Gay Rights

[playfullfellow]

Any such lawsuit would fail. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Charter. No reasonable judge would interpret it otherwise.

And all of the judges and decisions to come down to date have been reasonable?

Politicians use the supreme court to make the decisions they are too chickenshit to make themselves when it comes to charter issues.

And if you still think that supreme court judges would produce an erratic decision, then why trust elected officials to be less erratic ?

Because in 4 years we can get in a new government, we can't do squat about judges but yell a lot.

[August1991]

But I'm betting the lawsuit is already being drafted somewhere.

Any such lawsuit would fail. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Charter. No reasonable judge would interpret it otherwise.

Employers are sued for not hiring certain people. Business people are sued for not doing business with certain people.

I don't see how "freedom of religion" is involved here. The issue is "discrimination". Would the Court protect the right of one individual to refuse, on whatever basis whatsoever, to deal with someone else? That is, would the Court protect the right of a church to refuse to marry two people solely on the basis that the two were gay?

The right of two people of the same sex to marry, and have this union respected by the State, should not be confused with the right of someone else to discriminate against them.

[Michael Hardner]

And all of the judges and decisions to come down to date have been reasonable? 

Yes they have. They have followed reason. No judge has gone outside what is explicitly written into law, that I know of.

Because in 4 years we can get in a new government, we can't do squat about judges but yell a lot.

That's not a reason. A lot of damage can be done in four years.

Judges interpret the law. Politicians can make laws and change institutions in any way they see fit.

[Black Dog]

Only post things you know as both these religons do promote polygamy

Polygamy has not been an accepted doctrine of the Mormon/Church of Jesus Christ etc. since 1890. Which is not to say it is not still practiced.

Note Islam also supports polygamy so blackdog read before you post as now you just appear ignorant. And this would certainly qualify unjust discrimination.

The Q'uran gives Muslim men permission to have more than one wife, not to satisfy lust, but for the welfare of the widows and the orphans of the wars. It's not a common practice and is open to interpretation. Incidentally, the Bible also endorses polygamy (Link)

I happen to agree, I just feel that before Canadians are asked to support the redefinition of marriage and have it used as a campaigne issue the consequences should be fully explained to all canadians so that they can make a decision they are comfortable with and not because they feel guilty because someone called them a bigoted homophobe

What are these "consequenses"?

You have given me pause for thought on this issue. It falls under the slippery slope problem. You may have assisted in adjusting my stance somewhat on this issue. I do want to follow this through. If we allow gay marriages, we then open ourselves up to polygamists due to religious believes. Do we then open ourselves up to removing women’s rights, female castration, and hounor killings? I think we can stop at a union between two consenting adults. The after affects from the slippery slope can be halted due to an erosion of societal values.

The "slippery slope" argument fails because it does not recognize society's ability to place reasonable restrictions on individual rights. Something that is universally deemed detrimental to the social fabric, such as pedophilia, would simply not pass the litmus test. It's interesting that most of the arguments against gay marriage aren't actually arguments against gay marriage, but against the theoretical "next step", which would indicate there's no concrete reason to not allow gay marriage.

[noelandmero]

The you are a bigot and a racist because you won't defend my right to halve 6 wives. Not so nice to have that thrown back at you is it.

[noelandmero]

The "slippery slope" argument fails because it does not recognize society's ability to place reasonable restrictions on individual rights. Something that is universally deemed detrimental to the social fabric, such as pedophilia, would simply not pass the litmus test. It's interesting that most of the arguments against gay marriage aren't actually arguments against gay marriage, but against the theoretical "next step", which would indicate there's no concrete reason to not allow gay marriage.

Youre man jack says it is not up to society to decide it is a human rights issue so the slippery slope argument is 100% valid would and will be used in a court of law and win. Know if want to say society can limit activity fine then society is free to tell homosexuals they can not get married and you can quit calling harper a homophobe racist oppresor for having an opinion on homosexual marriage counter to youres. If this is an issue society is going to set limits on and it is not about rights and freedoms lets have a referendum. Guess what people who support this cause do not want one and it is because right or wrong the average Canadian does not support gay marriage and it will be voted down.

BD you can not have it both ways this is either a right/freedom issue with a slippery slope or an issue for society. As I have said in every post I could careless let gays get married let john have 6 wives if he wants. but do not argue bullshit to make the average Canadian feel like he is commiting a hate crime if he votes against these kind of relationships and that if he does he would violating some inalienable right of homosexuals.

[DAC]

And all of the judges and decisions to come down to date have been reasonable?

Yes they have. They have followed reason. No judge has gone outside what is explicitly written into law, that I know of.

A few years ago in Edmonton a Roman Catholic College was sued for firing a homosexual teacher. At that time there was not one word in our law legitimizing homosexuality. There was, though, an explicit Charter of Rights protection of religious freedom. When the Charter was being written it had been proposed that homosexuality should be included as a protected way of life, but that was rejected at the time. So here the law, and not just a simple law but the Charter of Rights in the Constitution protected the church’s right to free expression of its religion and not one word supported homosexuality. Yet the courts ruled against the Church College.

I would like to give you the ruling, but I seem to have deleted it from my hard drive (or just as likely filed it in some wonderful safe place that even I can’t find . But although there were pages of argumentation, the simple fact is that the courts set aside what was explicitly written in the constitution in favour of an inferred homosexual right.

Since they have done that, the presumption is rather strong that someday soon, if gay marriage is approved, some pastor will be condemned by the courts for refusing to perform it. 90% of gays would not think of raising such a charge, likely. But there are a few militants who will.

[Black Dog]

The you are a bigot and a racist because you won't defend my right to halve 6 wives. Not so nice to have that thrown back at you is it.

Actually, genius, you'll recall I was the one who posed the question of "what's wrong with poygamy?"

Activities that take place between consenting adults that don't infringe upon the rights of others are none of my damn business.

Youre man jack says it is not up to society to decide it is a human rights issue so the slippery slope argument is 100% valid would and will be used in a court of law and win.

I beg to differ. Human rights issues are social issues. Layton merely indicated that human rights issues should not necessarily be left to the fickle majority.

Know if want to say society can limit activity fine then society is free to tell homosexuals they can not get married and you can quit calling harper a homophobe racist oppresor for having an opinion on homosexual marriage counter to youres

Wrong. Gay marriage does not pass the litmus test of an activity that poses any harm to society as a whole.

If this is an issue society is going to set limits on and it is not about rights and freedoms lets have a referendum. Guess what people who support this cause do not want one and it is because right or wrong the average Canadian does not support gay marriage and it will be voted down.

Polls indicate that the majority of Canadians are in favour of same sex marriage.

Environics.

Other polls show an even split.

The best argument for gay marriage not being left to the mob is in the ruling in the Delwin Vriend case (more on that later):

Where the interests of a minority have been denied consideration, especially where that group has historically been the target of prejudice and discrimination, judicial intervention is warranted to correct a democratic process that has acted improperly.

BD you can not have it both ways this is either a right/freedom issue with a slippery slope or an issue for society.

As I said, human rights issues are social issues. You pulled the dichotomy out of your hat.

But hey, let's turn this around: how about you try offering some proof that gay marriage will harm society. there are many juridsticions that have officuial same sex partnerships, such as in Scandanavia. Has there been a push for legalized pediophilia, bestiality or polygamy in these places?

but do not argue bullshit to make the average Canadian feel like he is commiting a hate crime if he votes against these kind of relationships and that if he does he would violating some inalienable right of homosexuals.

All this time and I've still yet to see a decent argument against gay marriage.

A few years ago in Edmonton a Roman Catholic College was sued for firing a homosexual teacher. At that time there was not one word in our law legitimizing homosexuality. There was, though, an explicit Charter of Rights protection of religious freedom. When the Charter was being written it had been proposed that homosexuality should be included as a protected way of life, but that was rejected at the time. So here the law, and not just a simple law but the Charter of Rights in the Constitution protected the church’s right to free expression of its religion and not one word supported homosexuality. Yet the courts ruled against the Church College.

Part of the courts' job is to interpret the laws beyond the strict letter of the law. the Vriend case you mention was one such example. In that the court "read in" rights not explicit in the Charter, deeming that Alberta's refusal to include gay rights in the provincial Individual Rights Protection Act violated the constitution.

But although there were pages of argumentation, the simple fact is that the courts set aside what was explicitly written in the constitution in favour of an inferred homosexual right.

Read the relevant section of the Charter:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So while race, religion etc. are specifically mentioned, the inclusion of sexual oreintation is a reasonable inference to make.

Since they have done that, the presumption is rather strong that someday soon, if gay marriage is approved, some pastor will be condemned by the courts for refusing to perform it. 90% of gays would not think of raising such a charge, likely. But there are a few militants who will.

And I doubt such a charge would be successful, as freedom of religion is also enshrined in the Charter.

Again, such an argument is pure speculation and not sufficient for depriving gays of marriage rights.

[noelandmero]

Actually, genius, you'll recall I was the one who posed the question of "what's wrong with poygamy?"

Activities that take place between consenting adults that don't infringe upon the rights of others are none of my damn business.

I love how the left gets angry when they know they are wrong. This debate is now a waste of time as you are arguing in circles and the fact that u are proves my point.

[Black Dog]

I love how the left gets angry when they know they are wrong. This debate is now a waste of time as you are arguing in circles and the fact that u are proves my point.

That's funny, coming from someone who, accused me of calling Harper a bigot and a racist, who stated that arguments for gay marriage wer "bullshit" and, when was unable to provide substansial evidence to support his arguments when challenged to do so.

Basically, you haven't a leg to stand on and you know it, so you're running away.