Harper and Gay Rights

[I Miss Trudeau]

Ok lets go through this one more time. The relevant section of the charter reads:

15. (1) 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.

As I posted previously, specified inclusion in no way shape or form entails, nor even implies, the exclusion of all other possible instances.

Consider:

All animals are to be treated humanely, in particular dogs, geese, and rabbits.

Therefore, one may torture cats at will.

Does this make any sense at all?

[I Miss Trudeau]

I don't know that decision but clearly lower courts and the Supreme Court have interpreted  the "in particular" to mean that the "race, national and ethnic origin..." list is not final.

No, English grammar and sound reasoning did that.

Edit:

My apologies if this post came across as hostile or snarky. I become very exasperated at the constant claims of judicial activism and judge made law in Canadian political debate, such that I often respond in overly aggressive or otherwise unacceptalbe ways.

[Guest eureka]

Frankly, Black Dog, I think you are being obtuse in this. BTW, I have spent a lot of time in Courts and argued more than one case. I point out the one to let you know that lawyers and judges are not always right. I have no intention of going further in identifying my legal efforts and, I did not say I have no legal training: I said I am not a lawyer. In that case, I even paid the costs for the young, single mother who was the claimant because a very significant matter of rights was at issue.

And, it is verifiable from the Law Reports though I am not going to give anyone the references for obvious reasons.

It baffles me how someone can keep arguing that marriage is not without any possibility of argument something between man and woman. It is so obviously so that I have to wonder why you keep dragging in persons and historical errors about the capacity of women.

There is no possibility of comparing the situations and the fallacies are all yours. You are the one promoting change and it is for you to prove your case. You are not doing that.

Civil union and civil marriage are two different things as those countries that have legislated civil unions have agreed. There is nothing very odd about saying that civil marriages are for those men and women who have rejected the religious neccessity of services. That is fact and it is also fact that they are between man and woman.

It is also very clear to me, and to those many who will not agree to the new wave, that homosexual marriage does affect marriage in its present meaning. It takes out the meaning and creates something new and different This has nothing analogous to any rights situation.

I hear that there is a site on the Web run by a Quebec "Gay" that opposes SSM. I heard it referred to on a TV News or some program the other day but I did not even try to remember what it is. I also know a couple of Gay men who are very strongly opposed to SSM for many of the reasons I give.

[Black Dog]

Frankly, Black Dog, I think you are being obtuse in this. BTW, I have spent a lot of time in Courts and argued more than one case. I point out the one to let you know that lawyers and judges are not always right. I have no intention of going further in identifying my legal efforts and, I did not say I have no legal training: I said I am not a lawyer. In that case, I even paid the costs for the young, single mother who was the claimant because a very significant matter of rights was at issue.

If true, this is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You can't prove it, so you're mentioning it is, as I said before, a plea to authority.

It baffles me how someone can keep arguing that marriage is not without any possibility of argument something between man and woman. It is so obviously so that I have to wonder why you keep dragging in persons and historical errors about the capacity of women.

That marriage is between a man and a woman is not a self-evident truth. Has that been the case in practice? Yes, but tradition is no defense and you certainly haven't offered up any arguments as to wht that single element (the gender of the participants) is the most important defining characteristic of marriage. You've simply stated "that's the way it is", which is no sound foundation for an argument. This leads me to believe you don't have one.

As for why I bring up the issue of women's rights, I do so because the logic you're applying was the same as was used to deny women the status of persons under the law. It's called "definitional exclusion".

There is no possibility of comparing the situations and the fallacies are all yours. You are the one promoting change and it is for you to prove your case. You are not doing that.

Ah, since you can't actually answer my main question, you've opted to shift the burden of proof onto me. That dog doesn't bark, friend. Don't confuse your refusal to accept logic with any alleged inability on my part to make a case.

Civil union and civil marriage are two different things as those countries that have legislated civil unions have agreed. There is nothing very odd about saying that civil marriages are for those men and women who have rejected the religious neccessity of services. That is fact and it is also fact that they are between man and woman.

But not necessarily so.

It is also very clear to me, and to those many who will not agree to the new wave, that homosexual marriage does affect marriage in its present meaning. It takes out the meaning and creates something new and different This has nothing analogous to any rights situation.

But the meaning of amrriage varies from person to person. That's the point: it's a highly personal choice and there's no "higher meaning" of marriage. I mean a coupel taht gets married in a civil ceremony by a J.P will probably have a very different idea of what marriage means than the couple who opts for a union sanctified by the church.

I hear that there is a site on the Web run by a Quebec "Gay" that opposes SSM. I heard it referred to on a TV News or some program the other day but I did not even try to remember what it is. I also know a couple of Gay men who are very strongly opposed to SSM for many of the reasons I give.

There's many gays who opoose SSM. thee's many gays who oppose marriage, period. But that's not a sound basis for which to exclude them from it. When SSM finally becomes legal, any gay who doesn't want to get married can freely choose not to, which is far more in line with the ideals of a free society than simply allowing the state or the majority to deny them the right altogether.

Finally, I've been around the mulberry bush here enough. I certainly never expected to change any minds, but simply wanted to see if there were any arguments against SSM that were not demonstratably fallacious. Based on what I've seen so far, there are none.

[willy]

That marriage is between a man and a woman is not a self-evident truth.

I will open a can of worms here but what the hey.

Marriage is a commitment for life long relationship to support one another and the children that result from that relationship.

Men and women have the ability to have children and a stable parent relationship is the most beneficial situation to raise kids.

Be optimistic and imagine the best situation for raising the next generation.

Men and women are different and bring something different to child rearing. Children benefit from these differences.

Marriage in its ideal form sets in law the commitment to each other and the fruit (kids) of that relationship.

This is not about abusive relationships, divorces and lack of commitment that is a reality. The negative reality needs to be addressed but not by giving up on the ideal.

Marriage is about getting as close to the ideal family units. This does not devalue other forms of relationships but only recognized that this stable environment that has influence by both sexes is beneficial for children.

[Black Dog]

Willy, that can of worms was opened and emptied with the advent of divorce.

Divorce was a far more fundamental change to the meaning of marriag ethan gay unions. Before divorce, peopel were more or less obligated to spend their lives with another person regardless of wheter or not the relationship was a good one. Divorce put an end to that permenance and irrevocably changed a fundamental aspect of marriage (permenancy).

. This does not devalue other forms of relationships but only recognized that this stable environment that has influence by both sexes is beneficial for children.

It's not about gender. It's about good parents. Nothing precludes same sex couples from being good parents or providing a stable environment, and nothing guarantees a "traditional" couple would make good parents or provide a stable environment.

So I reject the idea that a male/female parent dynamic is the ideal. Rather, parents and a family unit that cosnsitently provides a good, nurtuing caring environemnt for kids is the ideal.

[August1991]

All animals are to be treated humanely, in particular dogs, geese, and rabbits.

Therefore, one may torture cats at will.

Very good analogy, Trudeau. As long as it is clear that while torturing cats is bad, we slaughter cows, squash mosquitos and bonk fish on the head. So these are exceptions to the "treated humanely" part.

IOW, the basis for discrimination is not defined. The courts just added "sexual orientation" to the list of unacceptable reasons to discriminate. But other forms of discrimination are still allowed.

As for why I bring up the issue of women's rights, I do so because the logic you're applying was the same as was used to deny women the status of persons under the law. It's called "definitional exclusion".

Indeed, when courts said women were "persons", they changed the definition of the word "person". In the case of voting rights, this had a large effect on men because a man's vote lost value.

The key question here though is whether respecting women as "persons" is the same as allowing gays to marry. I know this is the comparison gay activists make but I'm not certain it's valid.

In essence, can homophobia be compared to sexism (or racism)?

Men and women are different and bring something different to child rearing. Children benefit from these differences.

In the past, children were frequently raised by two women except they were called older sisters or aunties. The reason for this was death of parents, a common event.

Simply put, the nuclear family of Mom, Dad and 2.3 kids never really existed in history.

[Black Dog]

In essence, can homophobia be compared to sexism (or racism)?

Why not? few people would argue that homosexuality is anything but a biological imperative and an immuttable characteristic, much like race or sex.

In the past, children were frequently raised by two women except they were called older sisters or aunties. The reason for this was death of parents, a common event.

Simply put, the nuclear family of Mom, Dad and 2.3 kids never really existed in history.

Indeed. The "ideal family" model varies greatly depending on cultural factors. The nuclear family, "Leave it To Beaver" model is a western, middle class, Judeo-Christian construct.

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 10 2005, 07:22 PM

Civil marriages do reflect religious attitudes in that they are between man and woman who do not accept the need for religious sanction.

Huh! If civil marriages aren’t “religious”, how can they “reflect religious attitudes”?

Perhaps you meant to say that civil marriages do NOT reflect any religious attitude." Not acknowledging something doesn't make it truth!

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 10 2005, 07:22 PM 

I get a lottle tired of the accusations of illogicalityrigidity and intolerance...  It appears to me that the shoe should be on the other foot. I have seen no reasoning so far that could even make a dent, never mind convince me... I would argue this one using what I have been saying here. There is nothing illogical at all in it. Just a stubborn refusal by the proponents to admit that there is anything other than their misplaced liberalism.

What a ludicrous statement. Courts, judges, seven provinces and one territory -- representing 87% of the Canadian people have passed a same sex marriage law and all you can come up with is they are "all suffering from misplaced liberalism”. What a crock!

[willy]

BD and August,

I do live in reality and I know the nuclear family never existed and I now divorce breaks up families at an ever increasing rate.

I was vision casting for the ideal. Marriage on the day of the vows represents the ideal.

I am all for extending union rights to gays and lesbians, but I do see a value in maintaining symbols in our culture of the ideal even if we fall short all the time.

BD, gays and lesbians may be loving people but they can not be a mother and father.

The nuclear family, "Leave it To Beaver" model is a western, middle class, Judeo-Christian construct.

Funny that I would buy into something like that. I would agree that it is a Judeo-Christian construct but it has nothing to do with the west or the middle class.

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 11 2005, 12:19 AM 

Civil union and civil marriage are two different things as those countries that have legislated civil unions have agreed. There is nothing very odd about saying that civil marriages are for those men and women who have rejected the religious neccessity of services. That is fact and it is also fact that they are between man and woman.

Oh, there something “very odd” indeed in saying that the FACT is civil marriages are “only for men and women...”

I see you like the “separate but equal” theory! ”They can ride on the bus, as long as they know their place and sit in the back.”

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 11 2005, 12:19 AM

I hear that there is a site on the Web run by a Quebec "Gay" that opposes SSM. I heard it referred to on a TV News or some program the other day but I did not even try to remember what it is. I also know a couple of Gay men who are very strongly opposed to SSM for many of the reasons I give.

You “know a couple of gay men who are very strongly opposed to ssm”...!!!

What on earth does this have to do with anything???

I’ve heard there are millions of heterosexual couples who don’t get married and even live common-law! Do you want to abolish marriage because of this little tidbit too!!

[knn]

willy Posted: Feb 11 2005, 03:50 PM 

...BD, gays and lesbians may be loving people but they can not be a mother and father...

Many straight couples don't, or can't, have children either. Do you want to ban them from marriage as well???

[Black Dog]

I was vision casting for the ideal. Marriage on the day of the vows represents the ideal

I get what you're saying but, with all due respect, think the priorities are a little misplaced. If I wante dto ensure strong families I'd go after poverty, which rends apart more families than anything.

BD, gays and lesbians may be loving people but they can not be a mother and father.

I think you're placing the symbolism of the mother+father dynamic above its practical purposes, which is to provide material and emotional support for kids, etc etc. In that sense, gays and lesbians can succeed and provide the same environment as the htero mother/father unit. And its should go without saying that many traditional families are failures at their duties.

I guess my point is, we should judge people by their actions and not whether they fit in arbitrarily assigned roles.

[Clopin]

just for reference..

Here's a link to the APA's section on their conclusions regarding sexual orientation:

APA on Sexual Orientation

and another on their findings regarding gay marriage and parenting:

APA on Gay & Lesbian Parents

[willy]

I get what you're saying but, with all due respect, think the priorities are a little misplaced. If I wante dto ensure strong families I'd go after poverty, which rends apart more families than anything.

This issue is not my priority. I would leave it the way it is and just extend a new legal right to gays and lesbians to include a legal union.

Families have many challenges these days economic, and social. Poverty, drug and alcoholism, abuse, divorce ect. How we address these issues is probably best suited for another thread. I think it is safe to say regardless of political ideology no one likes to see pain and suffering. The challenge is how to best do something about it.

[Guest eureka]

knn, I meant to say exactly what I said in the words I used. When you can read those accurarely, then argue with some of the other points that you also misunderstand.

BD, this has become pointless. You are doing no more than label everything you don't like as fallacious and illogical. You seem to have a huge blind spot on this.

Are you psssobly allowing some of the early Utopian Socialism to colour your thinking? You know, abolishing the nuclear family and a few other things that have long gone from socialism.

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 11 2005, 08:14 PM 

knn, I meant to say exactly what I said in the words I used. When you can read those accurarely, then argue with some of the other points that you also misunderstand.

Yeah, well, if Civil marriages reflect "religious attitudes" to you, then I guess there's not much trust one can put in the rest of your dissertations. Enjoy your legerdemain!

[B. Max]

But it says right there:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

Sorry, since we were talking about the Bible I was assuming we were talking about predominantly Judeo/Christian societies.

But you see, people like B. Max consider places where gays, fornicators and adulterers get put to death model societies.

I stand corrected. Well at least some of us learn something new every day.

Others prefer to remain ignorant and make stupid statements.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Very good analogy, Trudeau.  As long as it is clear that while torturing cats is bad, we slaughter cows, squash mosquitos and bonk fish on the head.  So these are exceptions to the "treated humanely" part.

The spectrum of rights assigned to different animals is an entirely different conversation.

The point I think I made is that the SCC did not "add" sexual orientation to the charter, they merely confirmed that it was already there. And I think that this is obviously correct, given the wording of the charter. If this doesn't convince you, I'm really not sure what else I can say. Specified inclusion != exclusion.

IOW, the basis for discrimination is not defined.  The courts just added "sexual orientation" to the list of unacceptable reasons to discriminate.  But other forms of discrimination are still allowed.

Namely, those forms of discrimination that satisfy this requirement:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I'm not sure how one could go about arguing that restricting non-harmful, consensual relationships could be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

[knn]

"Recognizing same-sex marriage won't damage the fabric of society — but not recognizing it will, a former Supreme Court of Canada judge says.

Canadians need to shed whatever remnants remain of the notion that family life is reserved for one particular group that is "deemed to be appropriate," says Claire L'Heureux-Dubé...."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1107989413206

[August1991]

The spectrum of rights assigned to different animals is an entirely different conversation.

On the contrary, teh spectrum of rights has everything to do with the issue.

The point I think I made is that the SCC did not "add" sexual orientation to the charter, they merely confirmed that it was already there.

That's being disingenuous. Do you mean they were there but we didn't see them?

How many rights are there now that we just can't see?

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Precisely. IOW, the Charter means nothing because it means anything.

I'm not sure how one could go about arguing that restricting non-harmful, consensual relationships could be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

That's not really the issue here. No one is saying that gays can't shack up if they want to. But your phrase is certainly interesting when applied to my right to shop or work at WalMart.

[I Miss Trudeau]

On the contrary, teh spectrum of rights has everything to do with the issue.

Are you suggesting that different "types" of humans should have varying degrees of rights, in the same manner in which different "types" of animals have varying degrees of rights?

That's being disingenuous.  Do you mean they were there but we didn't see them?

If the charter did not specify any particular examples, would it cover anything at all?

How many rights are there now that we just can't see?

There is no new right, merely the realization that certain parties have the same right as everyone else. That is, to have equal protection and benefit of the law.

I don't see blondes listed there. Nor do I see tall people, or short people for that matter. No hermaphrodites either. Are these groups entitled to to protection under the charter? Would it be acceptable to pass a law saying blonde people could not marry, though they could have civil unions?

Would you like the charter to have spelled out every case of unjustifiable discrimination that was logically possible? Would that be sufficient for you?

No one is saying that gays can't shack up if they want to.

But you do oppose them having equal right and benefit under the law as relates to marriage? If they want to call their relationships marriage, then the government ought to recognize that wish in the same manner in which it recognizes the wish of others who want to call their relationship marriage. On what grounds should the government decide which ceremonies and contracts to recognize by the name the parties desire, and which to force alternative names upon?

But your phrase is certainly interesting when applied to my right to shop or work at WalMart.

Shop at Walmart if you like. Work at Walmart if you like. But recognize the rights of those workers to organize. And expect punishment when those rights are infringed upon.

[Tawasakm]

Just a quick technical note for you I Miss Trudeau. The '/' needs to be in the second quote tag - not the first one.

To be clearer the comes second while the

comes first. Because you have reversed them the quote function isn't working correctly.

Its nothing important - but I thought I should let you know.