Harper and Gay Rights

[Shakeyhands]

Please allow me to 'dumb this done' a little for us daft bunch and answer me this... Why is there such division over the word 'Marriage'? I assume that we all believe that no matter what a persons sexual orientation is that we treat them as equals and they get what ever benefits that the rest of us may enjoy... Is it then not just a semantics issue with the word itself?

[waynej625]

As far as I'm concerned the Charter is a flawed document. Any document that allows unelected and unaccountable Justices the ability to basically order our elected officials to change laws is flawed.

We elected politicians to do that very thing, and to allow these lected officials the wiggle-room to shirk their responsibilities and then stand back, as our PM did and say that as far as he's concerned the Supreme Court is the final word, is simply wrong. Wrong because first of all the people of this country had no say in this Charter by way of a vote. Most democratic countries of the world had the opportunity to vote for or against the implementation of their Constitution, while we in Canada suddenly had this document foisted onto us by partisan politicians, and we had very little to say about it. We are now expected to treat this document as if it represents the morals and values of most Canadians, when the reality is that it represents a small minority with an agenda in the case of same-sex marriage.

As someone else said, I will never accept that two people of the same sex are married, regarless of what the Supreme Court ruling says. Call it whatever they want but it will never be a marriage.

[Black Dog]

As far as I'm concerned the Charter is a flawed document. Any document that allows unelected and unaccountable Justices the ability to basically order our elected officials to change laws is flawed.

This is a mischaracterization that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the roles of the Charter, Parliment and judiciary. The courts do not "make" the law, nor are changes to the laws (such as the redefinition of marriage) reccommended arbitrarily. The role of the courts is to evaluate a law’s rationality, workability, and constitutionality. In other words, to ensure the laws are consitent with the principles enshrined in the constitution (a document which is itself the end result of an arduopuis democratic process). It just so happens to that the law is not always a black and white subject, but open to evaluation and interpretation. This adaptability is vital in a society where social norms and values are fluid.

In the case of minority rights, the Charter (and the judiciary charged with upholding it) serves as an important check on the power of the majority. A Charter would be unecessary if it could be guaranteed that the majority would always respect minority rights. Unfortunately, such is not the case.

Wrong because first of all the people of this country had no say in this Charter by way of a vote. Most democratic countries of the world had the opportunity to vote for or against the implementation of their Constitution, while we in Canada suddenly had this document foisted onto us by partisan politicians, and we had very little to say about it.

What about the U.S.A.? Their constitution was not subject to a public vote. Can you name some examples?

As for "partisan politicians", you're saying the democratically elected governments of Canada and all provinces (except Quebec) were "partisan"?

We are now expected to treat this document as if it represents the morals and values of most Canadians, when the reality is that it represents a small minority with an agenda in the case of same-sex marriage.

What's on that agenda?

As someone else said, I will never accept that two people of the same sex are married, regarless of what the Supreme Court ruling says. Call it whatever they want but it will never be a marriage.

That's the great thing about a free society: you don't have to. But then, it's not really your business anyway.

[CanuckPuck]

'Radical gays'? What exactly is a 'radical gay'? Is it a gay person who listens to Barbara Striesand really loud? What's a 'radical straight'? Well I guess that would be Stephen Harper! That man and those who support him are bizarre -- at best.

They chose their words very carefully: 'Liberals are attacking marriage'; 'the rights of a small portion of Canadian society'. Insane! The only 'attacking' that is happening is coming from those who oppose gay-marriage. As for gays being a minority: so? Their human rights don't count? What other 'minority' group will Stephen Harper discount as being worthy of equal representation under the law?

The bottom line is that marriage is symbol of two people's love for each other and not their sexual orientation; two men or two women getting married is not going to prevent a man and woman in any way from getting married.

If some heterosexuals that changing the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples diminishes opposite-sex marriage, I ask: HOW? Again, marriage is a symbol of love: not a symbol of your heterosexuality.

[willy]

If some heterosexuals that changing the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples diminishes opposite-sex marriage, I ask: HOW? Again, marriage is a symbol of love: not a symbol of your heterosexuality.

You have already heard the arguments and you don't agree. Fair enough.

This is not a human rights issue. These as you say are the carefully chosen words by the Liberals. It turns out that the support of the Charter and what they define as human rights trumps all. Or not we will see when they vote.

The Conservatives have said that all the rights of married couples should be transferred to gays and lesbians who enter civil unions. Not being termed a marriage is the question. For many faith traditions the word marriage has a very specific meaning. That is also enshrined in the constitution.

'Radical gays'? What exactly is a 'radical gay'? Is it a gay person who listens to Barbara Striesand really loud? What's a 'radical straight'? Well I guess that would be Stephen Harper! That man and those who support him are bizarre -- at best.

I don't know what a radical gay would be but I think Dona Summers would more likely be the singer of choice.

I may be bizarre but don't hate me because you aint me. Bizarre is only in the eye of the beholder.

[Guest eureka]

What is bizarre is the insistence that this is a "Rights" issue. It is not. Equal treatment is but changing the basic institution of society for political reasons is not.

I am becoming ever more hardened in my view by the shrill clamour that accompanies the "Rights" proponents. There is no substance to their arguments. They have nothing but the claim to be supporting equal rights when those rights have nothing to do with the institution of marriage.

It is a naive view indeed to think that "love" is all that marriage is about. It is about many things that need no repetition. All of those things concern only man/woman relationships and their place in society. Religion is but one of these.

[knn]

eureka: What is bizarre is the insistence that this is a "Rights" issue. It is not...

There is no substance to their arguments...

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race; national or ethnic origin; colour; religion; gender; age; and mental or physical disability and sexual orientation.

The Charter protects you from discrimination in actions taken by the Government of Canada, the government of any province or territory, and actions taken by government agencies, such as hospitals, schools, or Human Resource Centres.

We are not talking about "religious" marriage here. We're talking about "civil marriage"; an act which falls directly under the jurisdiction of the government and which is suppose to reflect the human rights of ALL of its citizens, not just SOME of them!

[Guest eureka]

And which of those rights is denied? I will give you the answer since it seems to be so difficult for many to comprehend.

It is none.

[CanuckPuck]

If some heterosexuals that changing the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples diminishes opposite-sex marriage, I ask: HOW? Again, marriage is a symbol of love: not a symbol of your heterosexuality.

You have already heard the arguments and you don't agree. Fair enough.

This is not a human rights issue. These as you say are the carefully chosen words by the Liberals. It turns out that the support of the Charter and what they define as human rights trumps all. Or not we will see when they vote.

The Conservatives have said that all the rights of married couples should be transferred to gays and lesbians who enter civil unions. Not being termed a marriage is the question. For many faith traditions the word marriage has a very specific meaning. That is also enshrined in the constitution.

'Radical gays'? What exactly is a 'radical gay'? Is it a gay person who listens to Barbara Striesand really loud? What's a 'radical straight'? Well I guess that would be Stephen Harper! That man and those who support him are bizarre -- at best.

I don't know what a radical gay would be but I think Dona Summers would more likely be the singer of choice.

I may be bizarre but don't hate me because you aint me. Bizarre is only in the eye of the beholder.

I don't hate you; I just don't understand you(unlike homophobes who do hate because they don't understand).

As for the term 'marriage', both sides are fighting for symobolic reasons, or the 'principle' of the matter. For this reason it is important to include same-sex unions under the term (legal or otherwise) 'marriage'. If anyone disagrees, they obviously (yes, obviously) feel that homosexual relations are not at par with heterosexual ones under the law and in 'the eyes of God'. They regard them as different, and not only different, but 'inferior' and not equally worthy. 'Civil union' is nice: but it holds the same 'respect' as the 'don't ask don't tell' policy in the U.S. I don't see any other reason why someone would not want to include gay-marriages under the title 'marriage' unless their decision is based on their feelings about homosexuality (yes?) which is safe to assume is low. What we have here are a bunch of frightened heterosexuals (most of whom probably never read the Bible a day in their lives) who somehow feel including gay-unions under 'marriage' will somehow diminish the status of their relation: it will not.

Labelling gay-marriages as 'civil unions' treats relations between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples as 'different' (and not just for the obvious gender reasons).

Donna Summer? No. Judy Garland maybe. Now that's really gay. Kinda like the Bruce Springsteen of the str8 set.

[Guest eureka]

Your labeling of those individuals who will not jump on the symbolic bandwagon as "frightened heterosexuals who have probably never read the Bible," just about sums up the case for "gay" marriage. There is no case.

Because "both sides are fighting over a symbol" (more or less how you put it), there is no reason for one side that has exclusive ownership to the rights for the symbol to allow it to be torn from their hearts.

Your contemptuous dismissal of all those who have the capacity to see a little more than the deck of your bandwagon is all you have going for your cause. It is trendy and pathetic and no more.

[Black Dog]

The Conservatives have said that all the rights of married couples should be transferred to gays and lesbians who enter civil unions.

But, for reasons that have been already exhaustively outlined, the feds can't create civil unions. Harper is lying.

Not being termed a marriage is the question. For many faith traditions the word marriage has a very specific meaning. That is also enshrined in the constitution

But those traditions would continue. Churches that don't want to accept same sex marriages won't have to. Their traditions are secure.

Equal treatment is but changing the basic institution of society for political reasons is not.

So you contradict yourself since, under the current definition of marriage, gays are not recieving equal treatment under the law.

I am becoming ever more hardened in my view by the shrill clamour that accompanies the "Rights" proponents. There is no substance to their arguments. They have nothing but the claim to be supporting equal rights when those rights have nothing to do with the institution of marriage.

Here we go: "gay people have the right to mary someone of the opposite sex".

Of course, such a right is meaningless: it would be like giving men the right to give birth or justifying racial discrimination by saying blacks have the right to be white.

Furthermore, considering your opossition to gay marriage seems to stem from concern for society's well-being, I fail to see how advocating for people to live lies is beneficial to society.

It is a naive view indeed to think that "love" is all that marriage is about. It is about many things that need no repetition. All of those things concern only man/woman relationships and their place in society. Religion is but one of these.

Marriage has, over time, evolved and undergone many serious changes. To suggest it has always followed the model of one man/one woman is false. Under one "traditional definition", marriage was a legally sanctified contract of mutual support between two consenting non-African-American adults of opposite gender. Elsewhere, polygamy was once a legitimate form of marriage. Marriage now has changed to a less gendered, less procreative model, so there is no rational reason to exclude homosexuals from it. The one man/one woman legal definition of marriage is totally arbitrary.

Because "both sides are fighting over a symbol" (more or less how you put it), there is no reason for one side that has exclusive ownership to the rights for the symbol to allow it to be torn from their hearts.

The only reason one group has had "exclusive ownership" of the legal definition of marriage is because the law gave it to them. The law can be changed.

[kimmy]

A question for Eureka:

What would you prefer the government do with this issue? The Liberals pose it as an "either/or"-- either we change the legal definition, or we use the Notwithstanding Clause. Do you agree with that assessment, or are there other options you feel the government has not looked at? And if using the Notwithstanding clause really is the only alternative to changing the legal definition of marriage, are you in favor of using it, or do you feel that is too extreme a measure?

(I do not single you out as an attack on your position, as I don't personally object to either outcome in this debate. I just ask because you're more often than not a supporter of the liberal/Liberal side of things; I'm curious to know how you think they could handle this issue more to your liking, and that of other Liberal party supporters (and MPs) who aren't onside with Paul Martin on this issue.)

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

For many faith traditions the word marriage has a very specific meaning. That is also enshrined in the constitution.

No, you have this completely wrong. Religious freedom does not extend to religions writing (or demanding retention of) their chosen definitions into the state's laws.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What is bizarre is the insistence that this is a "Rights" issue. It is not. Equal treatment is but changing the basic institution of society for political reasons is not.

I am becoming ever more hardened in my view by the shrill clamour that accompanies the "Rights" proponents. There is no substance to their arguments. They have nothing but the claim to be supporting equal rights when those rights have nothing to do with the institution of marriage.

It is a naive view indeed to think that "love" is all that marriage is about. It is about many things that need no repetition. All of those things concern only man/woman relationships and their place in society. Religion is but one of these.

You make an extensive series of allusions to having an argument there, but you don't actually go so far as to making any. Fascinating.

[CanuckPuck]

Your labeling of those individuals who will not jump on the symbolic bandwagon as "frightened heterosexuals who have probably never read the Bible," just about sums up the case for "gay" marriage. There is no case.

Because "both sides are fighting over a symbol" (more or less how you put it), there is no reason for one side that has exclusive ownership to the rights for the symbol to allow it to be torn from their hearts.

Your contemptuous dismissal of all those who have the capacity to see a little more than the deck of your bandwagon is all you have going for your cause. It is trendy and pathetic and no more.

Labelling: two "L's" (as well as being a left-wing-know-it- all I am also a stickler for Canadian spelling).

Right. 'Contemptuous dismissal'? LOL! I don't see dismissing hatred and ignorance as contemptuous. Frankly, when someone says the love I feel for another human being is not equal in the eye of the law and is of lesser value than someone elses, 'contemptuous' is the only way I can respond.

Actually, my reaction can be defined more as 'flabergasted'; 'amazed'; 'shocked'; 'bewildered' and 'dumbfounded'.

The only reason for not recognizing gay-unions as a 'marriage' is HOMOPHOBIA. Hatred and fear of homosexuals. Period. No more. No less. The religious 'right' do not want homosexual unions recognized as a 'marriage' because of their views on homosexuality.

[Guest eureka]

CanuckPuck!

If you want a spelling contest, I will happily engage you - or on any other aspect of the English language. I am not very concerned about it in Internet discussions, but whatever is your fancy. You could start with examining your usage of the term HOMOPHOBIA and cease from misusing it both in meaning and application.

However, if you want discussion, then think a little more before you toss out your condemnations: they betray your own prejudice.

[knn]

eureka - And which of those rights is denied? I will give you the answer since it seems to be so difficult for many to comprehend. It is none.

<SIGH> Talk about dense. The answer is "the right for same sex couples to a civil marriage"!

[Guest eureka]

I do not concur with the view that the "Notwithstanding clause" would have to be used. That would be the case only if the Sipreme Court held this to be a Rights issue under the relevany section of the Charter. That has not happened.

The federal government has the jurisdiction to legislate what marriage is and the provinces to solemnize the marriage as determined and defined. In my view, the Provinces that have made Gay marriages legal have overstepped their jurisdictional authority.

That mixed marriages were once illegal is not really very much help in this discussion. Marriage was still then a "contract" between man and woman and mixed marriages were not illegal the world over or even always in the societies were they had been made unlawful. Think of Othello.

Polygamy as an argument, is a "red herring." It again, has no relevance to the debate over whether man can marry man. There are other arguments against polygamy; practical and social.

Marriage is an institution that recognises both a gender difference and a gender difference: the gender difference is the result of a genetic difference. There is no such difference known between homosexuals of the same sex.

Therefore, I fail to see what Rights they are deprived of providing all the economic supports are equal.

[August1991]

That mixed marriages were once illegal is not really very much help in this discussion. Marriage was still then a "contract" between man and woman and mixed marriages were not illegal the world over or even always in the societies were they had been made unlawful.

Quick aside. Were mixed marriages ever illegal in Canada? (And what exactly is a mixed marriage?)

[I miss Reagan]

Labelling: two "L's" (as well as being a left-wing-know-it- all I am also a stickler for Canadian spelling).

I'm with Eureka. This is a forum for political discussion not a spelling bee. Lecturing people on typos and spelling is not only petty it's supercilious.

[RB]

knn Posted: Feb 3 2005, 01:53 PM

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race; national or ethnic origin; colour; religion; gender; age; and mental or physical disability and sexual orientation.

Correct me but I don't belive the words "sexual orientation" is mentioned anywhere in the Charter

Perhaps you are referring to the Human Rights where there are 15 prohibited grounds listed in Ontario including sexual orientation. The Canadian Human Rights has a bit more of a definition than Ontario. Sexual orientation was added in 96 in Cdn Human Rights but also does not include all of say Ontario prohibited grounds for discrimination. All the provinces are doing their own thing.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Correct me but I don't belive the words "sexual orientation" is mentioned anywhere in the Charter

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.

The fact that sexual orientation isn't specifically mentioned is utterly irrelevant. Everything following "in particular" merely conveys inclusion under the previous statement. The fact that something isn't specifically included does not mean that it is excluded, as some people have claimed. Suppose the commandment read "Thou shall not kill, in particular by bludgeoining, stabbing or poisoning." Would people seriously argue that "thou shall not kill" does not cover cases in which you choke someone to death?

The wording of the charter is extremely clear. Sexual orientation is covered.

[August1991]

The wording of the charter is extremely clear. Sexual orientation is covered.

If the wording is so clear, why did it take 20 years for anybody to notice that sexual orientation was covered?

And what stops other forms of discrimination being discovered in the future?

There is no end of people who feel that society treats them unfairly.

[Shakeyhands]

Seriously, August or IMR or anyone opposed.. Why are you opposed? What effect will it have on you personally?

[Guest eureka]

Reading in "sexual orientation" is not a valid argument. This revolves around the concept of discrimination.

It is perfectly reasonable to include sexual orientation as a ground; but is it reasonable to say that there is discrimination in its application to marriage?

Marriage has a specific meaning and that meaning must be altered to include "Gay" marriage. Remebr that the word "gay" itself is no longer usable in its formerly accepted sense because of its appropriation for a similar purpose.