Harper and Gay Rights

[Guest eureka]

IMR!

You are disturbing me! When I find myself forced to agree with something you say, I have to ask myself whether I could be wrong.

[I miss Reagan]

IMR!

You are disturbing me! When I find myself forced to agree with something you say, I have to ask myself whether I could be wrong.

Oh come on Eureka, we can be friends. I'm sure we can find more common ground, despite the fact I'm a huge Dubya fan. I don't like guns... I like trees...

[knn]

A male and a female are essential to the flavor, consistency, and texture of marriage. Anything else is not marriage.

Huh! Is that an opinion or a scientific fact! I'm sure there are many who think of themselves as more than "mayonnaise."

[Black Dog]

I think you just made August's argument for him. A male and a female are essential to the flavor, consistency, and texture of marriage. Anything else is not marriage.

Why? Again: if marriage is a contract between individuals denoting a certain set of roles and responsibilities, why is the gender of the individuals an issue? If two people wanted to, for example, start a business partnership, it wouldn't matter. Nor does it matter in marriage which, as I pointed out, is merely a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship between two persons.

Gender doesn't matter when it somes to paying the bills, doing the housework, maintaining a bank account, filing a tax return, cooking dinner, shopping for groceries, or many other of the day-to-day activities that make a marriage a marriage. Stable, monogamous, same sex couples are the same in almost every respect to their married, hetero counterparts (something everyone who's taken the civil union line agrees on). So why not call it a marriage?

No, you just don't like the answers.

Because the answers are legally and logically unsound.

Likewise, why is the consensual, and contractual relationship between an incestual brother and sister fundamentally different from a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship between two unrelated persons of the opposite sex?

Because they are related and there exists a vast number of reasons why incest is a criminal offense.

Mayo without eggs is not mayo. It may tase good, it may even be better for you but it isn't mayo. A union other than a man and a woman is not marriage.

Stubbornly asserting a logically flawed point is not the same as presenting evidence or making a case for why you believe something to be true.

As near as I can tell, the only arguments for why marriage is between a man and a woman are: "Just because."

But hey, perhaps I'll start using that in other discussions.

"Fox News is biased because it is biased."

"George W. Bush is the antiChrist because the is the antiChrist."

Wow, this is easy.

You are disturbing me! When I find myself forced to agree with something you say, I have to ask myself whether I could be wrong.

If you lie down with dogs, don't complain if you get fleas.

[August1991]

Why? Again: if marriage is a contract between individuals denoting a certain set of roles and responsibilities, why is the gender of the individuals an issue?

Let's get this straight. Marriage, as previously defined, meant a union between a woman and a man.

Lower courts changed this definition to include same sex couples.

The lower courts did this by changing the wording of the Charter of Rights to include "sexual preference" as a basis for equal treatment.

I have no objection to same sex marriage but I have to admit that the method to achieve the goal is roundabout. It involves giving new definitions to old words.

When the Charter was written in 1982, no one intended it to make same sex marriage possible. If they had meant this, they would have included the words "sexual preference".

In addition, I can fully understand why some people object to extending the word "marriage" to include same sex couples.

Lastly, I would prefer to live in a world where individuals are free to choose and are respected whatever their civilized choices. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. I'm not certain how to make such a world more possible.

The Charter of Rights should protect individuals against the State. It should not be used in some flavour-of-the- month, social engineering project.

If you lie down with dogs, don't complain if you get fleas.

It's more like cats at the door on a rainy day.

[Black Dog]

Let's get this straight. Marriage, as previously defined, meant a union between a woman and a man.

Legally, yes.

Lower courts changed this definition to include same sex couples.

Sort of. Lower courts ruled the old definition prohibiting gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have no objection to same sex marriage but I have to admit that the method to achieve the goal is roundabout. It involves giving new definitions to old words.

There's a distcinction between marriage as a colloquial term or marriage as a legal term. Take the example of women's rights. Did the legal definition of "persons", which, for centuries, excluded women therefore make women non-persons? Did changing their legal status suddenly elevate women to personhood? No. Women were always persons, in spite of legal definitions to the contrary. So, legal definitions are not fixed.

When the Charter was written in 1982, no one intended it to make same sex marriage possible. If they had meant this, they would have included the words "sexual preference".

This was addressed in the SC's reference to same sex marriage.

Marriage, from the perspective of the state, is a civil institution.  The "frozen concepts" reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation:  that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.

Furthe rto a previous example, the framers of the Constitution Act of 1867 did not intend or imagine a nation where women could be recognized as "persons" with the right to vote or hold office. They probably would have considered the notion of expanding the traditional definition of personhood a "flavour-of-the- month, social engineering project."

If we are to believe that legal concepts cannot change and evolve with the times, what kind of society would we have?

[August1991]

Did the legal definition of "persons", which, for centuries, excluded women therefore make women non-persons?

I think what I'm saying is that the threshold should be higher than a mere interpretation of nine people.

In the US, women's right to vote required a Constitutional amendment (as did the abolition of slavery). The ERA did not pass in the US.

I don't see a woman's right to vote and a gay's right to marry in the same light. The issue is much broader.

It concerns whether the State has the right to discriminate based on "sexual preference".

The "living tree" argument is a common law approach to the Charter. It's weak. Logically, the Charter should be amended to include explicitly "sexual preference".

[Black Dog]

The "living tree" argument is a common law approach to the Charter. It's weak. Logically, the Charter should be amended to include explicitly "sexual preference".

But, given that the Charter already guarantees freedom from discrimination for everyone, what's wrong with the interpretation which reads in sexual orientation (not "preference", please; I have a preference for lattes and I like to thnk my choice of mate is a little deeper than that) as protected grounds?

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.

I don't think that could be interpreted as "it's okay to discriminate against anyone not explicitly mentioned here."

[The Terrible Sweal]

Lower courts changed this definition to include same sex couples...by changing the wording of the Charter of Rights to include "sexual preference" as a basis for equal treatment.

Oh, no. That's completely wrong. The court has not changed the Charter in the least. The courts have simply clarified that "everyone" includes homosexuals.

In addition, I can fully understand why some people object to extending the word "marriage" to include same sex couples.

Great! I'd be most appreciative if you'd explain it, then.

[Guest eureka]

The Constitution has also been called a "Ship of State" in which only thte words as written are to be considered. It seems that it is whatever is convenient at the moment.

I adhere to the "Living Tree view but that still does not give reason for "marriage" to be redefined. That has nothing at all to do with a "Living Tree" approach. It is not a reflection of changing needs in this issue. It is "social engineering" at its worst. It changes what many people, more than half the population, apparently, think is the cornerstone of human relationship into an "all in together girls" game.

[caesar]

I think you just made August's argument for him. A male and a female are essential to the flavor, consistency, and texture of marriage. Anything else is not marriage.

Personally, I prefer Miracle Whip; much better flavour.

[caesar]

I see what all this has led to; Prince Charles is marrying his "rottweiller" Camilla.

[Black Dog]

It is not a reflection of changing needs in this issue. It is "social engineering" at its worst. It changes what many people, more than half the population, apparently, think is the cornerstone of human relationship into an "all in together girls" game.

Round and round and round it goes...

Let me break it down

The choice to marry is extremely personal, and the reasons for doing so vary between individuals. Ultimately that decision rests with the individuals involved, not society."Traditional" marriages will not be affected by the decison to extend the right to civil marriage to gay couples. Heterosexual unions will not cease to exist, existing marriages will not dissolve or be rendered meaningless. Therefore the wishes of the majority (and I would contest that the majority does indeed oppose SSM) are irrelevant, much as the gender of the participants is irrelevant to making a marriage a marriage.

[Guest eureka]

That is the problem here, Black Dog, "round and round it goes." There is only so much that can be said on this and it appears that neither side can be swayed.

In my opinion, whether a marriage is "civil" or "traditional" whatever that may mean, is irrelevant. Marriage is still marriage and it is one institution only. Civil marriage expresses some religious attitude not a repudiation of what marriage is.

[Black Dog]

Marriage is still marriage and it is one institution only.

I'd be more inclined to take your opinion seriously if it was supported by something other than endless repetition of singular, circular point, like a mantra.

"Marriage is marriage". Only it's not. The customs, laws and taboos around marriage have been subject to constant change throughout history. Elements once thought of as being as essential to the union, such the superiority of the husband and his ownership of the wife, have been discarded as society has evolved. The simple fact that marriage has been traditionally regarded as being between one man and one woman in no way restricts that definiton from being expanded.

Civil marriage expresses some religious attitude not a repudiation of what marriage is.

Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion or "religious attitudes". Hence the distinction.

[Newfie Canadian]

Isn't a civil union in effect marriage without calling it marriage?

I mean if you go through a civil union, aren't you entitled to benefits, rights, obligations and resources in the same way as if you were married?

So if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, what's wrong with calling it a duck?

The only difference I see is who officiates at the ceremony in some cases (some religions or religious officials perform SSM), and as I understand the current legislation, religious entities and officials are protected if they don't want to perform the ceremonies.

[knn]

Black Dog Posted: Feb 10 2005, 12:53 PM 

Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion or "religious attitudes". Hence the distinction. 

Yes, but isn't this simple fact so hard to get across to some people whose minds cannot accept logic!

Newfie Canadian Posted: Feb 10 2005, 01:16 PM

Isn't a civil union in effect marriage without calling it marriage?  I mean if you go through a civil union, aren't you entitled to benefits, rights, obligations and resources in the same way as if you were married?

So if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, what's wrong with calling it a duck?

Civil marriage is performed by the state. Civil "union" is something in the minds of people who fear sharing a civil ceremony with anyone who is not exactly like themselves. Also known as intolerance.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I adhere to the "Living Tree view but that still does not give reason for "marriage" to be redefined. That has nothing at all to do with a "Living Tree" approach. It is not a reflection of changing needs in this issue. It is "social engineering" at its worst. It changes what many people, more than half the population, apparently, think is the cornerstone of human relationship into an "all in together girls" game.

You're going nowhere here. Same-sex advocates, then the courts, and now the government have all 'given reasons' for the change. It is high time that opponents of SSM, who have called repeatedly for 'debate' on the issue, to explain the basis of their opposition with some semblance of lucidity. This has been sadly lacking so far.

Let the collective reasons of the relevant court decisions stand as the reasons in favor of the change to permit same-sex partners to be married at law. The majority of our highest legal institutions have explained in painstaking detail why the definition should change.

Will opponents of SSM please identify the defects of reasoning they find therein?

Otherwise, to borrow a phrase, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to their opposition.

Let us begin with this question: Do opponents of SSM agree that this is strictly an issue of public policy and law? If not, please identify any other fundamental criteria and explain why and how public policy and law should give effect to them.

Next: Specifally, what harm to individuals or society do opponents think may flow from the change? To make a lucid position, it is important to specify and support any causal connections claimed. It would also be useful to indicate why the possible harm out-weighs the suggested benefits, from the point of view of public policy or any other relevant rubrics.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The "living tree" argument is a common law approach to the Charter. It's weak. Logically, the Charter should be amended to include explicitly "sexual preference".

That would be completely unnecessary. Section 15 already says "everybody".

[Guest eureka]

I get a lottle tired of the accusations of illogicalityrigidity and intolerance. My history would show tolerance that would match anyone here I have been accused of being too tolerant by people who know me.

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. Marriage, however it was encompassed by other baggage, has always been between man anad woman. Civil marriages do reflect religious attitudes in that they are between man and woman who do not accept the need for religious sanction. That is not the same as a civil union by a long way.

Of course it affects those already married and those who will be in the future. It reduces marriage to what Black Dog thinks it now is but that I and, I would suspect, the overwhelming majority of people,, merely a civil contract.

As for rulings by the courts! So what! Judges have been wrong before. I am not a lawyer but I have argued quite a few cases in Court - I won't go into the reasons. I once had to deal with one that the local lawyers would not do since they thought it was hopeless. I took it on because it was of great significance for the Rights of a large population.

I won and the case is the lead case in Canada now, partly because it is the only case on the issue in question. In the course of that, I had to analyse and critise several SCC cases on related matters. It is surprising how many faults I found in the decisions and the arguments of lawyers involved.

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.

[August1991]

That would be completely unnecessary. Section 15 already says "everybody".

The relevant portion is "without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin..."

Section 15: 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 law clearly discriminates between people. It discriminates guilty people from innocent people. Tax law treats rich people differently from poor people. Tax law also discriminates between people with children from people without children.

The question is what basis of discrimination is permitted. The Supreme Court recently decided that the State cannot discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation" (to use BD's term).

I think that such a basis should be made explicit in the Charter through a Constitutional amendment. If we were serious about this, that's what we would do.

[Black Dog]

I get a lottle tired of the accusations of illogicalityrigidity and intolerance

Yet that doesn't stop you from clininging to logical fallacies like a drowning man. As for intolerance, I'll give you this much credit: the only real intolerance you've displayed is towards well-structured, reasoned arguments. That said, if you're comfortable sharing a position with bigots like B. Max, don't bitch when you get tarred with the same brush.

I have seen no reasoning so far that could even make a dent, never mind convince me.

Because, rather than put froward an argument and then defend that argument, you've essentially staked out a position and then stuck your fingers in your ears while saying "La la! I'm not listening!"

Your position is marriage is between a man and a woman because it always has been between a man and a woman. Of course, you've not bothered to answer WHY that is and why such a dynamic is essential to marriage being marriage.

Marriage, however it was encompassed by other baggage, has always been between man anad woman.

It's a fallacy to assume something is right simply because that's the way it's always been done.

Let's use the same logic in a different context:

Traditionally and legally, women have not been considered persons.

A person is definied as "someone who is not a woman; a man".

Therefore, woman cannot be persons because, by definition, a person is not a woman.

Change a few words, and you have your position on gay marriagen in a nutshell. It is, of course, unteneble.

Civil marriages do reflect religious attitudes in that they are between man and woman who do not accept the need for religious sanction. That is not the same as a civil union by a long way.

So what's the difference?

Of course it affects those already married and those who will be in the future.

How? What affect will the legalization of gay marriage have on existing unions. If you're going to make statements like this, back them up with examples or something.

As for rulings by the courts! So what! Judges have been wrong before. I am not a lawyer but I have argued quite a few cases in Court - I won't go into the reasons. I once had to deal with one that the local lawyers would not do since they thought it was hopeless. I took it on because it was of great significance for the Rights of a large population.

I won and the case is the lead case in Canada now, partly because it is the only case on the issue in question. In the course of that, I had to analyse and critise several SCC cases on related matters. It is surprising how many faults I found in the decisions and the arguments of lawyers involved.

So we're expected to accept your arguments (which have consisted largely of contradictions and unsubstansiated declarations such as "(SSM) affects those already married and those who will be in the future.") based on the unprovable assertion that you once argued a case in court? This despite your admitted lack of legal training?

Come on. This is a ploy, a lame plea to some unverifiable authority you purport to hold and certainly no substitute for a real argument.

Just a stubborn refusal by the proponents to admit that there is anything other than their misplaced liberalism.

That's interesting, because I read back and I see arguments for same sex marriage based on historical and legal precedents, on the common law interpretation of the Constitution, on ideals of equality and on common sense. I see arguments against based on bigotry and stubborn repetition of unsubstansiated positions.

I'll ask you one last time: please detail why the gender of the participants in a marriage is the single most important definitional characteristic of marriage?

[Black Dog]

The relevant portion is "without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin..."

Why is that the "relevant" portion? Because you said so?

It's safe to say (and court decisions such as Vreind vs. Alberta support this) that the rights and freedoms covered by the equality provision extend to all and not just those specifically mentioned in the second section.

The question is what basis of discrimination is permitted. The Supreme Court recently decided that the State cannot discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation" (to use BD's term).

I think that such a basis should be made explicit in the Charter through a Constitutional amendment. If we were serious about this, that's what we would do.

You know what? I agree. Let's do it, if for no other reason than to close off that particular line of defense from society's bigots.

[August1991]

Why is that the "relevant" portion?

Because I think so.

It's safe to say (and court decisions such as Vreind vs. Alberta support this) that the rights and freedoms covered by the equality provision extend to all and not just those specifically mentioned in the second section.

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. Other verboten basis of discrimination can be added to the list.

You know what? I agree. Let's do it, if for no other reason than to close off that particular line of defense from society's bigots.

A cynic's view of justice and the law.

Seriously though, this is more likely than a Canadian constitutional amendment.

[The Terrible Sweal]

That would be completely unnecessary. Section 15 already says "everybody".

The relevant portion is "without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin..."

No, the relevant portion is as highlighted:

Section 15: 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.