Gay advocates fight churches' charity status

[Jay]

"Individual Provinces will not be able to use notwithstanding clause to prevent same sex marriage. Old Ralphie brought that up a while back and he can not. Only the Feds could use the notwithstanding clause, and that obviously is not going to happen."

Why couldn't they?

 

[no1important]

RE: Gay advocates fight c

Because the Supreme court of Canada said so. Federal Jurisdiction only. Only Ottawa can invoke notwithstanding clause.

A jurisdictional challenge in respect of any law is therefore limited to determining to which head of power the law relates. Legislative competence over same-sex marriage must be vested in either Parliament or the legislatures. Neither s. 92(12)nor s. 92(13) [powers given to the provinces] can accommodate this matter. Given that a legislative void is precluded, s. 91(26) [power given to the federal government] most aptly subsumes it.

In essence, same-sex marriage is a federal issue. The provinces have no power to legislate with respect to it.

 

[Jay]

"Only Ottawa can invoke notwithstanding clause. "


Quebec does it.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gay advocates fight c

Quebec does it on language, Jay...different issue.

 

[Jay]

Strange.... I see the point, but I don't see the difference....I will look into it

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gay advocates fight c

It has to do with jurisdictions, Jay.

 

[Jay]

Ya, I see that...but what jurisdiction does free speech fall under....

 

[TenPenny]

"On March 16, 2000, the Alberta government passed Bill 202, which amended the provincial Marriage Act to include an opposite-sex only definition of marriage as well as the Notwithstanding clause in order to insulate the definition from Charter challenges. However, provinces may only use the Notwithstanding clause on legislation genuinely provincial in nature and the Supreme Court ruled in Re: Same-Sex Marriage that the definition of marriage is within the exclusive domain of the Canadian Parliament."

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notwithstanding_clause

 

[Reverend Blair]

Ya, I see that...but what jurisdiction does free speech fall under....

Same sex marriage has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

 

[Jay]

I know that too.....I wasn't aware of what TenPenny posted....it just doesn't come up often enough to be a common knowledge I suppose.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Gay advocates fight c

It's been discussed on quite a few news programs actually, Jay. There has been a fair bit of subject-changing, obfuscation, and outright lying by the opposition to SSM, which tends to drown out the facts.

 

[timson]

A province can only use the not withstanding clause against judgements made on thier own legislation. A province cannot invoke it against Federal legislation...only the Fed.'s can. The same is true in reverse I believe.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I wonder if any provinces are considering using a notwithstanding clause once this passes,(yes, some of you know me as a conservative supporter, but I'm also a realist and its pretty much said and done at this point). Or if they are not considering it right now, if they'll succumb in any way to pressure by these defend marriage groups to do so.

As for my position on SSM, I'm one of those 2% (I believe that's the number I've heard) who are undecided. Actually, its not that I'm undecided, its just not an issue that really affects me since I'm not gay or religious. So the outcome, whether it were to be for or against, has been pretty much insignificant to me ever since this debate started. I can say though that in terms of the whole arguments of destroying morality and family norms, I can think of worse things occuring than 2 guys or 2 girls getting married.

You see, now you are someone I can relate to...

A conservative supporter, and yet you don't resort to lying and/or bullying to get your point across...you are to be commended...

I understand where you're coming from with respect to SSM not having an effect on you either way, neither am I directly affected by SSM, as I am neither gay, nor religious, yet my concern is that should we approach any issue of minority rights with apathy or resistance, then we are allowing those that would discriminate against them to erode the fundamental freedoms that we hold dear...it's my belief that protecting minorities from discrimination is the responsibility of us all, and should not be taken lightly.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

I guess my only problem is that homosexuals seem to desire a new meaning for a word so that it includes the union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

I think it is much more logical to simply create a new word or term that includes them than it is to change an old one.

I just think they should call it something else, but other than that, it be exactly the same in every way as when a man and woman get "married". Noone should stop a homosexual or anyone else from wearing a ring on a certain finger.

Perhaps call it a "Virtuous Union" or something to that effect ... Heterosexuals could be "virtuously unionized" as well, and it may actually become popular amungst athiests because of it's total lack of involvement with churches even in ceremony.

 

[dave s]

I guess my only problem is that homosexuals seem to desire a new meaning for a word so that it includes the union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

I think it is much more logical to simply create a new word or term that includes them than it is to change an old one.

I just think they should call it something else, but other than that, it be exactly the same in every way as when a man and woman get "married". Noone should stop a homosexual or anyone else from wearing a ring on a certain finger.

Perhaps call it a "Virtuous Union" or something to that effect ... Heterosexuals could be "virtuously unionized" as well, and it may actually become popular amungst athiests because of it's total lack of involvement with churches even in ceremony.

That won’t do, they want everything that heterosexual couples have,

Kids, which they will never be able to do.
Sex education for kids in schools that teaches about their life style.
Religious ceremonies using the term marriage.

It’s ridiculous.

Soon other minorities will want their say as well.

Thank god the church I was married in will never embrace this.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

they want everything that heterosexual couples have

And they deserve it!

That won’t do, they want everything that heterosexual couples have,

Kids, which they will never be able to do.
Sex education for kids in schools that teaches about their life style.
Religious ceremonies using the term marriage.

Well, not the religious ceremonies because in most religions it does not indicate how a man and a man can be unionized virtuously.

 

[Bubble]

I think that man and woman are made for each other and anything else I don't understand but anyway eve is like adams half so like that's why guys are usually like mocho and girls like sentimental and toalkative!

 

[Gordon J Torture]

I basically think homosexual couples should be regarded in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples. If they want kids, they should adopt one, which is helping society no matter how you look at it. It is only the term used to describe their union that needs to be changed.

A union between homosexuals and a union between athiests should be considered as one and the same. If a homosexual wishes to believe in a certain religion that is fine, but he can't expect to force a contradiction upon society even if he thinks the religion is "wrong" for not allowing what they perceive as just.

If we just call it a "Virtuous Union", and give homosexuals all the same rights we have, it will benefit society collectively. It wouldl also provide a means that appeals to athiests for them to be "Virtuously Unionized", and to show their partner a level of commitment, thus, increasing the percentage of monogamous relationships in the country.

 

[dave s]

Well let me ask you this:

Grade 6-8 kids get sex education classes

They learn about sexual intercourse, how do you explain what happens between 2 men?

My kids are too young for this yet, but I can assure you that won’t be learning anything from our public system.
Fortunately I can afford a private school but most can’t. What about the parents that don’t have the money to do this and have to send their kids to a public school. I really feel sorry for them.

They already tried this in east Toronto and it started a shitstorm from the Islamic parents.

I say this thing isn’t over yet, the public will speak out and people will listen.

Myself I really don’t care what perversion people do in their homes, but when children are involved that’s where I have to say enough.

 

[peapod]

Completely and utterly false!