Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

That is where the line is drawn. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criminal offense to engage in homosexual activity.

Are you 100% sure on this?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html


"Same-sex rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. It was then that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that labelled Everett Klippert a "dangerous sexual offender" and threw him in prison for admitting he was gay and that he had sex with other men."

just for the record.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

That is where the line is drawn. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criminal offense to engage in homosexual activity.

Are you 100% sure on this?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html


"Same-sex rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. It was then that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that labelled Everett Klippert a "dangerous sexual offender" and threw him in prison for admitting he was gay and that he had sex with other men."

just for the record.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

That is where the line is drawn. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criminal offense to engage in homosexual activity.

Are you 100% sure on this?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html


"Same-sex rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. It was then that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that labelled Everett Klippert a "dangerous sexual offender" and threw him in prison for admitting he was gay and that he had sex with other men."

just for the record.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html


"Same-sex rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. It was then that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that labelled Everett Klippert a "dangerous sexual offender" and threw him in prison for admitting he was gay and that he had sex with other men."

just for the record.

Thanks for the post Jay, I stand corrected, and any further posts on this topic will read "Not in my lifetime has homosexuality been illegal"...

As to Tibear's insistence that legality doesn't matter...how can it not matter if something is illegal or not...by that same token, it doesn't matter that murder is illegal, if someone wants to perform a human sacrifice for religious purposes, and it would go against the Charter not to allow them to do so...do you not see how ridiculous that sounds...the legality of the issue SSM is what strikes to the heart of the matter...not some right-wing Christian agenda...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html


"Same-sex rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. It was then that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that labelled Everett Klippert a "dangerous sexual offender" and threw him in prison for admitting he was gay and that he had sex with other men."

just for the record.

Thanks for the post Jay, I stand corrected, and any further posts on this topic will read "Not in my lifetime has homosexuality been illegal"...

As to Tibear's insistence that legality doesn't matter...how can it not matter if something is illegal or not...by that same token, it doesn't matter that murder is illegal, if someone wants to perform a human sacrifice for religious purposes, and it would go against the Charter not to allow them to do so...do you not see how ridiculous that sounds...the legality of the issue SSM is what strikes to the heart of the matter...not some right-wing Christian agenda...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html


"Same-sex rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. It was then that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that labelled Everett Klippert a "dangerous sexual offender" and threw him in prison for admitting he was gay and that he had sex with other men."

just for the record.

Thanks for the post Jay, I stand corrected, and any further posts on this topic will read "Not in my lifetime has homosexuality been illegal"...

As to Tibear's insistence that legality doesn't matter...how can it not matter if something is illegal or not...by that same token, it doesn't matter that murder is illegal, if someone wants to perform a human sacrifice for religious purposes, and it would go against the Charter not to allow them to do so...do you not see how ridiculous that sounds...the legality of the issue SSM is what strikes to the heart of the matter...not some right-wing Christian agenda...

 

[NSA]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

As well, simply visit the North American Man/Boy Love Association web site and you will see their position regarding their "relationships" and human rights. Adult Incest is the other scenario that I've put forward and even though I haven't heard of a case yet, in this wild and crazy world, I wouldn't doubt that there would be a pair of siblings somewhere who would want to get married and use the Charter to further their cause.

1. NAMBLA = sexual activity between minors and adults. It's not the same as two consenting adults. No "door is opened" and no new slope is made slippery.

2. We're supposed to scrap the possibility of equal rights for a whole group of citizens on the off chance that somebody, somewhere might abuse the law towards an unorthodox and disturbing end? Balance the benefit with the risk here:

Benefit: we become a more truly egalitarian society.
Risk: the White Stripes might get married.

 

[NSA]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

As well, simply visit the North American Man/Boy Love Association web site and you will see their position regarding their "relationships" and human rights. Adult Incest is the other scenario that I've put forward and even though I haven't heard of a case yet, in this wild and crazy world, I wouldn't doubt that there would be a pair of siblings somewhere who would want to get married and use the Charter to further their cause.

1. NAMBLA = sexual activity between minors and adults. It's not the same as two consenting adults. No "door is opened" and no new slope is made slippery.

2. We're supposed to scrap the possibility of equal rights for a whole group of citizens on the off chance that somebody, somewhere might abuse the law towards an unorthodox and disturbing end? Balance the benefit with the risk here:

Benefit: we become a more truly egalitarian society.
Risk: the White Stripes might get married.

 

[NSA]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

As well, simply visit the North American Man/Boy Love Association web site and you will see their position regarding their "relationships" and human rights. Adult Incest is the other scenario that I've put forward and even though I haven't heard of a case yet, in this wild and crazy world, I wouldn't doubt that there would be a pair of siblings somewhere who would want to get married and use the Charter to further their cause.

1. NAMBLA = sexual activity between minors and adults. It's not the same as two consenting adults. No "door is opened" and no new slope is made slippery.

2. We're supposed to scrap the possibility of equal rights for a whole group of citizens on the off chance that somebody, somewhere might abuse the law towards an unorthodox and disturbing end? Balance the benefit with the risk here:

Benefit: we become a more truly egalitarian society.
Risk: the White Stripes might get married.

 

[peapod]

I love the advice that janet learned on the white stripes CD..from the squirrel :wink:

When Problems overwhelm us and sadness smothers us,
Where do we find the will and courage to continue?
Well the answer may come in the caring voice of a friend,
A chance encounter with a book,
Or from a personal faith.


For Janet, help came from her faith, and it also came from a squirrel.
Shortly after her divorce, Janet lost her father,
Then she lost her job,
She had mounting money problems,
But Janet not only survived she worked herself out of despondency,
And now she says life is good again.


How could this happen?
She told me that late one autumn day, when she was at her lowest,
She wat ched a squirrel storing up nuts for the winter,
One at a time, he?s take them to the nest,
And she though that if that squirrel could take care of himself,
With a harsh winter coming on, so can I!

Once she broke her problems into small pieces,
I was able to carry them, one at a time.
Just like those acorns.
One at a time.

 

[peapod]

I love the advice that janet learned on the white stripes CD..from the squirrel :wink:

When Problems overwhelm us and sadness smothers us,
Where do we find the will and courage to continue?
Well the answer may come in the caring voice of a friend,
A chance encounter with a book,
Or from a personal faith.


For Janet, help came from her faith, and it also came from a squirrel.
Shortly after her divorce, Janet lost her father,
Then she lost her job,
She had mounting money problems,
But Janet not only survived she worked herself out of despondency,
And now she says life is good again.


How could this happen?
She told me that late one autumn day, when she was at her lowest,
She wat ched a squirrel storing up nuts for the winter,
One at a time, he?s take them to the nest,
And she though that if that squirrel could take care of himself,
With a harsh winter coming on, so can I!

Once she broke her problems into small pieces,
I was able to carry them, one at a time.
Just like those acorns.
One at a time.

 

[peapod]

I love the advice that janet learned on the white stripes CD..from the squirrel :wink:

When Problems overwhelm us and sadness smothers us,
Where do we find the will and courage to continue?
Well the answer may come in the caring voice of a friend,
A chance encounter with a book,
Or from a personal faith.


For Janet, help came from her faith, and it also came from a squirrel.
Shortly after her divorce, Janet lost her father,
Then she lost her job,
She had mounting money problems,
But Janet not only survived she worked herself out of despondency,
And now she says life is good again.


How could this happen?
She told me that late one autumn day, when she was at her lowest,
She wat ched a squirrel storing up nuts for the winter,
One at a time, he?s take them to the nest,
And she though that if that squirrel could take care of himself,
With a harsh winter coming on, so can I!

Once she broke her problems into small pieces,
I was able to carry them, one at a time.
Just like those acorns.
One at a time.

 

[tibear]

Vanni,

Now that you know that sodomy WAS illegal, doesn't that show that simply because something IS illegal it doesn't automatically mean that it will or should stay illegal. It was once legal in the US for man to kill his black slave, should they have simply left the law there because it was the law?? If the law itself is unconstitutional or goes against the Charter than the law itself is invalid. Does that make it any clearer?

Times change and attitudes change. Just are we ready for the changes that are going to happen.

NAMBLA is pushing for teenage boys to be given the right to consent to have sexual relationships with adults without regard the the stupid "4-year rule".

 

[tibear]

Vanni,

Now that you know that sodomy WAS illegal, doesn't that show that simply because something IS illegal it doesn't automatically mean that it will or should stay illegal. It was once legal in the US for man to kill his black slave, should they have simply left the law there because it was the law?? If the law itself is unconstitutional or goes against the Charter than the law itself is invalid. Does that make it any clearer?

Times change and attitudes change. Just are we ready for the changes that are going to happen.

NAMBLA is pushing for teenage boys to be given the right to consent to have sexual relationships with adults without regard the the stupid "4-year rule".

 

[tibear]

Vanni,

Now that you know that sodomy WAS illegal, doesn't that show that simply because something IS illegal it doesn't automatically mean that it will or should stay illegal. It was once legal in the US for man to kill his black slave, should they have simply left the law there because it was the law?? If the law itself is unconstitutional or goes against the Charter than the law itself is invalid. Does that make it any clearer?

Times change and attitudes change. Just are we ready for the changes that are going to happen.

NAMBLA is pushing for teenage boys to be given the right to consent to have sexual relationships with adults without regard the the stupid "4-year rule".

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html


"Same-sex rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. It was then that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that labelled Everett Klippert a "dangerous sexual offender" and threw him in prison for admitting he was gay and that he had sex with other men."

just for the record.

Thanks for the post Jay, I stand corrected, and any further posts on this topic will read "Not in my lifetime has homosexuality been illegal"...

As to Tibear's insistence that legality doesn't matter...how can it not matter if something is illegal or not...by that same token, it doesn't matter that murder is illegal, if someone wants to perform a human sacrifice for religious purposes, and it would go against the Charter not to allow them to do so...do you not see how ridiculous that sounds...the legality of the issue SSM is what strikes to the heart of the matter...not some right-wing Christian agenda...

Any time Vanni.

Allow me to help some more.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/russia/runews09.htm

"In Russia, male homosexuality was punishable by up to five years in prison. Lesbians ran the risk of being sent to psychiatric institutions as late as May 1993, when President Boris Yeltsin repealed Article 121 of the Criminal Code."

In this case anyways you would have to be born after May 1993.
(And the issue hasn't just gone away there it seems)

In other countries you will see it is still illegal and in some punishable by death, as crazy as that might seem.

I posted this link particularly because ppl around here insist, without a second thought that this is simply (I quote you)
"some right-wing Christian agenda..."

Under communism at least, Russia was/is a modern atheist country and society. 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.

In reality I believe ppl who throw around this little phrase, used so often around here, aren’t any bloody better then the ppl they criticize. It's no big deal of coarse, I just wanted to get it off my chest, and I'm not directing this at you per say. You just happen to be in the conversation. 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.


As for real legal issues, I’m just going to pull a few quotes here from Tibear.


"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."

"Surely, you've heard about the polygamy group in BC who said on the CBC program "The Fifth Estate" that they would be putting forth a charter challenge if they were prosecuted."

"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."

"Former BC attorney-general Geoff Plant, gave some thought to prosecuting polygamy cases in 1992 when police recommended that two Bountiful men be charged with polygamy. But the crown attorney's office declined to do so, following legal advice that conviction was impossible because of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms renders the law against polygamy unconstitutional."


There is nothing really wrong with this line of thinking. Let's look at the Charter:

"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."

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. 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 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 Charter says "discrimination” and then says " in particular,...... to reflect the current situation of jurisprudence they mean address at the moment. If SSM was a hot topic or say a more palatable one when the Charter was signed, I'm willing to bet it would sit beside the word sex in the Charter, it would say "sex, sexual orientation....." This is the beauty of common law I suppose; you don't have to rewrite the Charter every time an issue comes up. It’s a matter of interpretation and the precedence set because of it.

I could put it in a different way and say that if the Charter were written in the 50's it would probably not contain the words "physical disability". It would have precedence set as time went on to allow for its inclusion in what we call fundamental rights Commonly.

To re quote Tibear

"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."

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.

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, but the Ontario Human Rights code has already used the words "sexual orientation" in its Charter for a number of years now and it hasn't been an issue for a reason I'm not really sure of.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html


"Same-sex rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. It was then that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that labelled Everett Klippert a "dangerous sexual offender" and threw him in prison for admitting he was gay and that he had sex with other men."

just for the record.

Thanks for the post Jay, I stand corrected, and any further posts on this topic will read "Not in my lifetime has homosexuality been illegal"...

As to Tibear's insistence that legality doesn't matter...how can it not matter if something is illegal or not...by that same token, it doesn't matter that murder is illegal, if someone wants to perform a human sacrifice for religious purposes, and it would go against the Charter not to allow them to do so...do you not see how ridiculous that sounds...the legality of the issue SSM is what strikes to the heart of the matter...not some right-wing Christian agenda...

Any time Vanni.

Allow me to help some more.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/russia/runews09.htm

"In Russia, male homosexuality was punishable by up to five years in prison. Lesbians ran the risk of being sent to psychiatric institutions as late as May 1993, when President Boris Yeltsin repealed Article 121 of the Criminal Code."

In this case anyways you would have to be born after May 1993.
(And the issue hasn't just gone away there it seems)

In other countries you will see it is still illegal and in some punishable by death, as crazy as that might seem.

I posted this link particularly because ppl around here insist, without a second thought that this is simply (I quote you)
"some right-wing Christian agenda..."

Under communism at least, Russia was/is a modern atheist country and society. 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.

In reality I believe ppl who throw around this little phrase, used so often around here, aren’t any bloody better then the ppl they criticize. It's no big deal of coarse, I just wanted to get it off my chest, and I'm not directing this at you per say. You just happen to be in the conversation. 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.


As for real legal issues, I’m just going to pull a few quotes here from Tibear.


"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."

"Surely, you've heard about the polygamy group in BC who said on the CBC program "The Fifth Estate" that they would be putting forth a charter challenge if they were prosecuted."

"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."

"Former BC attorney-general Geoff Plant, gave some thought to prosecuting polygamy cases in 1992 when police recommended that two Bountiful men be charged with polygamy. But the crown attorney's office declined to do so, following legal advice that conviction was impossible because of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms renders the law against polygamy unconstitutional."


There is nothing really wrong with this line of thinking. Let's look at the Charter:

"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."

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. 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 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 Charter says "discrimination” and then says " in particular,...... to reflect the current situation of jurisprudence they mean address at the moment. If SSM was a hot topic or say a more palatable one when the Charter was signed, I'm willing to bet it would sit beside the word sex in the Charter, it would say "sex, sexual orientation....." This is the beauty of common law I suppose; you don't have to rewrite the Charter every time an issue comes up. It’s a matter of interpretation and the precedence set because of it.

I could put it in a different way and say that if the Charter were written in the 50's it would probably not contain the words "physical disability". It would have precedence set as time went on to allow for its inclusion in what we call fundamental rights Commonly.

To re quote Tibear

"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."

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.

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, but the Ontario Human Rights code has already used the words "sexual orientation" in its Charter for a number of years now and it hasn't been an issue for a reason I'm not really sure of.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html


"Same-sex rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. It was then that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling that labelled Everett Klippert a "dangerous sexual offender" and threw him in prison for admitting he was gay and that he had sex with other men."

just for the record.

Thanks for the post Jay, I stand corrected, and any further posts on this topic will read "Not in my lifetime has homosexuality been illegal"...

As to Tibear's insistence that legality doesn't matter...how can it not matter if something is illegal or not...by that same token, it doesn't matter that murder is illegal, if someone wants to perform a human sacrifice for religious purposes, and it would go against the Charter not to allow them to do so...do you not see how ridiculous that sounds...the legality of the issue SSM is what strikes to the heart of the matter...not some right-wing Christian agenda...

Any time Vanni.

Allow me to help some more.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/russia/runews09.htm

"In Russia, male homosexuality was punishable by up to five years in prison. Lesbians ran the risk of being sent to psychiatric institutions as late as May 1993, when President Boris Yeltsin repealed Article 121 of the Criminal Code."

In this case anyways you would have to be born after May 1993.
(And the issue hasn't just gone away there it seems)

In other countries you will see it is still illegal and in some punishable by death, as crazy as that might seem.

I posted this link particularly because ppl around here insist, without a second thought that this is simply (I quote you)
"some right-wing Christian agenda..."

Under communism at least, Russia was/is a modern atheist country and society. 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.

In reality I believe ppl who throw around this little phrase, used so often around here, aren’t any bloody better then the ppl they criticize. It's no big deal of coarse, I just wanted to get it off my chest, and I'm not directing this at you per say. You just happen to be in the conversation. 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.


As for real legal issues, I’m just going to pull a few quotes here from Tibear.


"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."

"Surely, you've heard about the polygamy group in BC who said on the CBC program "The Fifth Estate" that they would be putting forth a charter challenge if they were prosecuted."

"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."

"Former BC attorney-general Geoff Plant, gave some thought to prosecuting polygamy cases in 1992 when police recommended that two Bountiful men be charged with polygamy. But the crown attorney's office declined to do so, following legal advice that conviction was impossible because of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms renders the law against polygamy unconstitutional."


There is nothing really wrong with this line of thinking. Let's look at the Charter:

"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."

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. 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 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 Charter says "discrimination” and then says " in particular,...... to reflect the current situation of jurisprudence they mean address at the moment. If SSM was a hot topic or say a more palatable one when the Charter was signed, I'm willing to bet it would sit beside the word sex in the Charter, it would say "sex, sexual orientation....." This is the beauty of common law I suppose; you don't have to rewrite the Charter every time an issue comes up. It’s a matter of interpretation and the precedence set because of it.

I could put it in a different way and say that if the Charter were written in the 50's it would probably not contain the words "physical disability". It would have precedence set as time went on to allow for its inclusion in what we call fundamental rights Commonly.

To re quote Tibear

"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."

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.

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, but the Ontario Human Rights code has already used the words "sexual orientation" in its Charter for a number of years now and it hasn't been an issue for a reason I'm not really sure of.

 

[tibear]

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

 

[tibear]

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