Tories prep anti-gay marriage ads

[I miss Reagan]

That is, the listed grounds are examples only, of an indeterminate list.

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's a rather startling conclusion, given the court treatment of this issue so far.

activist judges, a serious problem in this country.

The Charter is the root that grows in the fertile soil of our liberal democratic social contract.

the verbal ornamentation is giving me goosebumps

[The Terrible Sweal]

That is, the listed grounds are examples only, of an indeterminate list.

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'.

[I miss Reagan]

Well if we are now taking the position that one year ago there was a group of people in this country (homosexuals) who we discriminated against by not giving them equal rights, we can assume that today there are groups of people who we are also discriminating against who, in the future, will be afforded equal rights. Polygamists, child porn advocates etc. And if we are determining that homosexuals deserve equal treatment with respect to marriage how can we not force pastors, bishops to marry gays? There would be a huge stink if bishops or pastors refused to marry black members of their congregation for example.

[Black Dog]

Where were the progressives then the Charter was drawn up and did not include sexual orientation?

The Charter did cover sexual orientation from the get go.

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.

Why all of a sudden this change when 5 years ago Chretien and the liberals overwhelmingly supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and claimed it always would be?

Because of the court challenges that deemed that definition unconstitutional.

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...

Fallacious fear-mongering.

activist judges, a serious problem in this country.

"Activist judges": a right-wing bogeyman. The Charter is part of the constitution, the supreme law of the land, created by the democratically elected federal government, ratified by the democratically-elected representatives of the provinces. The courts check the power of the majority to ensure that laws passed by Parliment are consistent with the principals contained within the Charter.

Well if we are now taking the position that one year ago there was a group of people in this country (homosexuals) who we discriminated against by not giving them equal rights, we can assume that today there are groups of people who we are also discriminating against who, in the future, will be afforded equal rights

Wrong. The curent definition of marriage is unconstitutional because it bars a certain segment of society from participating in something that other members of society can partake in. That's discrimination.

In the case of polygamy and whatnot, the law applies equally to everyone, so no one is being discriminated against.

IMR: I'm still awaiting a rationale for opposing to gay marriage that is not predicated on opposition to homosexuality.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well if we are now taking the position that one year ago there was a group of people in this country (homosexuals) who we discriminated against by not giving them equal rights, we can assume that today there are groups of people who we are also discriminating against who, in the future, will be afforded equal rights. Polygamists, child porn advocates etc.

But how do you foresee that such groups 'could' establish legally acceptable claims to Charter protection?

And if we are determining that homosexuals deserve equal treatment with respect to marriage how can we not force pastors, bishops  to marry gays?

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.

There would be a huge stink if bishops or pastors refused to marry black members of their congregation for example.

Stink or no stink, they have the right to refuse.

[I miss Reagan]

But how do you foresee that such groups 'could' establish legally acceptable claims to Charter protection?

This was the same argument given last time the same sex issue came up. "It wouldn't be legally feasible given the current language of the Charter. Marriage will always be between a man and a woman." Interesting how subjective the Charter becomes when you want to change something.

 

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...

Fallacious fear-mongering.

And who would it be that I'm trying to frighten? You? I give you more credit than that. The only fallacious statements I see are those of reverse hatred mislabeling people as homophobic and anti-gay based on affirming the consequent. Bad form.

"Activist judges": a right-wing bogeyman.

Osama Bin Laden "right wing boogeyman", Al Qaeda "right wing boogeyman", Biased press "right wing boogeyman". I can almost hear JFK rallying "there's nothting to fear, but fear itself" or is it M. Moore chanting "there is no terrorist threat!".

In the case of polygamy and whatnot, the law applies equally to everyone, so no one is being discriminated against.

Right and all people are equal, given the right to marry one member of the opposite sex. No one of any sexual orientation, race, or religion is exempt. That is the definition of marriage. However, if we choose to alter that definition for one group we must alter it for all providing they do not infringe on the rights of others. Thus polygamy is fair as long as all parties are consenting adults. Thus beastiality is fair as long as it is not cruel to the animal. Thus child porn is fair so long as the images are not real but computer generated. As for your argument that polygamy is illegal, so was gay marriage until recently.

IMR: I'm still awaiting a rationale for opposing to gay marriage that is not predicated on opposition to homosexuality.

I thought that is what I have been doing. Opening the door to gay marriage is opening a pandora's box.

[I miss Reagan]

Good post by August 1991:

Look BD, you can't have it both ways.

If the pro-Gay Rights lobby wants to redefine the debate so that anyone against gay marriage appears to be intolerant, it should not be surprising if the pro-Hetero Marriage lobby re-redefines the debate to include polygamy.

Harper, for example, has no objection to gay civil unions and gays having the same legal rights (and obligations) as straights.

The use of the word "marriage" alone is at issue.

So, I think it is extreme to present Harper as intolerant (or anti-Gay) merely because he wants the word "marriage" to be reserved alone for hetero unions.

In the same sense, you and I know that people in favour of gay marriage are not advocating legal polygamy.

Yet, this is how public debates often unfold. Like abortion, this is a hot-button issue filled with "what if hypotheticals".

For example.

What if some future Supreme Court decides it is discriminatory to forbid a woman from marrying her brother? (This is relevant, for example, in terms of pension survivor benefits and immigration law.)

Hell, I'd say we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But it's not the bridge we're at now.

[August1991]

But how do you foresee that such groups 'could' establish legally acceptable claims to Charter protection?

A woman who wants to marry her brother to support an application for immigration. At present, the law discriminates between her and another woman sponsoring her spouse (of either sex).

[Black Dog]

The only fallacious statements I see are those of reverse hatred mislabeling people as homophobic and anti-gay based on affirming the consequent.

No. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy because there's no connection between same sex marriage and any of the other alleged consequenses.

Can you tell me how legislating marriage as "the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" creates a greater risk of legalized polygamy than "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others"?

The fact of the matter is, if somebody wanted to mount a legal challenge to the definition of marriage to include polygamy (for example) they could have done it at anytime since the Charter came into force. (If not longer, as the definition of marriage is part of the Constitution Act of 1867.)

Right and all people are equal, given the right to marry one member of the opposite sex. No one of any sexual orientation, race, or religion is exempt. That is the definition of marriage. 

...which is incompatable with the equality provisions contained within the Charter.

Your way would be the equivilant of saying "people may worship whatever religion they wish, so long as it's Christianity."

However, if we choose to alter that definition for one group we must alter it for all providing they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Changing the defintion of marriage to "the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" does not discriminate against anyone. The law applies equally to all.

Thus polygamy is fair as long as all parties are consenting adults. Thus beastiality is fair as long as it is not cruel to the animal. Thus child porn is fair so long as the images are not real but computer generated.

Again: none of this bears any connection to same sex marriage.

As for your argument that polygamy is illegal, so was gay marriage until recently.

*exasperated sigh* The prohibition on gay marriage was overturned because denying someone a right based on immutable characterisics is a no-no. However, it is fully within the government's power to forbid polygamy even on religious grounds because it's not discrimination. Unless you belive there's such a thing as a natural-born polygamist.

Harper, for example, has no objection to gay civil unions and gays having the same legal rights (and obligations) as straights.

The federal government has no constitutional authority over civil unions: only marriage.

So, I think it is extreme to present Harper as intolerant (or anti-Gay) merely because he wants the word "marriage" to be reserved alone for hetero unions.

But why does he want to perserve that definition?

Huh? Huh?

What if some future Supreme Court decides it is discriminatory to forbid a woman from marrying her brother?

How is it discriminatory? Are some people allowed to marry siblings but not others? Not according to the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act.

An Act respecting the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons

(2) No person shall marry another person if they are related

(a) lineally by consanguinity or adoption;

( as brother and sister by consanguinity, whether by the whole blood or by the half-blood; or

© as brother and sister by adoption

See? "No person..." Pretty unambiguous if you ask me.

So who's being discriminated against?

[August1991]

See? "No person..." Pretty unambiguous if you ask me.

Huh?

No person shall marry another person of the same sex. Pretty unambiguous if you ask me. But the issue is not ambiguity. It is arbitrariness.

Why can't people of the same sex marry? Why the discrimination?

But then similarly, why can't brother and sister marry? That's arbitrary too. (Think in terms of pension benefits or immigration.)

No. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy because there's no connection between same sex marriage and any of the other alleged consequenses.

I agree with you, BD. The question before us is whether gays should be allowed to marry and use the word marriage. That's all.

But I'm not surprised if the issue is broadened.

Personally, I'm in favour of allowing gays/lesbians the use of the word marriage largely because I think it contributes to respect for gays/lesbians.

Your way would be the equivilant of saying "people may worship whatever religion they wish, so long as it's Christianity."

The word 'worship' and the word 'marriage' are not used the same way. There are web sites that worship Avril Lavigne.

The federal government has no constitutional authority over civil unions: only marriage.

This just means that this is a federal hot potato.

But why does he want to perserve that definition? Huh? Huh?

There you go again, BD. You imply that anyone against gay marriage, is homophobe, anti-gay lifestyle etc. I don't think that's necvessarily the case. Civil unions are a perfectly adequate way to deal with same sex unions - and they are perfectly compatible with complete tolerance for gays.

[differenttwist]

Isn’t it interesting that for the past 50 odd years, the government has endeavored, quite successfully, to separate the church from the state.

Now a minority Liberal government dares to suggest, it will pen legislation that will make gay marriage law! Let’s just pretend for a second that church and state are disconnected. As surely as the church does not impact the government of Canada’s decision making, it should be assumed that the Government of Canada does not engage in attempting to dictate church law.

Bring on legislation that deals with same sex “civil union”. Lets let the judges and the government do their jobs, and operate within their jurisdictions. I don’t think that there are to many, fair minded Canadians that don’t think that same sex partners “must” have equal status to married couples.

A catholic Prime Minister could never produce same sex marriage legislation. Who then is Paul Martin?

[August1991]

Bring on legislation that deals with same sex “civil union”.

That is a provincial question and most provinces (correct me) have enacted the legislation.

Lets let the judges and the government do their jobs, and operate within their jurisdictions.

That's what's happening now. It is up to the federal government to define marriage. The Supreme Court has said that it has no objection to same sex marriage.

[Black Dog]

There you go again, BD. You imply that anyone against gay marriage, is homophobe, anti-gay lifestyle etc. I don't think that's necvessarily the case.

So what else is there? If you disregard homophobia or dissaproval of homosexuals as a motive for oppossing same sex marriage, what's left?

Isn’t it interesting that for the past 50 odd years, the government has endeavored, quite successfully, to separate the church from the state.

Now a minority Liberal government dares to suggest, it will pen legislation that will make gay marriage law! Let’s just pretend for a second that church and state are disconnected. As surely as the church does not impact the government of Canada’s decision making, it should be assumed that the Government of Canada does not engage in attempting to dictate church law.

Nor does it. The proposed gay marriage legislation deals with marriage as a civil/legal institution and will not impact any religions.

Bring on legislation that deals with same sex “civil union”. Lets let the judges and the government do their jobs, and operate within their jurisdictions. I don’t think that there are to many, fair minded Canadians that don’t think that same sex partners “must” have equal status to married couples.

The civil union model is not an option

The Supreme Court of Canada explicitly stated that “civil unions are a relationship short of marriage”.  The Court also stated clearly that Parliament has the power to define marriage and provinces have the power to create civil unions.  This means that the Parliament of Canada cannot enact civil unions for same-sex couples, and still honour the Constitution.   

Any uniform national system of civil unions would require the ten provinces and three territories to enact identical laws in their jurisdictions.  We know that the Ontario and B.C. courts of appeal have already ruled that civil unions for same-sex couples would be unconstitutional. 

The only reason for promoting civil unions is to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and deny it to same-sex couples.  That is unconstitutional and in direct contradiction to the Charter.

The Government of Canada believes in the values of the Charter, and therefore cannot support a civil union which is a separate and unequal model for same-sex couples.

[I miss Reagan]

Stink or no stink, they have the right to refuse.

I heard on the radio this morning that a lesbian couple and the human rights board is sueing the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organisation, for refusing to allow them to use their hall for a wedding in BC. Off we go slip sliding away...

[Black Dog]

Stink or no stink, they have the right to refuse.

I heard on the radio this morning that a lesbian couple and the human rights board is sueing the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organisation, for refusing to allow them to use their hall for a wedding in BC. Off we go slip sliding away...

Can you explain how renting a hall (which they no doubt do for all kinds of events) has any bearing on the religious beliefs of the group on question?

I highly doubt the religious freedom clauses of the Charter are intended to cover such decidely temporal matters as hall rentals.

[I miss Reagan]

I thought we were just granting 'rights' for gay couples to wed. I didn't know that religious groups would be forced to allow gay couples to use their facilities. And of course the logical next step is to force religious officials to officiate in the marriages. I knew it'd come but I didn't think it'd happen this quick.

[August1991]

I highly doubt the religious freedom clauses of the Charter are intended to cover such decidely temporal matters as hall rentals.

I believe there was a case in Red Deer where a bar owner refused service to two kissing lesbians. This lead to a human rights tribunal complaint.

I'm not certain what to think. A human rights complaint will take ages to resolve, if ever.

If I recall BD, you defended the right of the two to kiss in a private establishment of their choosing.

----

On a vaguely similar point, I just learned that a married person can sponsor someone else for immigration as a conjugal spouse. In effect, immigration law permits "bigamy".

Government bureaucrats like rules and unfortunately, people tend to stray beyond the rules.

[Black Dog]

August1991:

No person shall marry another person of the same sex. Pretty unambiguous if you ask me. But the issue is not ambiguity. It is arbitrariness.

That's not in the Charter. The Charter is part of the constitution, the supreme law of the land.

I thought we were just granting 'rights' for gay couples to wed. I didn't know that religious groups would be forced to allow gay couples to use their facilities

Well it's mighty hard to comment on this without some sort of background. Got a link?

Regardless, though, this is not a religious issue. The KoC likely rent the hall to anyone, so to deny service to someone becaus eyou don't like them is a no no. Would they likewise be allowed to refuse that service to someone based on the colour of their skin?

And of course the logical next step is to force religious officials to officiate in the marriages. I knew it'd come but I didn't think it'd happen this quick.

Again: the legislation to legalize same-sex marriage explicitly allows religious officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds.

If I recall BD, you defended the right of the two to kiss in a private establishment of their choosing.

Yes, because to not allow their behaviour (when other types of behaviuor are tolerated) is discriminatory. Similarily, if the KoC refuses to rent their hall to gays, they should also refuse to rent to Jews, Muslims, Sihks, and Protestants.

[I miss Reagan]

Well it's mighty hard to comment on this without some sort of background. Got a link?

Ya I know sorry, I just heard it on the radio.

Regardless, though, this is not a religious issue. The KoC likely rent the hall to anyone, so to deny service to someone becaus eyou don't like them is a no no. Would they likewise be allowed to refuse that service to someone based on the colour of their skin?

Again: the legislation to legalize same-sex marriage explicitly allows religious officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds.

If we're going say gay marriage is an equal rights issue, how can we allow religious leaders to refuse service to gay members of their congregations. It doesn't sound too equal to me.

[I miss Reagan]

What is wrong with civil union?

[seabee]

Sometime circa 1980 there was a court case in Montréal in which a gay group sued the Montréal Catholic School Board for illegal discrimination after the Board had refused to rent it a meeting place. The Board recognized the facts but argued that it had the right to do this kind of discrimination on the grounds of its educational vocation as well as its religious beliefs. In the end, the judge ruled that renting locals was neither an educational nor a religious activity, and that as a landlord in the rental business, it had practiced illegal discrimination. The Board never appealed this decision.

[Black Dog]

If we're going say gay marriage is an equal rights issue, how can we allow religious leaders to refuse service to gay members of their congregations. It doesn't sound too equal to me.

It is equal because the civil/legal definition of marriage will be expanded to include homosexual unions. This covers everyone. If some churched refuse to perform sam-sex ceremonies on religious grounds, they are allowed under the clauses of the Charter guaranteeing religious freedom. But gays will still have the right to get married in civil ceremonies or in religious ceremonies in churches with gay-friendly doctrines.

[Black Dog]

What is wrong with civil union?

Not an option.

[August1991]

Once again BD, you can't have it both ways.

You are saying that churches have the right to refuse to perform a gay ceremony but a restaurant does not have the right to refuse service to gays. Why?

To use your logic, if a church has the right to refuse to marry two gays (yet it accepts to marry two straights), then gays are being treated as second class citizens in Canada.

I would think that would be unacceptable to the radical gay rights activists.

----

Similarily, if the KoC refuses to rent their hall to gays, they should also refuse to rent to Jews, Muslims, Sihks, and Protestants.

Huh? You got me there.

[I miss Reagan]

What is wrong with civil union?

Not an option.

No one really has a good explanation as to why not?