Mad_Michael

Good gosh you have a few chips on your shoulders. Chill. As has been noted, section 95 of the BNA Act gives authority here to the Provinces so the quesiton is a valid one. I have given what I believe to be a good explanation of how the Federal action can be constitutionally justified here. Your assertion that the federal government has absolute authority is completely erroneous. P.S. I will defend your right to dislike gays or dislike gay marriage, though I'll expect you to defend my right to dislike 'conservatives'.

I don't see how. Marriage has always been the government's business through the adjudication of property laws and inheritances.

Upon further consideration of the one of the original questions regarding jurisdiction, I understand that there is good reason to claim jurisdiction over marriage falls to the Provinces in Canada under the rubrick of "civil law" (Section 95 of the 1867 BNA). While that is nominally the case, I think the governmental history of this subject provides a justified case for the Federal government's legislative initiative in this area. 1. Quebec's marriage law was the first to be struck down a couple of years ago. The Quebec Court of Appeals held their ruling in "abeyance" pending a response from the Provincial Legislature (i.e. the so-called 'National Assembly'). 2. BC's marriage law was the next to go down - for exactly the same legal reasoning. The BC Court of Appeals held their ruling in "abeyance" pending a response from the Provincial Legislature. It is to be noted that neither the Quebec nor BC's legislature made any move in any way shape or form to address the issue. 3. Ontario's marriage law was the next to go down - for exactly the same legal reasoning. The Ontario Court of Appeals let their ruling stand - which effectively threw the Ontario marriage law into the garbage and leaves Ontario without a marriage law of any kind. 4. Ontario, BC and Quebec Legislatures proved that they were unwilling or unable to address the issue. According to the law, there was no legal and valid marriage law in any of these three provinces. On this basis, the Federal government moved to address a vacuum. It was considered the consensus legal opinion that each and every Provincial marriage law in Canada was due to be struck down, one by one as the cases arose. In the face of complete non-action on the part of the Provinces to whom such jurisdiction may be presumed to belong, non-action may constitute deriliction and justify Federal action on that account. Prior to the Federal legislation to be tabled, there has been ample opportunity for the Provinces to legislate a new marriage law. All were apparently unwilling or unable to do so, including Klein who prefered to play political grandstanding games by mentioning Section 38 of the 1982 Constitution Act (the infamous Notwithstanding Clause). On this basis, I believe the Federal government is completely justified in tabling legislation in this area. Provincial incompetance made it necessary.

I think this 'solution' causes more problems than it solves and I'm not aware of any significant problems with the status quo that require a solution. So, if marriage is to be taken from the jurisdiction of our governments, whom do you propose shall regulate the game - or am to be allowed to marry my 10 yo neice and my 11yo cousin next week? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What Sparhawk proposed, and I think Klein's idea was the same, was to withdraw the term "marriage" from the government's vocabulary, and simply refer to "civil union". -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And that is a non-starter. It surrenders the marriage turf from the government where it has always been and transfers authority (implicitly) to the Churches - something that would be emphatically opposed. A marriage is a civil union by definition. Suggesting word-changes never solves a problem.

Yes, we have enough to share. However, the minute you try to change our voluntary sharing into required charity, the surplus has a nasty habit of evaporating. Funny how that works. If my produce is mine, I will share it. If you take it away from me, I shall not bother to produce it.

I think this 'solution' causes more problems than it solves and I'm not aware of any significant problems with the status quo that require a solution. So, if marriage is to be taken from the jurisdiction of our governments, whom do you propose shall regulate the game - or am to be allowed to marry my 10 yo neice and my 11yo cousin next week?

On what basis do you make this assertion? I'll agree that this is true in the USA. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The Same-Sex marriage law is a done deal in Canada, having received Royal assent. This law specifies "two persons". Because our governments have a long, long history of regulating or controling the institution of marriage (incidentally, a history that long predates the advent of the Christian Church). Huh? You opened your post by asserting that it was a Provincial perogative? And Ralphy was talking 'off the cuff' again here, which means you can just ignore him. Ralphy's a smart populist - he knows how to play the game and such comments appeal to his base without costing him anything. The logic doesn't follow. You haven't given any reason why the State ought to be out of the marriage game. They've been in it for a long time for very good reasons. Telling them to get out just because you don't like it seems a bit weak.