yvestar

Could you please define essence and how it relates to and individual? If you haven't noticed, a marriage is made up of individuals. Sorry, I should have been more precise. Please refer to S.15 of the Charter(equality rights) and subsitute individual with marriage. I disagree that the primary purpose of a marriage certificate is for symbolic reasons only. It's a legal document very much like a birth certificate is a legal document. A marriage certificate identifies the birth of a union in matrimony.

Marriages are also real. They are not a mere concept but a real entity.

I grew up believing gender meant sex. One can cross reference the birth certificates and the marriage certificate. What kind of documentation do you need to get married? Curious to know, does the current marriage certificate contain any reference to sex? I always assumed it did. I am glad you at least, at your first glance, see it my way.

I'm not speaking of definition but instead indentification. Why would government want to indentify a soul when it's already embodied in an individual? It requires two people to be embodied in a marriage. The word marriage flows with the Charter because it can easily replace the word individual. If we can identify individuals by way of gender on a birth certificate we should at least be able to do the same on a marriage certificate. For now, I'm trying to make a case for also identifying the attraction in a marriage.

Your gender status should be removed from your birth certificate? A marriage certificate cannot contain any reference to gender? A marriage certificate cannot contain any reference to attraction, the only moral reason for getting married?

It's not the same. You can identify a person for government purposes. You can identify a marriage for government purposes. But you cannot identify a soul for government purposes. Marriage is not a concept. It is a legalized entity much like an individual is legalized at birth with its subsequent acknowledgement(solemnization) via a government birth certificate.

It's up to offended people to register their complaint. I believe 7 out 70 Justices of the Peace in NL resigned over this issue. This is correct. I don't believe anything else he says regarding SSM. Your mathematical equations misrepresent the verbal equation. I can't really comment on something that is false.

That's not how to interpret it. Women have holes while men have sticks. But yes, you can still use x and y.

Re: The Current SSM Bill A justice of the peace cannot be adequately protected on the issue of religious freedom. Here is a link to a speech by John Williams MP who makes a realistic argument that religious freedom is a provincial issue and not a federal issue. If you interpret differently than Mr. Williams then please describe your counter-arguments. For now, I will be vigorously defending John Williams on this particular issue. http://www.johnwilliams.ca/news/JWilliamsS...amesexjan05.pdf Also, by method of provincial leverage in its legal jurisdiction of marriage and marriage-official certification, the province can possibly achieve its goal for all churches to perform homosexual marriages. If dissenting Churches do not play ball they can be decertified to perform any sort of marriage for the province. Performing marriages for the province is not an inalienable right. Re: Having an Identity Is marriage an inalienable right for two consenting adults? I believe it is. Is having an identity an inalienable right? If yes, then does marriage have the inalienable right to an identity? If yes or no, should having an identity be an inalienable right protected under the Charter? The objective of marriage differentiation is to protect the right to an identity if one existed. Here are my mathematical observations for marriage differentiation. female homosexual marriage: 0 + 0 = 0 male homosexual marriage: 1 + 1 = 2 heterosexual marriage: 0 + 1 = 1 Similarities of the equations: 1. they are all additions/unions 2. they are unions of exactly two terms 3. all the terms and solutions are in number format Common differences of the equations: 1. homosexual marriage solutions are found at the extremity of this simple number series. 2. homosexual marriage solutions have two identical terms in their union equation Differences of the equations: 1. all have different solutions

Based on the People and Land Democracy Premise Ontario would receive approximately 86 seats. Their population vote would count for about 39% of total population votes while their land area votes would count for about 18% of the total land area votes. This averages out to about 28% of all votes. The number of seats is not the real indicator of power in the People and Land premise (because of rounding) but instead are, riding population and land area.

Personally, I don't agree with an Equal Senate. I think it is majorly flawed. I've heard the most common proposal for an equal senate is: 10 seats per province and 3 seats per territory. What is going to stop Yukon from splitting into 10 different territories? That's 30 seats where there was once 3. Similarly, if I were to take an extreme case: What if PEI splits into 10 territories or 10 provinces? Does anyone see as to what I'm getting at? Equal representation as described here is illogical and I think rather impossible to implement. As for proportional representation of the population in the HOC or Senate? I'm all for this. I'm also for adding proportional representation of the land area into the HOC and Senate. I don't like BC's proposed STV system or any other common PR electoral systems. I think a maximum of 2 most popular representatives who are the only ones involved in a runoff election should carry their proportional voter support from the runoff election into the HOC or Senate for legislative voting purposes.

However, not all votes will receive representation in the legislature with a common proportional representation system as used around the world. I believe a better PR system is explained in my paper, Every Vote Doesn't Count: Common PR Not Good Either. I'm not impressed with the BC proposal either as indicated in my paper currently under revision, Increasing Democracy in Parliament The above are very short papers you can read in much less than 3-5 minutes each.

At Real Democracy Canada: A People and Land Premise you will find a list of short papers I've written. I've received some interesting responses from the likes of Paul Martin, Dalton McGuinty and John Hamm. These particular responses were also posted at this website. Most of them are a short read so don't be afraid to experience a few of them. Please note, these short papers are only available in html format at this time.