrase from religious insitutions not the other way around. By having homosexual couples getting married in city hall, will not degrade the meaning of marriage, it enhances its definition to become more humane and more acceptable to society.
Vanni put it well, slaves were "tradition", not anymore......
Vanni put it well, slaves were "tradition", not anymore......
RE: Canadians Moving to t
It isn't mandatory, Blue...the change in the law won't require you to marry a man. The half that don't want gay marriage are unaffected by it. That is far different than depriving gays and lesbians, and those that support them, their right to marry whoever they want.
It isn't mandatory, Blue...the change in the law won't require you to marry a man. The half that don't want gay marriage are unaffected by it. That is far different than depriving gays and lesbians, and those that support them, their right to marry whoever they want.
Re: RE: Canadians Moving to t
Gee, I never would have guessed it wasn't mandatory. :roll: :roll: :roll:
On this issue, I am not changing, and I have made my points as to why. I just have more tradition than some of you. But do we really want to divide the country over this? Is this the hill to die on? While I have no doubt that there will be SSM at some time, it must be reflected upon how far the gay community has come, from being jailed for their activities 24 - 30 years ago to recognition of SS unions as being acceptable. The point I was trying to make is that for some, there is always that one more step, that one more concession (and for a lot of people, recognising SS unions is a huge concession, don't marginalize that).To have this appear to be forced upon them is where the backlash starts, and it may not be pretty. It probably won't show up as a violent response, but there may be other ways these people will express their dissatisfaction.
And yes, slavery used to be a tradition and right, but just because the civil war outlawed slavery, it did not immediately end, it took some time. Sometimes you have to take your victories when and where you can, and move to the next level a little slower.
I am sure this will be met with derision, but to ignore the feelings of half the country is, to me, a recipe for a backlash of some sort.
Reverend Blair said:
Gee, I never would have guessed it wasn't mandatory. :roll: :roll: :roll:
On this issue, I am not changing, and I have made my points as to why. I just have more tradition than some of you. But do we really want to divide the country over this? Is this the hill to die on? While I have no doubt that there will be SSM at some time, it must be reflected upon how far the gay community has come, from being jailed for their activities 24 - 30 years ago to recognition of SS unions as being acceptable. The point I was trying to make is that for some, there is always that one more step, that one more concession (and for a lot of people, recognising SS unions is a huge concession, don't marginalize that).To have this appear to be forced upon them is where the backlash starts, and it may not be pretty. It probably won't show up as a violent response, but there may be other ways these people will express their dissatisfaction.
And yes, slavery used to be a tradition and right, but just because the civil war outlawed slavery, it did not immediately end, it took some time. Sometimes you have to take your victories when and where you can, and move to the next level a little slower.
I am sure this will be met with derision, but to ignore the feelings of half the country is, to me, a recipe for a backlash of some sort.
RE: Canadians Moving to t
We are taking this victory, Blue. Judges in eight jurisdictions have said that banning SSM, unions or not, is unconstitutional. As a result the government has passed legislation legalizing SSM. It's in committee right now, but once it leaves committee it will get royal assent.
You won't be forced to marry a man, and your church won't be forced to conduct SSMs. Your traditions will still be yours.
Now can we move onto something important and quit even mentioning "same sex" marriages? They are marriages now. Nothing more, nothing less and no need to put a qualifier on them.
We are taking this victory, Blue. Judges in eight jurisdictions have said that banning SSM, unions or not, is unconstitutional. As a result the government has passed legislation legalizing SSM. It's in committee right now, but once it leaves committee it will get royal assent.
You won't be forced to marry a man, and your church won't be forced to conduct SSMs. Your traditions will still be yours.
Now can we move onto something important and quit even mentioning "same sex" marriages? They are marriages now. Nothing more, nothing less and no need to put a qualifier on them.
bluealberta said:
By this logic then, Abe Lincoln should have held a referendum on the abolition of slavery, and if the No side won, then to hell with the black people...
bluealberta said:
Massive change? How so, blue? How will the fact that same sex couples are conferred the rights to marriage change your life in the least?
Re: RE: Canadians Moving to t
But blue...doesn't it cause you the least bit of shame to know that now you are the one holding the whip?
bluealberta said:
But blue...doesn't it cause you the least bit of shame to know that now you are the one holding the whip?
Re: RE: Canadians Moving to t
There have been three separate articles in newspapers this week that indicate the gay lobby is going after the churches tax exempt status, to the point of wearing buttons that say something like Churches not exempt. And I would not take your victory quite yet, there are still a few liberals that don't want this, and may vote against the budget to have this stopped.
BTW the Supreme court has not ruled, they only gave it back to parliament to decide, so a SC challenge is still possible.
Reverend Blair said:
There have been three separate articles in newspapers this week that indicate the gay lobby is going after the churches tax exempt status, to the point of wearing buttons that say something like Churches not exempt. And I would not take your victory quite yet, there are still a few liberals that don't want this, and may vote against the budget to have this stopped.
BTW the Supreme court has not ruled, they only gave it back to parliament to decide, so a SC challenge is still possible.
Re: RE: Canadians Moving to t
In response:
Ottawa can't ensure religious protection in all same-sex fights: Cotler
OTTAWA -- Liberals will tweak their contentious same-sex marriage bill but can't guarantee ironclad religious protections, admits Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.
Churches won't be forced to perform gay weddings, he says.
But it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away same-sex couples, he conceded Wednesday.
"That's right," Cotler said, when asked if his hands are tied by jurisdictional limits.
Ottawa has the authority to define marriage, but provinces have the power to solemnize weddings.
A range of conflicts has already emerged.
Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for gay celebrations.
Marriage commissioners in several provinces, including Manitoba and B.C., have stepped down after receiving provincial orders to perform same-sex unions against their beliefs.
A couple in Prince Edward Island shut down their bed-breakfast rather than rent a room to a gay couple.
"These are very significant issues," says Conservative justice critic Vic Toews, a vocal opponent of the bill.
"We are opening up a Pandora's box, and this minister has steadfastly refused (to concede) that there are any problems.
"Now, as the evidence is piling up, he's beginning to wake up."
The bill is expected to pass the Commons in a vote as early as next week. It must also clear the Senate which plans to sit into the summer to consider it along with two budget bills.
If it becomes law, Canada would be just the third country in the world after the Netherlands and Belgium to legalize gay marriage.
Toews and other critics say crucial details must be worked out before the bill is enshrined in law.
He says Cotler must "deal with each of the provinces in terms of enacting corresponding legislation that will protect religious organizations and those who object to same-sex marriage for reasons of conscience."
Derek Rogusky, spokesman for Focus on the Family Canada, says those who oppose gay weddings are uneasy.
"Faith-based groups are not all that confident if their rights are going to be left up to the courts," said the senior vice-president of the conservative family values group.
Equality protections tend to trump religious freedoms in legal fights over gay rights, he said.
The divisive debate continues to expose deep rifts among political parties and Canadians in general.
Nearly three dozen Liberals are against changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex weddings.
Former Liberal Pat O'Brien's decision this week to bolt the party because of his concerns about the bill pushed the minority government to consider amendments.
Cotler says any changes must be consistent with the need to balance equality rights and religious freedom.
Still, he supports the bill as it is and suggested there will be little more than tinkering with language to calm fears over its impact.
http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=1ba9d160-4ffd-4408-9660-50bdfe2abcb8
Reverend Blair said:
In response:
Ottawa can't ensure religious protection in all same-sex fights: Cotler
OTTAWA -- Liberals will tweak their contentious same-sex marriage bill but can't guarantee ironclad religious protections, admits Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.
Churches won't be forced to perform gay weddings, he says.
But it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away same-sex couples, he conceded Wednesday.
"That's right," Cotler said, when asked if his hands are tied by jurisdictional limits.
Ottawa has the authority to define marriage, but provinces have the power to solemnize weddings.
A range of conflicts has already emerged.
Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for gay celebrations.
Marriage commissioners in several provinces, including Manitoba and B.C., have stepped down after receiving provincial orders to perform same-sex unions against their beliefs.
A couple in Prince Edward Island shut down their bed-breakfast rather than rent a room to a gay couple.
"These are very significant issues," says Conservative justice critic Vic Toews, a vocal opponent of the bill.
"We are opening up a Pandora's box, and this minister has steadfastly refused (to concede) that there are any problems.
"Now, as the evidence is piling up, he's beginning to wake up."
The bill is expected to pass the Commons in a vote as early as next week. It must also clear the Senate which plans to sit into the summer to consider it along with two budget bills.
If it becomes law, Canada would be just the third country in the world after the Netherlands and Belgium to legalize gay marriage.
Toews and other critics say crucial details must be worked out before the bill is enshrined in law.
He says Cotler must "deal with each of the provinces in terms of enacting corresponding legislation that will protect religious organizations and those who object to same-sex marriage for reasons of conscience."
Derek Rogusky, spokesman for Focus on the Family Canada, says those who oppose gay weddings are uneasy.
"Faith-based groups are not all that confident if their rights are going to be left up to the courts," said the senior vice-president of the conservative family values group.
Equality protections tend to trump religious freedoms in legal fights over gay rights, he said.
The divisive debate continues to expose deep rifts among political parties and Canadians in general.
Nearly three dozen Liberals are against changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex weddings.
Former Liberal Pat O'Brien's decision this week to bolt the party because of his concerns about the bill pushed the minority government to consider amendments.
Cotler says any changes must be consistent with the need to balance equality rights and religious freedom.
Still, he supports the bill as it is and suggested there will be little more than tinkering with language to calm fears over its impact.
http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=1ba9d160-4ffd-4408-9660-50bdfe2abcb8