Argus Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 This really is a human rights issue - thank goodness for our Charter of Rights that protects our citizens from all sorts of abuses. Oh Puhleaze. The Charter is a cheap rag which can and is interpreted freely depending on the political and ideological beliefs of the patronage appointees sitting in the Supreme Court. Change the makeup of that SC and I absolutely guarantee you the same court can find 9-0 that the Charter permits discrimination against gays up to and including imprisoning them for life. The Charter is of no importance as the appointees to the SC simply read into it whatever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Time to move on. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.That's an argument I've never been comfortable with. The Nazis and Communists used it when referring to a New World order and so on. Are you now inferring that someone who supports SSM is a Nazi or a Commie? Trudeau got it right - the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, so why can't people be left alone to do their own thingy, whatever their own thingy is. No one is being forced into SSM. This really is a human rights issue - thank goodness for our Charter of Rights that protects our citizens from all sorts of abuses. Jeesh, MS, are you capable of understanding an argument? I am not at all inferring what you suggest. MS, you use often the argument that it is "modern" or "progressive" or "21st century" to support SSM. I'm saying that those are very bad reasons to support anything. People should judge an idea or proposal on its merits. Not because everyone else says it is good or because it has a cachet of novelty. Surely as someone who is a lefty you can agree with that. Trudeau's dictum applies to private behaviour. The issue of the use of the word "marriage" is very public. I recall Trudeau forbid Taiwanese athletes from competing in the 1976 Olympics because, as he said, "the Taiwanese present themselves as Chinese when they are not." The issue of gay marriage has a similar logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 The curious thing is that two years ago the views of Canadians were against same-sex marriage by a substantial percentage. But there has been relentless propaganda from our liberal media organs. I have not seen a single anti-same-sex news story on any TV/radio station or in any newspaper, although the media have blanketed this issue with wall to wall coverage since the initial ruling. That's probably because anti-SSM folks can't seem to formulate a decent argument against it. I've certainly yet to see one. I'm trying to think of what argument you would possibly consider to be "decent". In any event I'm not speaking about who is more articulate but the very partisan cheerleading for same-sex marriage the media have been guilty of on this issue. Even so, only in Quebec and BC do majorities favour same-sex marriage. Also Ontario. Last I saw, Atlantic Canada was smack in the middle. The last poll I saw was the one you posted on another thread, and it showed 50% of Ontarions dissaproving and 50% approving. By what right, then, does anyone make the claim that this is the people's choice and that we should move on? As I stated in that other thread a referendum would not pass in any province except Quebec and possibly BC. It would certainly not pass in Ontario or the West.Environics poll on same-sex marriage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I'm trying to think of what argument you would possibly consider to be "decent". Logical, coherent...anything. In any event I'm not speaking about who is more articulate but the very partisan cheerleading for same-sex marriage the media have been guilty of on this issue I have no doubt you could find opponents to same sex marriage among the CanWest Global stable or in Alberta's Sun newspaper. It just doesn't suit your purposes to do so. By what right, then, does anyone make the claim that this is the people's choice and that we should move on? I certainly never made that claim. I don't think it's any of the "people's" damn business. Honestly, why should the rabble have a say in the legal definition of a civil institution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 MS, that CTV link above to Klein does not show that the Albertan government has approved SSM. "You cannot use the notwithstanding clause relative to a matter that is not within your jurisdiction," Stevens said, noting the high court ruling makes it clear the authority to define marriage rests with Ottawa. Two additional points: Questions of minority rights should never be resolved by referendum. The majority can use the monopoly power of a democratic state to suppress any moinority. The US Bill of Rights protects the individual (the ultimate minority) against the State. I wonder whether there will be a backlash in Canada about this. This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I have a sense that there is a silent majority of people who will go along, to a degree, with Canada's so-called elite. This is a hot-button issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Watching from Ottawa, CTV's Mike Duffy said the unusually restrained reaction suggests newly-reelected Ralph Klein is carefully considering his options."It tells me that Klein is holding back, waiting to see which way the wind's blowing," Duffy said. "And also that he's prepared to reconsider this whole issue." Alberta is obviously reconsidering the issue but prefers to wait for the federal legislation to be passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I wonder whether there will be a backlash in Canada about this. This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I have a sense that there is a silent majority of people who will go along, to a degree, with Canada's so-called elite. This is a hot-button issue. I disagree. Most people only get really worked up about what affects them directly. The legal redefinition of marriage will not affect anyone who is not gay and looking to get married, therefore most people will just ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Most people only get really worked up about what affects them directly.You're probably right. People got pissed off about bilingualism and the metric system. But those policies were both "in your face". I recall all hell breaking loose about air traffic controllers using French.In the 1992 referendum, it seems to me many people voted against it simply as a way to show their disagreement with the "elite". My point is that Canadians, I suspect, don't like the feeling of being railroaded. The support of Pim Fortuyn in Holland had similar roots, and perhaps even the support of Pauline Hansen. Call it modern-day populism. ------ I don't think it's any of the "people's" damn business. Honestly, why should the rabble have a say in the legal definition of a civil institution?OMG, Black Dog calls ordinary people rabble! BD, are you a social democrat or a social fascist?"To hell with the public!", Joe Davidson, CUPW leader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 BD, are you a social democrat or a social fascist? august.....fuck off with your analogies to fascists, nazis and commies. Are your arguments that weak you have to resort to such bullshit!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 What are the different party positions on SSM.? Supportive or not supportive? The New Democrats support it. The Conservatives are waffling as usual. The Liberals? Le Bloc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 A personal rebuke to this prime minister from the highest court Wells makes a valid point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 BD, are you a social democrat or a social fascist? august.....fuck off with your analogies to fascists, nazis and commies. Are your arguments that weak you have to resort to such bullshit!!! Hey Maple Syrup, what justifies the sudden use of foul language? I said that it is wrong to justify an idea using the argument that it is "new", "modern" or "progressive". Such arguments are inherently weak. They have been used by Nazis and Communists to justify much horror. That does not mean that same sex marriage is a bad thing. On the contrary, I support same sex marriage. But I don't support it because it is "progressive". MS, you usually support ordinary people against the powerful, rich minorities. I'm surprised you are not offended to see ordinary people described as "rabble" and their opinions to be dismissed so lightly. Are you or are you not a democrat, Maple Syrup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 BD, are you a social democrat or a social fascist? august.....fuck off with your analogies to fascists, nazis and commies. Are your arguments that weak you have to resort to such bullshit!!! And yet, they apparently too strong for you to overcome, and, thus frustrated, you resort to childish obscenities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Typical right wing bullshit equating swearing with fascism, commies and nazis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Article Alberta will be forced to back down and support same sex marriage. People need to stop fighting this issue now, as it is a waste of taxpayers money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackwacky Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 A little girl in Alberta is out working with her dad in the garden. Upon spying a spider, she asks her father what it is. "That is a Daddy Long Legs". Another spider happens by, and climbs onto the back of the first spider. She asks, "Is that a Mommy Long Legs?". To which her Dad replied no, that it was another Daddy Long Legs. The little girl watched fascinated for a minute or two, then lifted one chubby sandaled foot and squashed both insects. Daddy was puzzled. "That might be okay in BC or Quebec", she told him, "but here in Alberta we don't put up with that crap!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Nice one shackwacky!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Website Here you can track the progress of the vote and also see how your own MP will vote. The last I heard is basically all Bloc, all NDP, all Liberal cabinet members, and a few Conservative MPs will support the government legislation. That leaves apparently only 44 backbench Liberals needed for the legislation to pass. Sorry folks but it's a slam dunk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 I believe that Layton has said it should not be a free vote whereas Harper said that it should be. PM PM has said that it will be a whipped vote (i.e. not free) but I don't know what happens if a Liberal MP happens to be absent that day. I don't know the BQ's position on whether the vote should be free or not. I would imagine all BQ MPs will vote in favour. Charest, Campbell and McGuinty have lauded the Court's decision. Thanks for the link MS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackwacky Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Canada is the third country to legalize same-sex marriage.Previous countries: The Netherlands in 2001 Belgium in 2003 I wonder where Sweden, Norway, Finland, & Iceland are on this issue. In a number of countries in Europe, the status of "registered partnership" has been established. In 1989, Denmark became the first country to institute legislation granting registered same-sex partners the same rights as married couples. Church weddings are not allowed. Norway, Sweden and Iceland all enacted similar legislation in 1996, and Finland followed suit six years later. The Nertherlands became the first country to offer full civil marriage rights to gay couples in 2001. And in Belgium, gay marriages have been allowed since 2003. Germany has allowed same-sex couples to register for "life partnerships" since 2001. The law only gives couples the same inheritance and tenants' rights as heterosexual married couples. BBC - Gay Marriages Around the Globe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Slam dunk? That web site has 124 for, 128 against and 56 unknown. Furthermore, the link ain't accurate. They've got Joe Comuzzi in the yes column but he's quoted here saying: Martin said backbench MPs will be free to vote their conscience but cabinet ministers must toe the party line - or else. Cabinet support for government initiatives is an underpinning of Canada's parliamentary system. However, Comuzzi said he can't break an election promise he made to constituents to fight same-sex marriage. This also means that PM PM will make it a whipped vote only for cabinet. Canoe ----- Now I understand that the guy doing the tabulating has put all cabinet ministers into the yes column because PM PM has ordained it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Despite Liberal rift, marriage bill likely It is all about the Liberals but the bill will pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 There are two Tories voting in favour. Anyone know of any other possibles? Also, now that I've seen the Supreme Court decision, it is far from an endorsement of same sex marriage. The Court has in effect sent the issue back to Parliament by saying that Parliament has the right to decide this issue. I think Harper's take on the Court's decision is right. Incidentally, I see that the BQ's position is that it shouild be a free vote. Duceppe is letting members vote as they please. I know of no BQ member voting against. Are there any? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Metternich Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 MS, are you on crack, or just good ol'fashioned coke? The site is reporting that more MPs will be voting against then for. ha ha ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 The numbers might jump around for a bit, but the legislation for SSM will pass. SSM will not be imposed on any religious groups. If Le Bloc is not whipped there could be 3-4 who might vote against SSM. Of course PM Martin referred it to the SC to avoid dealing with the issue before the last election. The Liberals will now rush the legislation through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.