Black Dog

I heard on the radio this morning that a lesbian couple and the human rights board is sueing the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organisation, for refusing to allow them to use their hall for a wedding in BC. Off we go slip sliding away... Can you explain how renting a hall (which they no doubt do for all kinds of events) has any bearing on the religious beliefs of the group on question? I highly doubt the religious freedom clauses of the Charter are intended to cover such decidely temporal matters as hall rentals.

The discussion of gay arriage is a tempest in a teapot, part of a shell game to distract us from issues of consequense. Bush is also full of crap. Bush knows (or at least his handlers do) that words like liberty and freedom play well simpky because they are pleasant-sounding abstracts. Empty platitudes that in no way reflect the true agenda. Howzat? In Canada we have a minority government and four lively opposition parties representing a duiverse range of viewpoints. Were it not for our antiquated electoral system, we'd have an even more vibrant democracy. The United States has two parties in shades of red.

So what else is there? If you disregard homophobia or dissaproval of homosexuals as a motive for oppossing same sex marriage, what's left? Nor does it. The proposed gay marriage legislation deals with marriage as a civil/legal institution and will not impact any religions. The civil union model is not an option

Afghanistan wasn't ilelgal as it was consiodered an act of self-defense. Kosovo was illegal. Neither of which has anything to do with Iraq or Iran, which is the actual subject of this thread.

Conservative fortress, fascist state. Tom-ay-to, Tom-ah-to.

Yes, I'm so proud that my folks chose to raise me on this particular part of the earth, as oppossed to locations several kilometers north, south east or west. I'm proud of all the things other people who were also born within the arbitray boundaries of this political/economic creation known as "Alberta" have accomplished, even though I had absolutely nothing to with them. I'm proud that the accident of geography that led to my birth and residency here also coincided with the geological phenomenon that led to large deposits of oil being formed within those same boundaries (even though such events occurred long before Alberta even existed), which has resulted in this entity's prosperity. Hmm. I'm a born'n'bred Albertan. I've been walking this part of the earth for a lot longer than you. I disagree with a great many of your political beliefs and the beliefs of many Albertans. Does that make me less of an Albertan because I don't fit the stereotype?

Clinton could have believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD, but he never went to war (notwithstanding a few illegal bombings) because of it. Bush did.

I'm not surprised they've brought up polygamy, just that they could save themselves some time by wearing T-shirts that read "I'm with stupid" with an arrow pointing up. Polygamy is a red herring. How can I spell it ouit? Gay marriage=apples. Polygamy=oranges.

No. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy because there's no connection between same sex marriage and any of the other alleged consequenses. Can you tell me how legislating marriage as "the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" creates a greater risk of legalized polygamy than "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others"? The fact of the matter is, if somebody wanted to mount a legal challenge to the definition of marriage to include polygamy (for example) they could have done it at anytime since the Charter came into force. (If not longer, as the definition of marriage is part of the Constitution Act of 1867.) ...which is incompatable with the equality provisions contained within the Charter. Your way would be the equivilant of saying "people may worship whatever religion they wish, so long as it's Christianity." Changing the defintion of marriage to "the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" does not discriminate against anyone. The law applies equally to all. Again: none of this bears any connection to same sex marriage. *exasperated sigh* The prohibition on gay marriage was overturned because denying someone a right based on immutable characterisics is a no-no. However, it is fully within the government's power to forbid polygamy even on religious grounds because it's not discrimination. Unless you belive there's such a thing as a natural-born polygamist. The federal government has no constitutional authority over civil unions: only marriage. But why does he want to perserve that definition? Huh? Huh? How is it discriminatory? Are some people allowed to marry siblings but not others? Not according to the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act. See? "No person..." Pretty unambiguous if you ask me. So who's being discriminated against?

There's no doubt Iran has a nuclear program. They've admitted as much, though they've denied they'r eusing it to develop weapons.. But whether that progtram has acheived any results (ie. actually building a bomb) is another story. We know they haven't tested a nuke. We also know that, even if they had, their ability to deliver one is extremely limited. They have no ICBM capability and limited local delivery. Above all, though, is the question of even if Iran does manage to develop a viable nuclear weapons program and the means to deliver it, would they? They should have asked me. I could have told them Iraq had no WMD. Better yet, they should have listened to the UN inspection teams that destroyed 95% of Iraq's WMD capabilites. In any case, Clinton et al may have suspected or believed Iraq had WMDs. But Bush is the one who actually went to war on that false pretense.

How about "the absence of a coherent argument for including polygamy, bestiality etc etc in the Charter"? How about the fact that prohibitions on the above are not discriminatory, as the law applies equally to all? How about the fact that the Charter allows "reasonable limits" on individual rights?

Precisely. Sabre rattling and war plans will only serve to unite Iranians behind their leadership in the face of a common foe. So, if democratic reform was really the Bush admin's goal for the region, threats are the wrong way to go about it. But then, democratic reform is not the goal. Iran isn't stupid. You can bet their nuclear program is scattered, hidden and heavily fortified. This analysis by GlobalSecurity.org highlights some of the uncertainties surrounding the air strike option.

The actions of terrorist groups, such as blatant violations of the rules of warfare such as attacking civilians, etc., is not the subject of this discussion and is, therefore, irrelevant. Unless you happen to belive that two wrongs DO make a right... And what bearing does the actions of war criminals like "Bomber" Harris, Winston Churchill, and others of sixty-odd years ago have on this subject? No. We're talking about death squads. For your enlightenment, here's some handy tidbits about what happened the last time this was attempted.

The Charter did cover sexual orientation from the get go. Because of the court challenges that deemed that definition unconstitutional. Fallacious fear-mongering. "Activist judges": a right-wing bogeyman. The Charter is part of the constitution, the supreme law of the land, created by the democratically elected federal government, ratified by the democratically-elected representatives of the provinces. The courts check the power of the majority to ensure that laws passed by Parliment are consistent with the principals contained within the Charter. Wrong. The curent definition of marriage is unconstitutional because it bars a certain segment of society from participating in something that other members of society can partake in. That's discrimination. In the case of polygamy and whatnot, the law applies equally to everyone, so no one is being discriminated against. IMR: I'm still awaiting a rationale for opposing to gay marriage that is not predicated on opposition to homosexuality.

He can't. It wouldn't be a confidence vote. Equating same-sex marriage with polygamy is a matter of apples and oranges. The Charter states you cannot discriminate on the basis of innate characteristics such as race or sexual orientation. In other words: you can't give one group a set of rights, but deny those same rights to another group, as is the case with the prohibition on same sex marriage. Polygamy on the other hand, is a no-no clear across the board. The only way the prohibition on polygamy could be challenged is on the basis of freedom of religion. But religious freedom is not absolute. Unless something is permitted to some religous groups and not others, it's not a violation of freedom of religion.

This vote will be free in name only. The Tories party line is abundantly clear and, given the fact that they don't want to hear from anyone from their party who supports SSM, I expect there will be considerable behind-the-scenes pressure to toe the line. Similarily, Martin said today that he'd be willing to fight an election over SSM. Now, he knows no one wants an election right now (nor is SSM a confidence issue), but was sending a message to his caucus that they had best stick together on this issue.

Your point appears to be that some people who oppose gay marriage do not do so because they have anything against homosexuals. Okay: prove it. Give me a rationale for opposing to gay marriage that is not predicated on opposition to homosexuality.

US sets sights on 'threat' from Iran I see Bushco is wasting no time on getting their house in order for the next chapter in their campaign to make the world safe for oil...er "freedom". The U.S. strategy seems to be: 1) Build up the Iranian "threat". 2) Publicly wash their hands of any Israeli actions undertaken in "pre-emptive self-defense" while undoubtedly working behind the scenes to coordinate such actions. 3) Following the inevitable Iranian retaliation, launch a full scale invasion of Iran. Even if that's not the way it plays out, make no mistake: an invasion of Iran will take place within the next year or two.

But they're not looking at legalizing it, just evaluating what their options are. Uh no...see, the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Since you'd be violating numerous Criminal Code provisions by marrying a minor, your example would be subject to such "reasonable limits". Such as criminal prosecution.

Ah...no. See the difference is that, while I'm not Jewish, I respect the rights of those who are to follow their religious and cultural practices. I would not advocate denying Jews the same rights enjoyed by others simply because I think it's silly to deny oneself the pleasures of bacon. Similarily, not being gay doesn't make one a homophobe. However "disagreeing with the lifestyle" to the point that one advocates inequality does.

Civil unions. "Sperate but equal". Hmmm..... Why should anyone be forced to compromise on equal rights? Again: the only people gay marriage will affect are gay people who wish to be married. Would you also say it's unfair to call a neo-Nazi who disagrees with "the Jewish lifestyle" an anti-semite? When you reject someone because of who they are, that's bigotry.

Are there arguments against gay marriage that don't hinge on dissapproval of the "gay lifestyle"? Calgary bishop wants government to act against gays

Don't be naive. They're not writing blank cheques to whoever toddles in and says "Gimme some money to help them Asians." I would expect government funded charitable organizations are screened for what their beliefs are and how they do business. I don't think the government should be giving public funds to groups who's purpose is to bring more converts into their fold. But hey, let's look at it your way: the charitable wing of Hamas build schools and provides aid to people in occupied Palestine and Lebanon. Hamas also has a tendency to recruit people to blow themselves and any innovcent bystanders to bits. Now, according to your logic, it's okay to fund the charitable wing of Hamas even if we disagree with the beliefs of the militant wing because hey: it's impossible to be an ethical consumer.