The Current SSM Bill, Having an Identity

[yvestar]

Re: The Current SSM Bill

A justice of the peace cannot be adequately protected on the issue of religious freedom.

Here is a link to a speech by John Williams MP who makes a realistic argument that religious freedom is a provincial issue and not a federal issue. If you interpret differently than Mr. Williams then please describe your counter-arguments. For now, I will be vigorously defending John Williams on this particular issue.

http://www.johnwilliams.ca/news/JWilliamsS...amesexjan05.pdf

Also, by method of provincial leverage in its legal jurisdiction of marriage and marriage-official certification, the province can possibly achieve its goal for all churches to perform homosexual marriages. If dissenting Churches do not play ball they can be decertified to perform any sort of marriage for the province. Performing marriages for the province is not an inalienable right.

Re: Having an Identity

Is marriage an inalienable right for two consenting adults? I believe it is.

Is having an identity an inalienable right? If yes, then does marriage have the inalienable right to an identity?

If yes or no, should having an identity be an inalienable right protected under the Charter?

The objective of marriage differentiation is to protect the right to an identity if one existed.

Here are my mathematical observations for marriage differentiation.

female homosexual marriage: 0 + 0 = 0

male homosexual marriage: 1 + 1 = 2

heterosexual marriage: 0 + 1 = 1

Similarities of the equations:

1. they are all additions/unions

2. they are unions of exactly two terms

3. all the terms and solutions are in number format

Common differences of the equations:

1. homosexual marriage solutions are found at the extremity of this simple number series.

2. homosexual marriage solutions have two identical terms in their union equation

Differences of the equations:

1. all have different solutions

[I Miss Trudeau]

A justice of the peace cannot be adequately protected on the issue of religious freedom.

Anyone employed by the state should be required to do their job to the fullest and most inclusive extent of the law. If issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple is deemed to be within the job description of a civil servant, any failure to do so should result in termination.

Those working in private organizations, such as churches, should not be forced to perfrom same sex marriages if they do not wish to.

Whether or not such people can be adequately protected is not really relevant, considering that there are likely hundreds of laws currently on the books that offend someone's religious beliefs. Yet few would suggest all such laws should be repealed. What makes this one special?

For now, I will be vigorously defending John Williams on this particular issue.

Is marriage an inalienable right for two consenting adults? I believe it is.

And yet you seem to disagree with John Williams on this point. Perhaps you only intend to vigorously defend Mr. Williams as relates to the ability to guarantee religious freedoms?

Is marriage an inalienable right for two consenting adults? I believe it is.

I believe that it is not.

Is having an identity an inalienable right? If yes, then does marriage have the inalienable right to an identity?

I'm not sure how it could be. That is kind of like asking if having a soul is an inalieable right.

Furthermore, how could a mere concept possess any rights at all?

Here are my mathematical observations for marriage differentiation.

female homosexual marriage: 0 + 0 = 0

male homosexual marriage: 1 + 1 = 2

heterosexual marriage: 0 + 1 = 1

Hmm. My calculations go like this:

female homosexual marriage: 1 + 1 = 2

male homosexual marriage: 1 + 1 =2

heterosexual marriage: 1 + 1 = 2

In all seriousness though, I find it interesting that the number of penises in the relationship seems to be the important factor.

Differences of the equations:

1. all have different solutions

Mine all seem to give the same solution.

[caesar]

female homosexual marriage: 0 + 0 = 0

male homosexual marriage: 1 + 1 = 2

heterosexual marriage: 0 + 1 = 1

This appears to be a male chauvanist pig interpretation ; giving women the value of O. Why not use x and y

x + x = 2x

y+y= 2y

x+y=+y

[yvestar]

This appears to be a male chauvanist pig interpretation ; giving women the value of O. Why not use x and y

x + x = 2x

y+y= 2y

x+y=+y

That's not how to interpret it. Women have holes while men have sticks. But yes, you can still use x and y.

[yvestar]

Whether or not such people can be adequately protected is not really relevant, considering that there are likely hundreds of laws currently on the books that offend someone's religious beliefs. Yet few would suggest all such laws should be repealed. What makes this one special?

It's up to offended people to register their complaint. I believe 7 out 70 Justices of the Peace in NL resigned over this issue.

Perhaps you only intend to vigorously defend Mr. Williams as relates to the ability to guarantee religious freedoms?

This is correct. I don't believe anything else he says regarding SSM.

QUOTE 

Here are my mathematical observations for marriage differentiation.

female homosexual marriage: 0 + 0 = 0

male homosexual marriage: 1 + 1 = 2

heterosexual marriage: 0 + 1 = 1

Hmm. My calculations go like this:

female homosexual marriage: 1 + 1 = 2

male homosexual marriage: 1 + 1 =2

heterosexual marriage: 1 + 1 = 2

In all seriousness though, I find it interesting that the number of penises in the relationship seems to be the important factor.

QUOTE 

Differences of the equations:

1. all have different solutions

Mine all seem to give the same solution.

Your mathematical equations misrepresent the verbal equation. I can't really comment on something that is false.

[yvestar]

QUOTE 

Is having an identity an inalienable right? If yes, then does marriage have the inalienable right to an identity?

I'm not sure how it could be. That is kind of like asking if having a soul is an inalieable right.

Furthermore, how could a mere concept possess any rights at all?

It's not the same. You can identify a person for government purposes. You can identify a marriage for government purposes. But you cannot identify a soul for government purposes.

Marriage is not a concept. It is a legalized entity much like an individual is legalized at birth with its subsequent acknowledgement(solemnization) via a government birth certificate.

[I Miss Trudeau]

It's up to offended people to register their complaint. I believe 7 out 70 Justices of the Peace in NL resigned over this issue.

I have two responses to this, 1: "Good riddance" to those who did it as a result of a temper tantrum. 2. "Good, responsible decision" to those who did it as a matter of personal belief.

This is correct. I don't believe anything else he says regarding SSM.

Then my only real disagreement with you is over the importance of religious freedom as it relates to public servants. Oh and also your specious mathematical equations, I guess.

That's not how to interpret it. Women have holes while men have sticks. But yes, you can still use x and y.

Oh, I was under the false impression that personhood was more important than relative anatomy. With that straightened out, I'll submit my new calculations:

female homosexual marriage: 2 (lungs) + 2 (lungs) = 4

male homosexual marriage: 2 + 2 = 4

heterosexual marriage: 2 + 2 = 4

Trying to render a human relationship mathematically is absurd at best, and doubly so when you arbitrarily choose an anatomical feature as the definitive one with no argument as to why it should be the definitive factor.

Your mathematical equations misrepresent the verbal equation.

Perhaps if you're speaking only of sex organs. But even still, I'd rank both males and females as 1, since they both possess 1 complete sex organ.

Sadly, I don't think we can solve the SSM debate mathematically.

[I Miss Trudeau]

It's not the same. You can identify a person for government purposes. You can identify a marriage for government purposes. But you cannot identify a soul for government purposes.

You can define marriage for government purposes. You can also define a soul for government purposes, if you were so inclined. I'm still not sure how legal definitions could possibly have rights.

Marriage is not a concept. It is a legalized entity much like an individual is legalized at birth with its subsequent acknowledgement(solemnization) via a government birth certificate.

And yet persons are "real" in a way that marriages are not. Legalized entity or not, marriage remains a mere concept.

[yvestar]

female homosexual marriage: 2 (lungs) + 2 (lungs) = 4

male homosexual marriage: 2 + 2 = 4

heterosexual marriage: 2 + 2 = 4

Trying to render a human relationship mathematically is absurd at best, and doubly so when you arbitrarily choose an anatomical feature as the definitive one with no argument as to why it should be the definitive factor.

Your gender status should be removed from your birth certificate? A marriage certificate cannot contain any reference to gender? A marriage certificate cannot contain any reference to attraction, the only moral reason for getting married?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Your gender status should be removed from your birth certificate?

Your gender does not appear on your birth certificate, though your sex does.

A marriage certificate cannot contain any reference to gender?

Why would it? Does it serve any identifying purpose, as the sex on your birth certificate does?

A marriage certificate cannot contain any reference to attraction, the only moral reason for getting married?

I suppose it could include a reference to attraction. I don't see, at first glance, how that could arbitrarily exclude anyone from a mariage.

[yvestar]

You can also define a soul for government purposes, if you were so inclined.

I'm not speaking of definition but instead indentification. Why would government want to indentify a soul when it's already embodied in an individual? It requires two people to be embodied in a marriage. The word marriage flows with the Charter because it can easily replace the word individual. If we can identify individuals by way of gender on a birth certificate we should at least be able to do the same on a marriage certificate. For now, I'm trying to make a case for also identifying the attraction in a marriage.

[yvestar]

Your gender does not appear on your birth certificate, though your sex does.

I grew up believing gender meant sex.

QUOTE 

A marriage certificate cannot contain any reference to gender?

Why would it? Does it serve any identifying purpose, as the sex on your birth certificate does?

One can cross reference the birth certificates and the marriage certificate. What kind of documentation do you need to get married? Curious to know, does the current marriage certificate contain any reference to sex? I always assumed it did.

QUOTE 

A marriage certificate cannot contain any reference to attraction, the only moral reason for getting married?

I suppose it could include a reference to attraction. I don't see, at first glance, how that could arbitrarily exclude anyone from a mariage.

I am glad you at least, at your first glance, see it my way.

[yvestar]

And yet persons are "real" in a way that marriages are not. Legalized entity or not, marriage remains a mere concept.

Marriages are also real. They are not a mere concept but a real entity.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I'm not speaking of definition but instead indentification.

You're speaking of identifying something which you seem to believe has an "essence" for lack of a better word. Yet you, nor anyone else on this board, has offered a reason on why 1) you believe that there is an essence to marriage, and 2) why you have reason to believe that you know what it is. So, in the absence of those two important missing pieces, I'm forced to conclude that it is an arbitrary definition more than an identification.

The word marriage flows with the Charter because it can easily replace the word individual.

In terms of grammar or meaning? It can indeed be substituted into a sentence, and that sentence would still be coherent, at least in a grammatical sense. But thats about as far as the replacement can go. How can marriages have the right to vote in an election? How can marriages have a freedom of assembly? How can marriages have the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression?

Saying that marriages have rights is about as meaningful as saying that "green dreams sleep furiously." Dreams can't sleep, furiously or otherwise, and marriages can't have rights.

If we can identify individuals by way of gender on a birth certificate we should at least be able to do the same on a marriage certificate.

Because birth certificates serve as identification in a way in which marriage certificates do not. The primary purpose of a birth certificate is to serve as a piece of identification for a person. The primary purpose of a marriage certificate is as a symbolic representation of a contract between two persons.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I grew up believing gender meant sex.

There has been a lot of scholarship on the difference. Simply put, sex denotes anatomical make up, while gender denotes culturally constructed ideas. Consider the difference in meaning between asking "What makes a man?" and "What makes a male?" Man, for better or worse, tends to carry a meaning beyond "male."

I raised this not to nit pick, but because I think its an important distinction in this situation.

One can cross reference the birth certificates and the marriage certificate.

Should every document include sex, since it might possibly be used to cross reference?

Curious to know, does the current marriage certificate contain any reference to sex? I always assumed it did.

I really don't know, I've never actually read one, though I must have signed one at my brothers wedding.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Marriages are also real. They are not a mere concept but a real entity.

In what sense? If you take an apple, and then another apple, do you have a new entity "two apples?" Or is that just a mental abstraction of having an apple right next to another apple?

[yvestar]

You're speaking of identifying something which you seem to believe has an "essence" for lack of a better word. Yet you, nor anyone else on this board, has offered a reason on why 1) you believe that there is an essence to marriage, and 2) why you have reason to believe that you know what it is. So, in the absence of those two important missing pieces, I'm forced to conclude that it is an arbitrary definition more than an identification.

Could you please define essence and how it relates to and individual? If you haven't noticed, a marriage is made up of individuals.

QUOTE 

The word marriage flows with the Charter because it can easily replace the word individual.

In terms of grammar or meaning? It can indeed be substituted into a sentence, and that sentence would still be coherent, at least in a grammatical sense. But thats about as far as the replacement can go. How can marriages have the right to vote in an election? How can marriages have a freedom of assembly? How can marriages have the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression?

Saying that marriages have rights is about as meaningful as saying that "green dreams sleep furiously." Dreams can't sleep, furiously or otherwise, and marriages can't have rights.

Sorry, I should have been more precise. Please refer to S.15 of the Charter(equality rights) and subsitute individual with marriage.

The primary purpose of a birth certificate is to serve as a piece of identification for a person. The primary purpose of a marriage certificate is as a symbolic representation of a contract between two persons.

I disagree that the primary purpose of a marriage certificate is for symbolic reasons only. It's a legal document very much like a birth certificate is a legal document. A marriage certificate identifies the birth of a union in matrimony.

[yvestar]

In what sense? If you take an apple, and then another apple, do you have a new entity "two apples?" Or is that just a mental abstraction of having an apple right next to another apple?

No its not a new entity, because they are not forming a legal relationship. A corporation is considered an entity. A religious institution is considered an entity. An unlimited or limited business partnership is an entity. They are all legal entities.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Could you please define essence and how it relates to and individual? If you haven't noticed, a marriage is made up of individuals.

I've noticed that. However, I see no reason to believe that a marriage is "real", beyond being a legal definition.

My use of the term "essence" stems from the fact that I can't see why you distinguish identification and definition, as it relates to marriage. My problem is that I don't understand what grounds you have for believing marriage to be any thing other than a legal definition, and thus assumed that you view marriage as something real, beyond being a legal definition. Perhaps I was wrong on that account.

Sorry, I should have been more precise. Please refer to S.15 of the Charter(equality rights) and subsitute individual with marriage.

Why would you selectively choose that one section and not any other section of the charter? If marriages are analogous to individuals, one would seem to be forced to give them all of the same rights. Clearly, that is not only absurd but impossible.

Furthermore, S.15 contains a universal statement, "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..." as well as a list of particular cases which fall under that universal statement, ".... and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

But when we substitute marriage in, we're left with the conclusion that marriages have races, national or ethnic origins, colours, religions, sexes, ages, and, potentially, mental or physical disabilities.

Unfortunatly, marriages aren't entities of the type capable of possessing any of these traits. Thus,I say again, marriages can not be substitued for individuals, even in this one arbitrarily selected case.

I disagree that the primary purpose of a marriage certificate is for symbolic reasons only. It's a legal document very much like a birth certificate is a legal document. A marriage certificate identifies the birth of a union in matrimony.

They are both legal documents. But that is about as far as the similarities go. Again, I don't see how marriages are in any way analogous to persons, and you've yet to provide a compelling agument as to why you feel the analogy is sound.

[I Miss Trudeau]

No its not a new entity, because they are not forming a legal relationship. A corporation is considered an entity. A religious institution is considered an entity. An unlimited or limited business partnership is an entity. They are all legal entities.

Corporations and relgious institutions are not entities outside of your (or anothers') mind. Legal entities are still not real in the sense that mountains or persons are real. They remain mental abstractions, even when codified in law. A legal definition is no more real than an association of two apples in your mind.

[yvestar]

My problem is that I don't understand what grounds you have for believing marriage to be any thing other than a legal definition, and thus assumed that you view marriage as something real, beyond being a legal definition.

Marriage is nothing beyond a legal definition.

But when we substitute marriage in, we're left with the conclusion that marriages have races, national or ethnic origins, colours, religions, sexes, ages, and, potentially, mental or physical disabilities.

Unfortunatly, marriages aren't entities of the type capable of possessing any of these traits. Thus,I say again, marriages can not be substitued for individuals, even in this one arbitrarily selected case.

A marriage can be distinguished using the basic traits of the individuals involved. Hence a natural flow as the Court described.

Time to go to bed.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Marriage is nothing beyond a legal definition.

Then it can't have rights.

A marriage can be distinguished using the basic traits of the individuals involved. Hence a natural flow as the Court described.

Which traits? Would we have white marriages and black marriages? Catholic marriages and jewish marriages? Heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages?

Time to go to bed.

Likewise.

[yvestar]

QUOTE 

Marriage is nothing beyond a legal definition.

Then it can't have rights.

Then what you are saying is that marriages don't have equal rights. You are saying: not all marriages are entitled to the benefits of marriage.

Which traits? Would we have white marriages and black marriages? Catholic marriages and jewish marriages? Heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages?

Yes these are some of the traits I'm referring to. The Charter does not allow this to happen.

The issue I've brought up is: should a marriage be allowed to be identified at a bare minimum much like I'm identified as a male on my birth certificate? Is having an identity an inalienalble right? If yes, should it be protected under the Charter?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Then what you are saying is that marriages don't have equal rights. You are saying: not all marriages are entitled to the benefits of marriage.

Again, marriages don't have rights, equal or otherwise.

Yes these are some of the traits I'm referring to. The Charter does not allow this to happen.

Its not that the charter doesn't allow this to happen, its just that its meaningless to assign those sorts of attributes to something like marriage.

But I think you've missed the point. No one has argued that marriages have a right to be homosexual...

The issue I've brought up is: should a marriage be allowed to be identified at a bare minimum much like I'm identified as a male on my birth certificate?

Why would it need an identifying characteristic like your birth certificate does.

Is having an identity an inalienalble right?

Again, I'm not sure how it could be. I'm not even sure what that means. Perhaps you could offer a reason as to why you think that it is.

If yes, should it be protected under the Charter?

Even if it could be an inalieable right, how would you propose we go about enforcing it? It would, however, be limietd to individuals anyway. Thus your discussions on the identity of marriage would be irrelevant anyway.

[yvestar]

Again, marriages don't have rights, equal or otherwise.

Marriage is an extension of two people. The marriage speaks on behalf of these two people.

What's the point...you don't seem to understand the concept of marriage representing two individuals with common goals for getting married. I suppose you may say, as an individual, I represent my character and soul but marriage cannot because it is piece of paper. There is your essence: Marriage is piece of paper.

Its not that the charter doesn't allow this to happen,

The Charter does not allow it, period.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Why would it need an identifying characteristic like your birth certificate does

Again, I'm not sure how it could be. I'm not even sure what that means. Perhaps you could offer a reason as to why you think that it is

Even if it could be an inalieable right, how would you propose we go about enforcing it? It would, however, be limietd to individuals anyway. Thus your discussions on the identity of marriage would be irrelevant anyway.

The first words in the UN Charter of Rights Preamble is: the answer to your two first questions. Identifying a marriage for purpose of recognizing the dignity of two individuals could be seen as the inalienable right of both individuals. They don't call it the 'Gay Pride Parade' for nothing. I, like many, use the word 'marriage' to reference two individuals.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,