Toews: 'Free Vote' on Same Sex Marriage

[RightWinger]

Okay: it's official. I'm in Bizzaro world.

RightWinger backing allegations of rascism?

NDP supporters calling for totalitarian suppression of speech?

Liberal-leftists using nationalism as a club to beat down opposition?

Is it Opposite Day on MLW and I didn't get the memo?

What next? Will Hugo be calling for state control of the means of production? I need a nap.

Who cares if Ramesh is Hindu? He might be fourth generation Canadian. Somebody might be fifteenth generation Canadian and not be truly 'Canadian'.

Who the heckare you to decide who's "truly Canadian" enough? I thought defining that was Molsons' job...

Seriously though: this ain't cool. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them any less a citizen. Attack the argument on its own merits, don't attack the person holding the opiinion.

Say that forcing religious based policies is Canadian, and is a Canadian value.

Inclusiveness and diversity are Canadian values. Paradoxially, defining who is and who isn't Canadian is very unCanadian.

And I'd hate to quibble, but Canadians don't have sole ownership of the secular humanist ideal of church and state separation. That's old school Elightenment shit.

You'd rather have homsexuality rammed up your ass than religion down you throat is what I gather!

False dichotomy. "Render unto Ceaser etc etc."

Why do you hate gays so much?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't hate gays! I say to each their own, but when our laws need to change to support a small minority of people, then I say it's wrong. Show me the stats that say gay people are in the majority. It is offensive to me that they feel the need to be married, they have the same rights now anyway. Why does Canada have to change the marriage law to uphold how many people? Not that many! It opens pandora's box.

[I miss Reagan]

NDP supporters calling for totalitarian suppression of speech?

Liberal-leftists using nationalism as a club to beat down opposition?

Sounds pretty normal to me.

[August1991]

Okay: it's official. I'm in Bizzaro world.

RightWinger backing allegations of rascism?

NDP supporters calling for totalitarian suppression of speech?

Liberal-leftists using nationalism as a club to beat down opposition?

Is it Opposite Day on MLW and I didn't get the memo?

What next? Will Hugo be calling for state control of the means of production? I need a nap.

Raeding through this thread, I had the same impression.

For what it is worth, I liked this Clinton quote I saw today:

When asked whether the Christian conservative movement -- which makes up much of President Bush's political base -- concerns him, Clinton replied: "I think they should be worried about it. Because I think whenever religious people try to exercise political power in God's name, and to say that they have the whole truth and they can impose it ... that's always hazardous.

"Our country is the most religious, big country on Earth, with more different faiths flourishing and more regular observance because we haven't had a state religion," he said. "And we haven't had politics as religion. And we haven't had politicians claiming to be in possession of the whole truth."

But religious influence in politics comes and goes, Clinton added.

Larry King

Clinton was a good politician because he knows how to speak in public. The key phrase here is "whole truth". Even the religious right knows what that means.

If the curent SSM bill passes, a Con government would first have to overturn it. Then they'd have to find a way to get all the provinces who've legalized gay marriage to cut it out (how they plan to do this without violating provincial juridstiction is something I'd like to see). Then they'd have to convince those provinces to declare all gay marriages so far null and void. Then brace for the deluge of lawsuits from families joined under provincial law who's unions were torn a sunder by interference from the Cons.

You've made that case often here, BD. We have seen governments pass legislation that arbitrarily lowers civil servant salaries. Governments frequently change regulations - for example, anti-smoking laws - that mean rights are lost.

But I agree it would be difficult.

[Black Dog]

I don't hate gays!

Then why the constant comments on gay sex? Either you hate gays or you're incredibly fascinated with the uh.."ins and outs" of gay sex.

I say to each their own, but when our laws need to change to support a small minority of people, then I say it's wrong.

What about the abolition of slavery? Giving women the vote? Both instances where laws were changed for a miority.

It is offensive to me that they feel the need to be married, they have the same rights now anyway.

No they don't. They don't have the right to marry.

How does what two consenting adults choose to define their relationship as hurt or afect you in any way?

Why does Canada have to change the marriage law to uphold how many people?

Let's put it in economic terms: because the marketplace was artificially limiting the supply of a product despite demand.

It opens pandora's box.

SSM opnes the door to gay marriage and gay mariage alone. There's nothing currently stopping anyone who wants to marry their sister, 12 women or a goat from lobbying for their right to do so.

Anyway, we already have numerous threads on this subject in teh archives where pretty much every argument has been hashed out. I sugest you check 'em out.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You are a hateful person.  ...  You attack people personally.

Irony anyone?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Who's the jerk on the forum? 

Who's asking?

Sweal ...  is there some reason why you're loyal to an obvious bigot?

Is there some reason you're asking butt-stupid questions? All I've said is I don't see racism as a necessary conclusion from what was said. Is there some reason you want to discourage me from expressing that opinion?

[August1991]

Anyway, we already have numerous threads on this subject in teh archives where pretty much every argument has been hashed out.

One solution I haven't seen is to simply drop the federal same-sex marriage legislation (which may happen if it is not passed before an election).

The definition of marriage is federal but the solemnization of marriage is provincial. In fact, it's a little more complicated. The marriage contract terms vary by province and while divorce (marriage breach) is federal, precise terms are provincial. Marriage is a shared jusrisdiction and I'm not certain a federal law will necessarily have the same effect everywhere in the country.

IOW, I wonder why the feds could simply not pass the law. Leave the situation as it is now. Those provinces that wish to issue a marriage license to people of the same sex can do so, and provinces that wish to keep marriage an opposite sex deal should have that right.

This is tantamount to making marriage a provincial jurisdiction. I see no harm in that. We have a federal state precisely for such situations.

We have a slightly similar situation with abortion where there is no legislation.

[Riverwind]

Anyway, we already have numerous threads on this subject in teh archives where pretty much every argument has been hashed out.

One solution I haven't seen is to simply drop the federal same-sex marriage legislation (which may happen if it is not passed before an election).

Because the other parties see it as a club to beat the Conservatives with. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have played right into their hands and ended up championing a issue which most people don't care about but simply reinforces the image of the CPC as a bunch of far right wing social conservatives.

[RightWinger]

Anyway, we already have numerous threads on this subject in teh archives where pretty much every argument has been hashed out.

One solution I haven't seen is to simply drop the federal same-sex marriage legislation (which may happen if it is not passed before an election).

Because the other parties see it as a club to beat the Conservatives with. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have played right into their hands and ended up championing a issue which most people don't care about but simply reinforces the image of the CPC as a bunch of far right wing social conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lets agree to disagree on this one, because it seems we are pissing up a rope.

I like the idea of making it Provincial and letting each province decide. That would settle down Alberta, because it would never be legal here. Unless these religious, bigot, right wing, klan members(As some would paint us!!) in Alberta had a sudden change of heart.

I would like to use this new clear language referendum idea from Stephen Harper and let Canadians decide. Here is how the question should be posed: Do you think Canada's marriage laws should be changed to allow same sex couples to be married? Yes or No

Simple and easy! If it gets more than 50% vote for Yes, then make it law!!!

Also, if it passed and takeanumber & sweal are able to be wed(assuming they are both of the "male" persuasion), I promise here and now to be the ringbearer or an usher for this union and I will give it my blessing!!!

If the No vote gets more than 50%, then takeanumber & sweal have to spend a week working oil rigs in Alberta!!

Sounds like a plan to me!!! And if you two(TTS&takeanumber) can't find the humor in this, you need to lighten up!!

RW

[Riverwind]

Do you think Canada's marriage laws should be changed to allow same sex couples to be married? Yes or No

Wrong question:

Should be: Should gov't of Canada use the notwithstanding clause to over turn the court judgements in 7 provinces and 2 terriories and take rights aways from law abiding Canadian citizens?

[RightWinger]

Do you think Canada's marriage laws should be changed to allow same sex couples to be married? Yes or No

Wrong question:

Should be: Should gov't of Canada use the notwithstanding clause to over turn the court judgements in 7 provinces and 2 terriories and take rights aways from law abiding Canadian citizens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AH... you must have been indoctrined in Laytonism...aka Socialist!!

Hail Jack Layton!

(stand at attention and raise right hand out in front of you)

LOL

[August1991]

Should be: Should gov't of Canada use the notwithstanding clause to over turn the court judgements in 7 provinces and 2 terriories and take rights aways from law abiding Canadian citizens?

No. Just leave it as is. The Liberals should just drop the federal marriage law.

If a provincial government decides to issue a marriage license to two men, then fine. If another provincial government decides to issue marriage licenses only to a woman and a man, then fine too.

The solemnization of marriage is provincial jurisdiction. Let the provincial government decide what marriages to solemnize.

Canada is a country of compromises. Let us compromise.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... when our laws need to change to support a small minority of people, then I say it's wrong.

You mean like when they outlawed slavery in the U.S.? Or veterans' support legislation? Or penal reform laws?

It is offensive to me that they feel the need to be married, they have the same rights now anyway.

Of course you'd think that, but fortunatly we don't base public policy on empty-headed kneejerk silliness.