The Terrible Sweal

Some people clearly have a very low threshold for 'always right'.

The Bible teaches us that God commanded Ezekiel to eat cow dung. This means that Canadians must accept that dogs and cats are incarnate angels sent to Earth to resist Satanic impulses. In Maccabees 1:1 Jesus' will is made clear. God hates. Grow up and breathe.

NO! English is the predominant language because Jacob became Israel and Moses freed the Israelites! Skewed interpreters of the Bible are always misinterpreting this point. BTW, Judges 6:11 completely proves this. Irrefutably.

Pardon me , but what on Earth do you think you mean by such utter nonsense? "God" is angry about pagan sabbaths, is it? Prove it. What evidence do you have of such a proposition? I think you're spouting utter hooey, and wasting our time.

One can frequently hear people say things like "It's our duty to help the poor/the thirf world/disaster victims/whoever". But what is the source and nature of such 'obligations'? Why should we help tsunami victims?

I guess the Bushites better trump up some lies to support the invasion and military occupation of California!

I find that inconsistent. You say it should be the same in all but name, but the name should recognize the differences. So... what differences do you mean? And why must they be recognized?

Excellent! This foum has long needed an injection of badly written, empty-headed, overwrought religious drivel.

You mean it was 'borrowed' from the Romans?

How about the internal inconsistencies within the Bible itself?

Point of information: Trudeau did not wear a Nazi costume. He actually dressed up as a 19th century Prussian officer.

First, interpreting the constution is not 'activism'. It is the job of the court. Second, the equality provision of the Charter does not need an activist stance to conclude it covers discrimination against groups beyond the short list. The wording is clear. Third, polygamy cannot be argued on the grounds that were successful in the same sex marriage cases because it does not fit within those grounds.

The 'pro-Gay rights lobby' doesn't see any bona fide basis for 'debate'. People opposed to same-sex marriage have had months (if not years) to articulate a sensible basis for their objections and they have consistently come up with nothing that amounts to anything. Based on this failure, it has come to the point that it is only sensible to view calls from that quarter for 'debate' as merely window dressing for prejudice. While tactically it is not unexpected for SSM opponents to draw in polygamy, it is nevertheless the argument of an ignoramous, based on a profoundly uninformed understanding of our legal and political system. Exactly. There is no content to this 'debate' except that it represents the symbolic goring of the ox of prejudice. Before making that conclusion, I think it is necessary to ask WHY he holds that position.

Endless War! Endless War! We want endless war!!!!

Okay. I'll buy that.

If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court chose to read in/add to this section "sexual orientation". Technically, no. 'Reading in' is applied to statutes to correct them to comply with the Charter. It is not applied to the Charter itself. The provincial courts of appeal have found that the concept of 'every individual ... without discrimination' includes discrimination against persons on the basis of sexual orientation, and that confining marriage to heterosexual unions discriminated on that basis. The court doesn't add anything. It merely how what we wrote in 1982 applies to the circumstances as they arise today.

But how do you foresee that such groups 'could' establish legally acceptable claims to Charter protection? The short answer is that a claim to equal treatment from government established under the Charter does not equate with the creation of a positive obligation on private institutions. Churches have further protection still by virtue of the Charter protection for religious freedom.You could try reading the Supreme Court decision in the same sex reference case. Stink or no stink, they have the right to refuse.

I've heard somewhere that some people are 'proud to be Albertans'. No offense, but what is that supposed to mean? Proud to be [an inhabitant of a particular geographic area]??? I don't get it.

Not because the state recognizes any authority or sacredness of the text over or related to the state itself. Swearing an oath is useful to the state because the individual swearing it purports to place a reliance on the text.

In other words a slippery slope that could include: polygamists, the obese, blonds, supporters of victimless child porn (artifical computer images of children), supporters of beastiality ... That depends on what you mean by 'could'.

That's also something of a distortion, and probably amounts to an appeal to bigotry. By the same logic, some might say the same about our laws, only the ancient geography is different. Some might say that about our laws, but they'd be wrong. Our law is in constant evolution. Recognition of gay marriage is an example. Many within the Muslim faith, on the other hand, reject the notion that law can evolve: God's law was given to mankind during the time of Mohammed, and screwing around with God's law is viewed in an extremely dim light. -kimmy A masterpiece of rhetoric, Kimmy, but conclusive of very little. Some in the west challenge the notion that our laws can evolve, while some Muslims argue that Sharia can and does. BTW, did anyone answer my question about what specific changes they wanted to the Arbitration Act?

They were there crafting the wording which, in well accepted norms of statutory interpretation, made the list of protected grounds inclusive, but not exhaustive of the protection afforded. That is, the listed grounds are examples only, of an indeterminate list. I'm not sure what your point is. New parliament, new members, n'est ce pas? That's a rather startling conclusion, given the court treatment of this issue so far. The Charter is the root that grows in the fertile soil of our liberal democratic social contract.

BTW, if this is to be a free vote of MPs, why is the Conservative Party as a whole paying for the ads. Aren't there any tory members who are going to support the legislation? Whoops, Black Dog just said that, I see.

I disagree. For many months now, I have wondered at the threadbare incoherence of the opposition to SSM. I've inquired and investigated to determine what the reasoning is, but I could not. I conclude that this is because the objection is not based on reason. I think opposition to same sex marriage begins and ends with a persistent dislike among a large percentage of the population for homosexuality -- in short, bigotry.

Crap. He's allowing a free vote. Anyway, he's not imposing gay marriage, he's allowing gay marriage. The Rightista confusion of these basic concepts explains the persistence of many retrograde social policies.