Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

[tibear]

thanks Jay, It nice to see someone is able to view the debate from a "different" perspective.

 

[LadyC]

The only real issue on SSM is the freedom of religion. It in fact would almost appear to be a complete attack on it because (as we all know) the Churches feel they will be loosing ground on their right to freedom of expression and religion. I believe this is a legitimate fear...

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Churches already refuse to marry couples if they're not members. Same with baptism. I don't see where this will change.

 

[LadyC]

The only real issue on SSM is the freedom of religion. It in fact would almost appear to be a complete attack on it because (as we all know) the Churches feel they will be loosing ground on their right to freedom of expression and religion. I believe this is a legitimate fear...

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Churches already refuse to marry couples if they're not members. Same with baptism. I don't see where this will change.

 

[LadyC]

The only real issue on SSM is the freedom of religion. It in fact would almost appear to be a complete attack on it because (as we all know) the Churches feel they will be loosing ground on their right to freedom of expression and religion. I believe this is a legitimate fear...

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Churches already refuse to marry couples if they're not members. Same with baptism. I don't see where this will change.

 

[no1important]

Its just fear mongering and Religion (and polygamy)is brought in to stir the pot. For anti SSM to try and find non existence ammo.

Gay marriage will be done mostly with judges not priests or ministers even though some here in Vancouver (ministers) do do "Gay Marriage" but Vancouver is different than most parts of Canada too.

Churches won't be forced to marry SSM and I don't know why some people continue to think otherwise.

An arguement could be made that Stephen Harpers anti gay comments and actions are bordering on "Hate Crimes".

 

[no1important]

Its just fear mongering and Religion (and polygamy)is brought in to stir the pot. For anti SSM to try and find non existence ammo.

Gay marriage will be done mostly with judges not priests or ministers even though some here in Vancouver (ministers) do do "Gay Marriage" but Vancouver is different than most parts of Canada too.

Churches won't be forced to marry SSM and I don't know why some people continue to think otherwise.

An arguement could be made that Stephen Harpers anti gay comments and actions are bordering on "Hate Crimes".

 

[no1important]

Its just fear mongering and Religion (and polygamy)is brought in to stir the pot. For anti SSM to try and find non existence ammo.

Gay marriage will be done mostly with judges not priests or ministers even though some here in Vancouver (ministers) do do "Gay Marriage" but Vancouver is different than most parts of Canada too.

Churches won't be forced to marry SSM and I don't know why some people continue to think otherwise.

An arguement could be made that Stephen Harpers anti gay comments and actions are bordering on "Hate Crimes".

 

[Reverend Blair]

Lets think about this for a bit; do you still want me to believe this is some right wing fundamentalism agenda? I do not believe its true for a minute. This issue spans the world. That isn't to say that there isn’t vocal right wing Christians who are in opposed to SSM either.

It is very much the right-wing Christian groups who are leading the charge to deny a minority of their rights here in Canada. We are talking about Canadian law and Canadian charter rights here, Jay. What they do in Russia or Alabama or Timbuktu has no bearing on the issue. The fact that people are trying to jam their voodoo beliefs down the throats of people who don't believe in that particular brand of voodoo does have a bearing though.

People like yourself around here harp on Christians because they are the opposition to some of their ideals perhaps. They affect the country you live in. I can appreciate that but I simply don't believe on this issue it is the way you stated it.

Pay attention, Jay. The drive to take away people's rights is being overwhelmingly backed by fundamentalist Christians in this country. It shows up on the news, the call-in shows, the internet, and Stephen Harper's speeches.

"The topic I'm trying to debate is that by trying to legalize SSM from a human rights point of view, will it open the door to other relationships."

No, it won't. Same sex marriage is about minority rights at it's heart. No different than equal rights for visible minorities or letting women vote. One does not choose to be gay.

The other issues you and tibear keep dragging in are choices. One chooses to be polygamous. One chooses to rape children. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

"I thought the whole debate regarding SSM had to do with the fact that consenting people could do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't hurt others. SSM proponents claim they have been denied equal rights because their relationships are not equal to heterosexual couples. I'm simply making the exact same arguement for these other relationships."

See above. And I don't disagree with consensual polygamy.

So therefore the moment the Charter was signed the reality of the situation was that SSM was legal, even if the current thinking said otherwise. As the Charter says " without discrimination and in particular.....sex....." I'm betting the Charter implies by the word sex, women’s issues. It seems however that it can be interpreted in another way. Whether or not they realized it at the time, the word could imply orientation.

Sex, in scientific and legal terms, refers to gender. Sexual orientation is implied by the list of minorities, not the use of the word sex.

By the Supreme Court basically saying to the P(aul) M(artin) that you would have no Charter issues if you change the definition of marriage implies that the current definition wasn't constitutional. It has to be changed.

The vast majority of legal experts in Canada disagree with you, Jay.

The reality implied by the Supreme courts ruling or advise, is that we should allow for Common Law to keep the definition of marriage, allow it to change as it does commonly. Simply put; scrap the idea of legislating what a marriage is other than to say it must between consenting adults, and let the lawyers fight out the rest.

The lawyers have already founght it out in provincial and territorial jurisdictions where 83% or 87% (can't remember which) of Canada's population lives. Canada's Supreme Court agrees with them. You lose, Jay.

In reality its not an issue of "trying to legalize" anything. It's a dead issue, its legal. The Supreme Court has given the blessing. Will it open the doors to different types of "relationships"? You bet it will. And it will all be done with out changing the Charter one bit.

Again, this ruling will not do that because gays are a valid minority while polygamists aren't.

The only real issue on SSM is the freedom of religion. It in fact would almost appear to be a complete attack on it because (as we all know) the Churches feel they will be loosing ground on their right to freedom of expression and religion.

Every party except the Conservatives have said they will guarantee that churches etc. will not be forced to perform same sex weddings. That the issue keeps being brought up (very dishonestly) by fundamentalists speaks to their willingness to infringe on others' freedom of religion by forcing their archaic social mores on the rest of us.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Lets think about this for a bit; do you still want me to believe this is some right wing fundamentalism agenda? I do not believe its true for a minute. This issue spans the world. That isn't to say that there isn’t vocal right wing Christians who are in opposed to SSM either.

It is very much the right-wing Christian groups who are leading the charge to deny a minority of their rights here in Canada. We are talking about Canadian law and Canadian charter rights here, Jay. What they do in Russia or Alabama or Timbuktu has no bearing on the issue. The fact that people are trying to jam their voodoo beliefs down the throats of people who don't believe in that particular brand of voodoo does have a bearing though.

People like yourself around here harp on Christians because they are the opposition to some of their ideals perhaps. They affect the country you live in. I can appreciate that but I simply don't believe on this issue it is the way you stated it.

Pay attention, Jay. The drive to take away people's rights is being overwhelmingly backed by fundamentalist Christians in this country. It shows up on the news, the call-in shows, the internet, and Stephen Harper's speeches.

"The topic I'm trying to debate is that by trying to legalize SSM from a human rights point of view, will it open the door to other relationships."

No, it won't. Same sex marriage is about minority rights at it's heart. No different than equal rights for visible minorities or letting women vote. One does not choose to be gay.

The other issues you and tibear keep dragging in are choices. One chooses to be polygamous. One chooses to rape children. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

"I thought the whole debate regarding SSM had to do with the fact that consenting people could do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't hurt others. SSM proponents claim they have been denied equal rights because their relationships are not equal to heterosexual couples. I'm simply making the exact same arguement for these other relationships."

See above. And I don't disagree with consensual polygamy.

So therefore the moment the Charter was signed the reality of the situation was that SSM was legal, even if the current thinking said otherwise. As the Charter says " without discrimination and in particular.....sex....." I'm betting the Charter implies by the word sex, women’s issues. It seems however that it can be interpreted in another way. Whether or not they realized it at the time, the word could imply orientation.

Sex, in scientific and legal terms, refers to gender. Sexual orientation is implied by the list of minorities, not the use of the word sex.

By the Supreme Court basically saying to the P(aul) M(artin) that you would have no Charter issues if you change the definition of marriage implies that the current definition wasn't constitutional. It has to be changed.

The vast majority of legal experts in Canada disagree with you, Jay.

The reality implied by the Supreme courts ruling or advise, is that we should allow for Common Law to keep the definition of marriage, allow it to change as it does commonly. Simply put; scrap the idea of legislating what a marriage is other than to say it must between consenting adults, and let the lawyers fight out the rest.

The lawyers have already founght it out in provincial and territorial jurisdictions where 83% or 87% (can't remember which) of Canada's population lives. Canada's Supreme Court agrees with them. You lose, Jay.

In reality its not an issue of "trying to legalize" anything. It's a dead issue, its legal. The Supreme Court has given the blessing. Will it open the doors to different types of "relationships"? You bet it will. And it will all be done with out changing the Charter one bit.

Again, this ruling will not do that because gays are a valid minority while polygamists aren't.

The only real issue on SSM is the freedom of religion. It in fact would almost appear to be a complete attack on it because (as we all know) the Churches feel they will be loosing ground on their right to freedom of expression and religion.

Every party except the Conservatives have said they will guarantee that churches etc. will not be forced to perform same sex weddings. That the issue keeps being brought up (very dishonestly) by fundamentalists speaks to their willingness to infringe on others' freedom of religion by forcing their archaic social mores on the rest of us.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Lets think about this for a bit; do you still want me to believe this is some right wing fundamentalism agenda? I do not believe its true for a minute. This issue spans the world. That isn't to say that there isn’t vocal right wing Christians who are in opposed to SSM either.

It is very much the right-wing Christian groups who are leading the charge to deny a minority of their rights here in Canada. We are talking about Canadian law and Canadian charter rights here, Jay. What they do in Russia or Alabama or Timbuktu has no bearing on the issue. The fact that people are trying to jam their voodoo beliefs down the throats of people who don't believe in that particular brand of voodoo does have a bearing though.

People like yourself around here harp on Christians because they are the opposition to some of their ideals perhaps. They affect the country you live in. I can appreciate that but I simply don't believe on this issue it is the way you stated it.

Pay attention, Jay. The drive to take away people's rights is being overwhelmingly backed by fundamentalist Christians in this country. It shows up on the news, the call-in shows, the internet, and Stephen Harper's speeches.

"The topic I'm trying to debate is that by trying to legalize SSM from a human rights point of view, will it open the door to other relationships."

No, it won't. Same sex marriage is about minority rights at it's heart. No different than equal rights for visible minorities or letting women vote. One does not choose to be gay.

The other issues you and tibear keep dragging in are choices. One chooses to be polygamous. One chooses to rape children. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

"I thought the whole debate regarding SSM had to do with the fact that consenting people could do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't hurt others. SSM proponents claim they have been denied equal rights because their relationships are not equal to heterosexual couples. I'm simply making the exact same arguement for these other relationships."

See above. And I don't disagree with consensual polygamy.

So therefore the moment the Charter was signed the reality of the situation was that SSM was legal, even if the current thinking said otherwise. As the Charter says " without discrimination and in particular.....sex....." I'm betting the Charter implies by the word sex, women’s issues. It seems however that it can be interpreted in another way. Whether or not they realized it at the time, the word could imply orientation.

Sex, in scientific and legal terms, refers to gender. Sexual orientation is implied by the list of minorities, not the use of the word sex.

By the Supreme Court basically saying to the P(aul) M(artin) that you would have no Charter issues if you change the definition of marriage implies that the current definition wasn't constitutional. It has to be changed.

The vast majority of legal experts in Canada disagree with you, Jay.

The reality implied by the Supreme courts ruling or advise, is that we should allow for Common Law to keep the definition of marriage, allow it to change as it does commonly. Simply put; scrap the idea of legislating what a marriage is other than to say it must between consenting adults, and let the lawyers fight out the rest.

The lawyers have already founght it out in provincial and territorial jurisdictions where 83% or 87% (can't remember which) of Canada's population lives. Canada's Supreme Court agrees with them. You lose, Jay.

In reality its not an issue of "trying to legalize" anything. It's a dead issue, its legal. The Supreme Court has given the blessing. Will it open the doors to different types of "relationships"? You bet it will. And it will all be done with out changing the Charter one bit.

Again, this ruling will not do that because gays are a valid minority while polygamists aren't.

The only real issue on SSM is the freedom of religion. It in fact would almost appear to be a complete attack on it because (as we all know) the Churches feel they will be loosing ground on their right to freedom of expression and religion.

Every party except the Conservatives have said they will guarantee that churches etc. will not be forced to perform same sex weddings. That the issue keeps being brought up (very dishonestly) by fundamentalists speaks to their willingness to infringe on others' freedom of religion by forcing their archaic social mores on the rest of us.

 

[tibear]

I think we should just agree to disagree.

Jay and I see the SSM marriage as a door opening for other relationships that society in general finds immoral. We've tried presenting various arguements that others have rejected.

Similarly, arguements have been presented which try to show the difference between SSM and the "other" relationships which we reject.

We seem to have an "NHL" stalemate where neither side appears able to soften the other side with their arguements so lets just call it a draw and move on!

PS But I reserve the right to say I told you so when the polygamists and paedophiles come forth to demand their rights.

 

[tibear]

I think we should just agree to disagree.

Jay and I see the SSM marriage as a door opening for other relationships that society in general finds immoral. We've tried presenting various arguements that others have rejected.

Similarly, arguements have been presented which try to show the difference between SSM and the "other" relationships which we reject.

We seem to have an "NHL" stalemate where neither side appears able to soften the other side with their arguements so lets just call it a draw and move on!

PS But I reserve the right to say I told you so when the polygamists and paedophiles come forth to demand their rights.

 

[tibear]

I think we should just agree to disagree.

Jay and I see the SSM marriage as a door opening for other relationships that society in general finds immoral. We've tried presenting various arguements that others have rejected.

Similarly, arguements have been presented which try to show the difference between SSM and the "other" relationships which we reject.

We seem to have an "NHL" stalemate where neither side appears able to soften the other side with their arguements so lets just call it a draw and move on!

PS But I reserve the right to say I told you so when the polygamists and paedophiles come forth to demand their rights.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

They may be inspired to come forth by this, but they'll have to argue their case on different grounds. The polygamists have a chance because their relationships, if consensual, are victimless, but the paedophiles haven't got a hope in hell.

Again, these are separate issues. They will be argued on separate legal grounds. If a group of polygamists build their case on SSM setting a precedent, they will lose.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

They may be inspired to come forth by this, but they'll have to argue their case on different grounds. The polygamists have a chance because their relationships, if consensual, are victimless, but the paedophiles haven't got a hope in hell.

Again, these are separate issues. They will be argued on separate legal grounds. If a group of polygamists build their case on SSM setting a precedent, they will lose.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

They may be inspired to come forth by this, but they'll have to argue their case on different grounds. The polygamists have a chance because their relationships, if consensual, are victimless, but the paedophiles haven't got a hope in hell.

Again, these are separate issues. They will be argued on separate legal grounds. If a group of polygamists build their case on SSM setting a precedent, they will lose.

 

[tibear]

RB,

The section of the Charter that judges are using to give SSM legal standing is the section on equality which states:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Now, SS proponents can't make a charter challenge based on anything in particular in this clause except for the start of the clause "Every individual is equal before and under the law".

However, polygamists can make a charter challenge from a couple of perspectives. The first and most obvious is the religious challenge however, the second challenge is the one that the SSM has used in that the second and subsequent spouses of a polygamist are being denied benefits because they aren't the "first" spouse.

Similarly, the paedophiles(NAMBLA) can also challenge from a couple of perspectives: the obvious is age and one that the SSM has used in that they are being denied the same rights and privileges other canadians have.

The only relationship that I don't see an "extra" Charter Challenge is the one for incest. However, I believe that the courts will also use the "Every individual is equal before and under the law" challenge and say they are being denied rights and privileges that other Canadians have for invalid reasons.

I'm not a lawyer and certainly not a Constitutional expert however, from what I've read and heard, I think all of these groups have better Charter challenges than SSM.

My two cents worth.

PS I know I agreed to disagree but thought I had to post a rebuttle to RB.

 

[tibear]

RB,

The section of the Charter that judges are using to give SSM legal standing is the section on equality which states:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Now, SS proponents can't make a charter challenge based on anything in particular in this clause except for the start of the clause "Every individual is equal before and under the law".

However, polygamists can make a charter challenge from a couple of perspectives. The first and most obvious is the religious challenge however, the second challenge is the one that the SSM has used in that the second and subsequent spouses of a polygamist are being denied benefits because they aren't the "first" spouse.

Similarly, the paedophiles(NAMBLA) can also challenge from a couple of perspectives: the obvious is age and one that the SSM has used in that they are being denied the same rights and privileges other canadians have.

The only relationship that I don't see an "extra" Charter Challenge is the one for incest. However, I believe that the courts will also use the "Every individual is equal before and under the law" challenge and say they are being denied rights and privileges that other Canadians have for invalid reasons.

I'm not a lawyer and certainly not a Constitutional expert however, from what I've read and heard, I think all of these groups have better Charter challenges than SSM.

My two cents worth.

PS I know I agreed to disagree but thought I had to post a rebuttle to RB.

 

[tibear]

RB,

The section of the Charter that judges are using to give SSM legal standing is the section on equality which states:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Now, SS proponents can't make a charter challenge based on anything in particular in this clause except for the start of the clause "Every individual is equal before and under the law".

However, polygamists can make a charter challenge from a couple of perspectives. The first and most obvious is the religious challenge however, the second challenge is the one that the SSM has used in that the second and subsequent spouses of a polygamist are being denied benefits because they aren't the "first" spouse.

Similarly, the paedophiles(NAMBLA) can also challenge from a couple of perspectives: the obvious is age and one that the SSM has used in that they are being denied the same rights and privileges other canadians have.

The only relationship that I don't see an "extra" Charter Challenge is the one for incest. However, I believe that the courts will also use the "Every individual is equal before and under the law" challenge and say they are being denied rights and privileges that other Canadians have for invalid reasons.

I'm not a lawyer and certainly not a Constitutional expert however, from what I've read and heard, I think all of these groups have better Charter challenges than SSM.

My two cents worth.

PS I know I agreed to disagree but thought I had to post a rebuttle to RB.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

What you are missing is that SSM is an issue of minority rights and the others are not, tibear.

NAMBLA will fail because they are talking about having sex with children. They are treated the same under the law as men who want to have sex with girls...it's illegal. No discrimination.

Polygamy is not restricted to religion...I could say that I want to have more than one wife (not sure why anybody would want to, but...). It is not a minority rights issue. Same with incestuous marriages. Not a minority rights issue.

If they go to court counting on the SSM ruling as a precedent they will lose. I do believe they can win if they go in on their own merits looking for individual rights and freedoms as long as they stay away from trying to get each spouse equal benefits. How those benefits are divided can be an issue, but nobody is going to go for a guy with three wives getting three times the benefits as a guy with one wife.