Harper pledges.......

[Reverend Blair]

Did you not read my response or are spinning like Willy Mosconi at a trick shot tournament because you know you are wrong, Colpy?

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the legality of a law recognizing the traditional definition of marriage. Yes, Provincial Appeals Courts have. NONE OF THEIR DECISIONS HAVE BEEN APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT.

I never said the SCC ruled on it.

Since the last law like that has been struck down by courts all over the country

The provincial court decisions were never appealed because everybody agreed that the SCC would uphold their rulings. As a result, the provinces never took it any farther.

Yet the proponents of SSM consistently, never-endingly claim that the SCOC has ruled. IT HAS NOT.

It has ruled on a set of related issues, and there have been a whack of opinions put forth by constitutional experts, which is why

the SCC DID rule that legal unions (as proposed by the Harperites) were NOT the same as marriages, and that EVERYBODY has the right to marriage, and every constitutional expert not working for Harper (and many that are) says the only way to overturn the present law is by using Notwithstanding.

You, Colpy, are telling lies of omission by not acknowledging what the court did rule on, not accepting that there is a reason why the provinces never appealed, and ignoring the opinions of leading constitutional experts.

Give it up, Colpy.

 

[Colpy]

The definition would had to have been appealed by the Federal gov't, or by any of the provinces.......which have chosen not to so far.

A new Federal gov't might.

The point is that the proponents of SSM have been saying the issue is settled, the SCOC has ruled, and it is NOT true.

The spin here comes from the left.

 

[no1important]

A little late to appeal it now, I would think. Why would Harper waste tax payer dollars on this, when he knows it would fail? SSM is legal, get over it.

 

[Reverend Blair]

They can't over it No1. They are too unsure of their own marriages.

The Supreme Court has ruled on related issues. Constitutional experts agree that an appeal would fail, especially now. Any knew law would last only until it was challenged. Harper knows all that, but he's trying to have it both ways.

What he's really counting on is that, since he can't do any better than a small minority, anything he tried to pass would fail. That's a very dishonest thing for him to do.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Harper pledges.......

A little late to appeal it now, I would think. Why would Harper waste tax payer dollars on this, when he knows it would fail? SSM is legal, get over it.

I agree it is late to appeal, and I think that the SCOC will never rule on it unless a Conservative gov't introduces a law supporting the traditional definintion iof marriage.

I am over it, believe me.

My entire point in this was that the NDP and especially the Liberals were using a non-existent SCOC ruling to beat the Conservatives over the head. This is unfair, and inherently dishonest.


Now Rev, I know you and Cousin Jack suffer from same-brain syndrome, but you need to admit this is true.

Come on, I know you can do it.

 

[Reverend Blair]

My entire point in this was that the NDP and especially the Liberals were using a non-existent SCOC ruling to beat the Conservatives over the head. This is unfair, and inherently dishonest.


Now Rev, I know you and Cousin Jack suffer from same-brain syndrome, but you need to admit this is true.

Come on, I know you can do it.

Except that you are being EXTREMELY DISHONEST by MISREPRESENTING what I and others have said, Colpy. We never claimed that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on that law. You keep claiming that we say that, but we have not. We have said that the SC has ruled on related issues and that the provinces never challenged their court's rulings because it was clear that the provincial rulings would be upheld. We have said that one constitutional expert after another has said that Harper would have to use Notwithstanding to get his way. YOU ARE LYING about what I've said and it's f*cking well time you stopped.

 

[Colpy]

My entire point in this was that the NDP and especially the Liberals were using a non-existent SCOC ruling to beat the Conservatives over the head. This is unfair, and inherently dishonest.


Now Rev, I know you and Cousin Jack suffer from same-brain syndrome, but you need to admit this is true.

Come on, I know you can do it.

Except that you are being EXTREMELY DISHONEST by MISREPRESENTING what I and others have said, Colpy. We never claimed that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on that law. You keep claiming that we say that, but we have not. We have said that the SC has ruled on related issues and that the provinces never challenged their court's rulings because it was clear that the provincial rulings would be upheld. We have said that one constitutional expert after another has said that Harper would have to use Notwithstanding to get his way. YOU ARE LYING about what I've said and it's f*cking well time you stopped.

Fock you.

I don't lie.

When I make a mistake, I damned well admit it, unlike certain others on this forum.

And the left has been constantly insisting the only way a law supporting traditional marriage could happen at all is if Stephen Harper invoked the notwithstanding clause. This is untrue. Such a law, if passed, would be legal unless or until the SCOC struck it down.

Not only that, who the hell do you think you are?

All the left, I mean, not just you personally. I know the SCOC is a group of Liberal lap-dogs, but damn, I don't think you are all sitting on the bench.

Pre-judging what the SCOC will do, and claiming it as truth, is dishonest.

AND, I don't appreciate being called a liar, especially by someone who doesn't know me, and is not face-to-face.

As I've said before on this forum, I pride myself on my honesty. If I say it, I believe it to be true.

You owe me an apology

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't appreciate being called a liar.

Then I suggest you quit lying, especially about what I said when it is there in the post in front of yours.

I really have no idea if you are deluded enough to believe that every one of the 134 constitutional experts that have said that Harper would have to invoke are leftists or not. I also don't know if you believe that a few right-wing organisations that have said the same are actually full of leftist agents that started those groups to undermine Harper.

I haven't got a clue how you manage to breathe with your head so firmly ensconced in your ass.

I do know that I've told the truth on this issue since the very beginning and that you have not only strayed far from the truth, but called me a liar while doing it.

 

[Colpy]

Not once have I ever called you a liar as an individual.

The closest I came was telling you at one point "you are full of it" What you are full of is NDP cabbage between the ears.

You owe me an apology.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I owe you nothing, Colpy. You said things about me that were demonstrably not true. When I corrected you, showing you what I had actually said, you said those things again.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Harper pledges.......

I owe you nothing, Colpy. You said things about me that were demonstrably not true. When I corrected you, showing you what I had actually said, you said those things again.

You've lost it.

If you are going to take everything I say about the left personally, there is no sense trying to talk about this, or anything else. I mean, I know you never had an idea not previously vetted and approved by an NDP committee, but I never said ANYTHING about you personally.

Good Lord, if I took everything said on these threads about the right personally, I would be in the nuthouse with a persecution complex.

I've noticed this about you though. You get cornered, then you get angry and start mouthing nonsense off in all directions, the subject gets obscured, and somehow you consider that victory.

Look in the damn mirror.

What gets me is that on this subject we were basically agreeing............SSM is here to stay.

BUT the SCOC has NOT YET forced that, so saying that Harper would have to use the notwithstanding is dishonest, because that is not YET true.

As Harper has promised NOT to use the nothwithstanding, SSM is probably here to stay.

The left poses as defenders of the Charter against Harper, which as I have just demonstrated, is untrue.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Colpy, nice attempt at revising things, but it was you who said that I'd claimed that Harper's law had been been to the Supreme Court. You said I was "full of shit" for claiming it.

The problem is that I never claimed that. What you were responding to was this:

What Harper is doing is trying to have it both ways. It doesn't work that way though. According to most of the constitutional experts in this country, he would have to use Notwithstanding. His claim that he can overturn SSM without invoking that clause is corrupt.

You somehow twisted that into Harper's law never having been rejected by the Supreme Court. I responded to your claims by saying:

The Supreme Court never ruled on that because it was not a question they felt they should be hearing. They DID NOT say that Harper's definition of marriage was legal, they said that they wouldn't consider the question unless somebody made it law and it got taken to court.

Since the last law like that has been struck down by courts all over the country, the SCC DID rule that legal unions (as proposed by the Harperites) were NOT the same as marriages, and that EVERYBODY has the right to marriage, and every constitutional expert not working for Harper (and many that are) says the only way to overturn the present law is by using Notwithstanding.

In other words, Harper is lying. Lying is corrupt. That means Harper is corrupt.

It is the Conservatives that are repeating the same lies over and over, using soundbites to evoke emotions instead of listening to the considered opinions of experts and taking all of the data into consideration.

You the said:

Rev, you have been throwing the word corrupt around a lot lately.

Personally, what I think is corrupt is repeating the same lies over and over and over.

The Supreme Court of Canada has NEVER ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is legal or not.

Should I repeat that?

The Supreme Court of Canada has NEVER ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is legal or not.

Here it is:http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2003/doc_30946.html

I'd never claimed that they had ruled on that very specific, very narrow part of the issue. You claimed that I had though, and called me a liar for saying it.

Your the liar, Colpy. A liar willing to say anything to get another liar elected even though you don't agree with him.

 

[Colpy]

Dec. 16, 7:54 AM the Reverend Blair wrote:

"If he won't use the Notwithstanding Clause, then he cannot ban SSM. It's that simple. So his promise to hold a free vote in the House simply does not make sense. "

Kiss my arse, Rev

End of this so-called discussion.

 

[Reverend Blair]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: 8)

 

[Reverend Blair]

Nowhere in there did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the law, Colpy.

You should try telling the truth once in a while.

 

[no1important]

Leaders extend battle over same-sex marriage

A teaser:

In their second debate, Canada's major political party leaders jumped right back into one of the most divisive issues of the election campaign -- trading accusations of hidden agendas and hypocrisy on the subject of same-sex marriage.

The first question of the Friday night English face-off sent the leaders back to the controversial subject that arose during Thursday's French-language debate, when Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said he wouldn't have to use the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to repeal the same-sex marriage law.

On Friday, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said Harper was living in a "legal Disneyland" if he thought that was possible, and Harper's challengers agreed.

Harper repeated his claim from the French debate, saying same-sex marriage is not a Charter issue. [/end of teaser]

Harper is clueless.

It is a Charter issue and 8 jurisdictions that heard it all agreed.

It would of been interesting to see how courts in Alberta would of ruled, would they of succummed to political pressure from the Kleinites? or followed the law like everywhere else?

 

[Reverend Blair]

They're going to whip him with this one for as long as they can. They should too...his position shows a disregard for human rights, exposes a strong right-wing religious bias in the party, demonstrates Harper's lack of respect for the Canadian people and for Parliament, and points to him either lying about or being completely ignorant of how constitutional rights work.

 

[Hunter]

yea the are going to use the damn gay marrage issue to try and "scrare" canadians away from Harper. The liberals are a sad bunch with a shameless leader who thinks by waving his hands and shouting the loudest that he can fool canadians. well maybe the idiots in ontario. the thing that pisses me off most about the election is that the leaders seem to be more concerned about a few homos in toronto getting married, while ignoring more importaint issues. farmers are not even on the radar for these idiots, even harper is letting us down by not bringing up these issues.

 

[Reverend Blair]

a few homos in toronto getting married

Bigoted little brat aren't you? You know where the first gay person I ever met was born and raised? Rural Alberta.

farmers are not even on the radar for these idiots, even harper is letting us down by not bringing up these issues.

Harper screwed the farmers during the BSE thing. He backed the meat packers who were ripping farmers off instead of backing the people he now expects to vote for him.

If I was you, I'd vote for somebody else. Anybody else. Make sure you tell your candidate why.

 

[Mechayahiko]

Everyone is entitled to their views and all Harper pledges is a free vote, nothing more. Personally i dont know whats so important about this issue, definitions are made up to ease communication, yet people put too much value in it. This is for both sides. The major thing the definition of marrige gets is the tax benefits and other legal issues. People put too much value in definitions and not into life itself. Does it really matter what the union is called if the people are happy?