The marriage "Saviours"
- Thread starter peapod
- Start date
RE: The marriage "Saviour
If gays want to adopt I would say fine but they should be given less priority than a heterosexual couple and more than a single parent. (of course other factors would have to be included as well)
That is because a child with two parents of one gender might not really grow up knowing how to deal people of different genders and if the parents are the same gender as the child, a type of gender-based xenophobia could happen.
If gays want to adopt I would say fine but they should be given less priority than a heterosexual couple and more than a single parent. (of course other factors would have to be included as well)
That is because a child with two parents of one gender might not really grow up knowing how to deal people of different genders and if the parents are the same gender as the child, a type of gender-based xenophobia could happen.
Cathou said:
That would never happen. The only way to ban it would be notwithstanding clause.
It is legal everywhere now basically. SCOC ruled it is constitutional.
All it would take for the other jurisdictions to legalize it is a gay couple going to court if they were denied a marriage license. Including Alberta. If the judges for some reason did not follow leads of the other provinces and Yukon to legalize and it reached SCOC it would be legal everywhere. The SCOC has basically said as much.
The bottom line it is here and it is here to stay. I don't think even Harper would be stupid enough to invoke notwithstanding clause. But since at best all he would get is a miniority and the majority of mp's from other 3 main parties support it, that ain't gonna happen either.
In all the provinces and territories it is legal it was the courts that did the legalizing as it is a Violation of our Charter of Rights. ( and in my opinion rightly so).
We are lucky to have a well written Charter that protects the rights of all.
RE: The marriage "Saviour
That's still up in the air, Cathou. Harper would have to invoke notwithstanding. What happens to all of the people who are already married? Would it take legislation to reverse their marriages or to keep them?
The best thing to is to vote for somebody who believes in equality instead of vicious homophobe with a bad haircut.
That's still up in the air, Cathou. Harper would have to invoke notwithstanding. What happens to all of the people who are already married? Would it take legislation to reverse their marriages or to keep them?
The best thing to is to vote for somebody who believes in equality instead of vicious homophobe with a bad haircut.
but marriage is a federal competance right ? the non-withstanding clause souldnt be call by province to ammand a federal law instead of the federal that use it to invalidate provincial decision ?
And if Harper have swear to not use the clause, why he even bother to try to ammend the law since it's already legal everywhere ?
i really dont know what to do this election. i dont thrust Paul Martin, Harper is not an option and i think that Jack layton is disconnected from reality... guess i will stick with the bloc again this year...
And if Harper have swear to not use the clause, why he even bother to try to ammend the law since it's already legal everywhere ?
i really dont know what to do this election. i dont thrust Paul Martin, Harper is not an option and i think that Jack layton is disconnected from reality... guess i will stick with the bloc again this year...
RE: The marriage "Saviour
The provinces contrary to what some Klein-ites claim can not use the Notwithstanding clause on this issue, only the feds can. So don't worry it is going to be legal forever, I would assume.
The provinces contrary to what some Klein-ites claim can not use the Notwithstanding clause on this issue, only the feds can. So don't worry it is going to be legal forever, I would assume.
Still, it's funny to see how Harper handle this subject. when he's in the west of the canada he talk openly of it, and when he come to quebec, he try to avoid the subject (probably because he know that it's a very sensitive subject here). and i'm pretty sure that Martin and probably Duceppe will try to use this subject in next election. When they've done the first reading two weeks ago, it pass only by 30 vote. If there's more conservative in the chamber for the next lecture, who know what might happen...
RE: The marriage "Saviour
It does not matter if it passes really in the house of commons though. If they vote it down. The courts and SCOC will make it legal everywhere anyways sooner or later.
The ironic thing it would probabley come out of Alberta when a gay couple is denied a marriage license and if Alberta judges don't tow the line the SCOC will set them straight.
It does not matter if it passes really in the house of commons though. If they vote it down. The courts and SCOC will make it legal everywhere anyways sooner or later.
The ironic thing it would probabley come out of Alberta when a gay couple is denied a marriage license and if Alberta judges don't tow the line the SCOC will set them straight.
I can see the sides both sides and cannot see why we cannot find a compromise.
I believe that the unions between homosexual couples should be considered equal to heterosexual unions under the law, but why must they be called the same thing?
The truth is that the traditional definition of marriage is between a man and women. Why must it change? There seems to be some attachment to the word and it seems to have special meaning to people.
I mean why can't we call the unions between homosexual couples something else and reserve the word marriage to heterosexual unions?
We label and sub divide everything else in life, why can't be have two words to distinguish the two types of unions?
What do homosexuals want? The rights under the law or the semantics of having their unions called marriages?
I believe that the unions between homosexual couples should be considered equal to heterosexual unions under the law, but why must they be called the same thing?
The truth is that the traditional definition of marriage is between a man and women. Why must it change? There seems to be some attachment to the word and it seems to have special meaning to people.
I mean why can't we call the unions between homosexual couples something else and reserve the word marriage to heterosexual unions?
We label and sub divide everything else in life, why can't be have two words to distinguish the two types of unions?
What do homosexuals want? The rights under the law or the semantics of having their unions called marriages?
Re: RE: The marriage "Saviours"
So then the Conservative proposal of civil unions is okay then?
Hard-Luck Henry said:
So then the Conservative proposal of civil unions is okay then?
Re: RE: The marriage "Saviours"
How so? I'm all for equal rights. I was merely seeking to find out if the opposition to the SSM bill deals with the actual term marriage. At least I'm for equal rights, last I heard more than 50% of Canadians weren't. So what do you call all of them?
Besides, how is labeling me as a neo-con, racist red neck bastard mature?
I made no derogatory remark about different races, so how can I be a racist? The term red neck comes from farmers who were working on the fields all day and had sun burnt necks. I am not a farmer and have no sunburned neck. As for the marital status of my parents when I was born, they were very much legally married so the term bastard does not apply to me.
I thought this was an open forum where Canadians could share ideas and opinions without being labeled and called derogatory names.
MMMike said:
How so? I'm all for equal rights. I was merely seeking to find out if the opposition to the SSM bill deals with the actual term marriage. At least I'm for equal rights, last I heard more than 50% of Canadians weren't. So what do you call all of them?
Besides, how is labeling me as a neo-con, racist red neck bastard mature?
I made no derogatory remark about different races, so how can I be a racist? The term red neck comes from farmers who were working on the fields all day and had sun burnt necks. I am not a farmer and have no sunburned neck. As for the marital status of my parents when I was born, they were very much legally married so the term bastard does not apply to me.
I thought this was an open forum where Canadians could share ideas and opinions without being labeled and called derogatory names.
I have no problem with your post, Das, you made it clear you were in favour of equal rights. I respect your view. The point I was trying to make was; why should one group be excluded from calling their union a 'marriage', if they so want?. You're right, it's only a word, but in saying one group can't use it reinforces prejudices against them. Not in law, but in culture and society, and small minds.
As for MMMike's list of derogatory terms, I'm sure they weren't intended for you, Das. I can only assume these are expressions MMMike has heard directed at himself elsewhere, and maybe he's implying that people here resort to personal insults with little provocation. I have to say, that's not been my experience at this board. If you're prepared to offer reasoned arguments, such as you did, it's likely you'll receive a reasoned reply. :wink:
As for MMMike's list of derogatory terms, I'm sure they weren't intended for you, Das. I can only assume these are expressions MMMike has heard directed at himself elsewhere, and maybe he's implying that people here resort to personal insults with little provocation. I have to say, that's not been my experience at this board. If you're prepared to offer reasoned arguments, such as you did, it's likely you'll receive a reasoned reply. :wink:
RE: The marriage "Saviour
I think MMMMikey is expecting one of us from the left to call you that, DasFX. From what you've said that description doesn't fit though, so I won't.
The reason that it comes up is that a certain segment of society preaches intolerance and religiousity most of the time, but changes their tune when they deem it politically advantageous. I call them many things, and I'll continue to do so.
To answer your question about why the term marriage is so important....Just consider how happy you were with words being used to lump you in with certain people. Would you be a lot happier with words being used to deny you the right to certain conventions of our society?
I think MMMMikey is expecting one of us from the left to call you that, DasFX. From what you've said that description doesn't fit though, so I won't.
The reason that it comes up is that a certain segment of society preaches intolerance and religiousity most of the time, but changes their tune when they deem it politically advantageous. I call them many things, and I'll continue to do so.
To answer your question about why the term marriage is so important....Just consider how happy you were with words being used to lump you in with certain people. Would you be a lot happier with words being used to deny you the right to certain conventions of our society?
dasfx is right again about ssm why should marage be changed now? when for hundreds of years it has always been the definition of a man and a woman if it was too be like wise it should have been aloud hundreds of years ago. Oh and reverend thats my oppinion it's not bigotry and oppinion is somthing you strongly agree with.
smitty295 said:
Smitty, a section of my garden fence blew down in a recent storm. I picked up the fallen section and, you know what I did? I "married" it to another section. "Marriage" is simply the combination of two elements - they don't even need to be human, nevermind exclusively male and female. And what may or may not have been allowed hundreds of years ago, shouldn't be used to govern what we do now. That's a no-brainer.