realwannabe

The charter considers sexual orientation as a possible basis for discrimination. For example, a persons colout, creed, religion, race, sex, or any other constitutionall protected attribute can be considered a ground for discrimination. Whereas people are not naturally inclined to have polygamous relationship, and the charter does not consider discrimination for marriage can be based on numbers, or amily relationships, or species For the possiblity of polyamous marriages being legalised, the court has to first recognize that "numbers" constitutes a ground for discrimination. Its totally different things with regard to sexual orientation. One doesnt lead to another or vice versa.

What is wrong with this system is that it shouldnt matter who you vote for or where you vote, rather your party is regionally concentrated in its support or not, all votes should have the same weight or close to. In a representative democracy, all citizens are supposed to have an equal share /power to participate in the electoral process, FPTP distorts voters ' intention and favors certain party over another, underrepresents a significant group of people, leaving them with no proper representation. This is all unacceptable and damages Canadian democracy. Say in a single riding, an extream example 33 percent support NDP 33 percent support Liberal 34 percent support Conservatives The conservative mp would win, and the rest of the 66 percent of the voters would have no representation which amounts to alot of wasted votes and contribute to voters apathy.

exactly, i am comparing NATIONAL votes. Why does a vote for the Bloc in Quebec worths more than a vote for the NDP in anywhere else? The NDP receives 23 percent of the vote in Saskatchewan but got ZERO seat. Liberal got 27 percent of the vote in Sask with only 1 seat whereas Conservative got 41 percent of the vote and took 13 seats. 50 percent of voters in Saskatchewan did not vote Conservative and yet almost 99 percent of the seats are taken by the conservatives in Sask.

realwannabe give a conservative spin then MS would tell you to get off his board. lol. Funny guys.

If you think the gays don't already have plans to challenge the RC church and others on discrimination grounds for refusing to marry gays you're dumber than your postings would indicate. I am waiting for the feds to say we won't force churches to perform SSM ; by the way remember the special tax status you once had..... we are not forcing you ... do you want to play ball or loose it. And i dont think any certain religion should be subjected to special tax status.

Marriage is not a "human right". Every loud pressure group likes to use that term about whatever it is they're being denied, from more generous welfare to having sex with their horse. Marriage is a right because any willing heterosexual can join this institution except couples of the same sex. The only basis for this discrimination is due to sexual orientation. This violates the Charter that endorses equality right, its not rocket science here.

If by 'fundy' you are referring to a Christian fundamentalist or maybe a Muslim fundamentalist, are they not entitled to a political voice, or does democracy only extend to some people. While I don't believe we should be in the nations's bedrooms, I do have a problem with changing the definition of marriage. It is only a matter of time before religious rights will be struck down and along with that all religious marriages. ok August, Thanks for clearifying.. I just think there is alot of red herring in regard to this issue. Religions will not go away as same sex couples get married, in fact, many same sex couples share religious beliefs and many religious institutions support same sex marriage, so one is not support the freedom of religon by opposing SSM. As well, churches and priests always have the choice to marry whoever they want, they have the choice of not marrying interracial couples and couples who have had divorces in the past, so the same will happen for gay couples. No one is going to force any churches to recognize anything. Theres always other churches that will accept other gay couples, no one cares to pick a fight with what a private church chooses to do in their own space. Thats just silly. And it hasnt happened, SSM has been legal in Ontario for a year and a half, no priest has been hold hostage by gay couples so far. And Argus, i dont think beastality should be compared with same sex relationships. Horses are not protected under the Charter, so there would be no human - animal marriage , how silly. Seriously, get a grip.

The only reason minority government is short lived is becuase the governning party WANTS IT TO. It likes to have a majority government so they can rule as they please. The system "works" for SOME people, its "fair" for SOME people, namely the Liberals. Case in point, NDP got 15.69 percent of the popular vote in the 2004 election, and it has 19 seats, whereas the Bloc has only 12.40 percent of the popular votes but got 54 seats. FPTP favors regionally concentrated party and punishes small party that has national support. The very fact that you can say say that FPTP is completely fair shows that you are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue.

We have minority governments before, they worked well. 75 democracies in the world have some form of PR , if its that unstable than why is it so popular and why do people keep using it? And the provincal NDP doesnt have to agree with the federal NDP in any issues, i dont think. I am not sure, but thats not the point of this thread. This is to talk about the electoral system, right?

I just couldnt bring myself to not say anything! Harper was obviously very desperate to make it looks like today's decision was a victory for the Conservative, he used all his time to mislead us why the fourth question wasnt answered and didnt talk about the rest of the decision which unconditionally, unequivocally and fully endorsed SSM. But now i gotta go to bed, nice to meet you maplesyrup! goodnight

And why does politicans have a right to vote on a human right issue? Of course it shouldnt be a free vote. This is an issue of human right , and it only concerns with minority group as far as i am concerned. Allowing same sex couples to marry does not infringe whatsoever on the right of the heterosexuals' couples. And all of the major polls have shown that the support for SSM is rising , and a good majority now supports this legislation with only 30 to 40 percent disagreeing. The fundies are always the ones making the biggest noise. Most Canadians do not care about this issue , if you think this will create instability, you are kidding yourself. 85 percent of Canadians already have same sex marriage legalised.

If you didnt think the Supreme Court endorsed SSM, you clearly havent seen the written decision. How misinformed you are. The Supreme court has rejected ALL the arguments against same sex marriage, the only reason they didnt answer the fourth question is because of procedure issue. Read , than speak. Lord Sankey acknowledged, at p. 134, that "several centuries ago" it would have been understood that "persons" should refer only to men. Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today. Some interveners submit that the mere legislative recognition of the right of same-sex couples to marry would have the effect of discriminating against (1) religious groups who do not recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry (religiously) and/or (2) opposite-sex married couples. No submissions have been made as to how the Proposed Act, in its effect, might be seen to draw a distinction for the purposes of s. 15, nor can the Court surmise how it might be seen to do so. [ same sex marriage ] withholds no benefits, nor does it impose burdens on a differential basis. It therefore fails to meet the threshold requirement of the s. 15(1) analysis laid down in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497. 46 The mere recognition of the equality rights of one group cannot, in itself, constitute a violation of the rights of another. The promotion of Charter rights and values enriches our society as a whole and the furtherance of those rights cannot undermine the very principles the Charter was meant to foster. 48 The first allegation of infringement says in essence that equality of access to a civil institution like marriage may not only conflict with the views of those who are in disagreement, but may also violate their legal rights. This amounts to saying that the mere conferral of rights upon one group can constitute a violation of the rights of another. This argument was discussed above in relation to s. 15(1) and was rejected.