SSM foes `unhappy' with Harper's stand

[scribblet]

"Small-c" conservatives are going to leave the Conservative party because Harper says he won't invoke the Notwithstanding clause?

Ok, so who are these "small-c" conservatives going to vote for instead?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I know, and I do talk to a lot of small c conservatives on various riding boards, there are no plans of anone leaving the party over SSM. This is wishful thinking on the part of some people, it also serves to divide and simply stir the pot There are no plans for a leadership convention either.

There is the Christian Heritage Party which might apeal to a very few, but I kinda doubt they will go there, it is not supported in anyway by any conservatives I know. However, everyone is entitled to a voice in the democratic process, even if the supposedly 'progressive types' would like to see them silenced.

[kimmy]

I hope Paul Martin is a religious liberal.  Religious liberals didn't oppose adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. Religious conservatives did.

I've proven you wrong on this twice already, and each time you ignore the facts and go on repeating the same lie in different threads. I ask again: are you being intentionally dishonest, or do you honestly not know any better?

-k

[hiti]

Yes Martin DID allow his backbench MPs a free vote on the SSM law as did the Bloc. Only the Ministers had to vote with the government.

Those who keep on saying that only the conservatives allowed a free vote are being dishonest.

What did the Supreme say about ssm and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexr...4scc079.wpd.txt

Section 1 of the proposed legislation is consistent with the Charter.  The

purpose of s. 1 is to extend the right to civil marriage to same-sex couples

and, in substance, the provision embodies the government's policy stance in

relation to the s. 15(1) equality concerns of same-sex couples.  This, combined

with the circumstances giving rise to the proposed legislation and with the

preamble thereto, points unequivocally to a purpose which, far from violating

the Charter, flows from it.  With respect to the effect of s. 1, the mere

recognition of the equality rights of one group cannot, in itself, constitute a

violation of the s. 15(1) rights of another.  The promotion of Charter rights

and values enriches our society as a whole and the furtherance of those rights

cannot undermine the very principles the Charter was meant to foster.  Although

the right to same-sex marriage conferred by the proposed legislation may

potentially conflict with the right to freedom of religion if the legislation

becomes law, conflicts of rights do not imply conflict with the Charter; rather,

the resolution of such conflicts generally occurs within the ambit of the

Charter itself by way of internal balancing and delineation.  It has not been

demonstrated in this reference that impermissible conflicts -- conflicts

incapable of resolution under s. 2(a) -- will arise.

[scribblet]

This is a hmmmmm guess he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Isn't the PM also an MP who represents a riding and its constituents, or does PM think the riding loses representation if its MP is PM.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...02-1dfc60b70c67

Liberal candidates can oppose same-sex

Martin: Higher standard for party leaders

REGINA - Prime Minister Paul Martin said yesterday Liberal candidates are entitled to run in this election even if they want to deny Charter rights to gays and lesbians seeking same-sex marriage.

A day earlier, Mr. Martin had said Conservative leader Stephen Harper shouldn't even be running for the highest political office in the land because of his refusal to protect same-sex marriages as a Charter right.

Pressed by journalists, the Liberal leader said his higher standard only applies to those leaders who want to run the government.

"The point that I made was one that was directed at the prime minister -- the person who occupies the job of prime minister," Mr. Martin said. "The issue is not, 'What does an individual MP say?' An individual MP is entitled to his or her vision."

[Shakeyhands]

Don't kid yourself, when voting day comes, these so-called foes will hold their noses and vote Harper.  Who else is there, Catholic Martin who doesn't seem to want the Pope to interfere with his religion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately you are correct about voting day... and as far as Martin goes... At least he has the cajones to be able to seperate his religion from the decision making process that would affect a minority of people who don't hold the same beliefs.

[Leafless]

Shakeyhands

You wrote- " At least he has the cajones to separate his religion from the decission making process that would affect a minority of people that don't hold the same beliefs."

State and church as always been pretty well separated in Canada and what your saying is simply not true. The country was built and founded with the help of Christianity.

Homosexuality similarl to beastiality has always been controversial and regarded as something perverts do despite religious beliefs.

Are you that naive not to understand that if you do not support your existing beliefs that another belief will become dominant and eventually rule of the land.

Immigrants have their own religion and are free to believe in what they wish and it's to bad if they feel they are being influenced by Canada's traditons as one can say the same thing about them as having a direct adverse influence on Canadian lifestyle and traditions.

[Yaro]

State and church as always been pretty well separated in Canada and what your saying is simply not true. The country was built and founded with the help of Christianity.

I won't even bother to point out the hundred reasons this is a retarded statement until you actually go read a few history books on Canada and come up with a half assed coherent argument in support of this.

Homosexuality similarl to beastiality has always been controversial and regarded as something perverts do despite religious beliefs.

Wow, just wow is all I can say.

Are you that naive not to understand that if you do not support your existing beliefs that another belief will become dominant and eventually rule of the land.

I more then most Canadians have real issues with multiculturalism. But your religious beliefs mean as much to me as what the pink elephants have to say when I am drunk, in fact they mean less because at least the pink elephants are as real as my drug induced hallucinations where as your religious notions are far more fanciful.

[normanchateau]

Homosexuality similarl to beastiality has always been controversial and regarded as something perverts do despite religious beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fortunately legislators and politicians have had the vision and wisdom to bring in laws which reverse some of the bizarre notions put forth in the Bible. For example, the Bible appears to have no objections to polygamy and pedophila whereas Canadian laws have made them illegal.

[justcrowing]

Well let's try to look at marriage from a different angle. The state has claimed ownership of marriage (which pre-dates the state) as a monopoly intellectual property, the materialistic state has substituted itself for the church, people are required to perform the political-religious rituals of going to the county clerk's office and getting a license, the courthouse has become the new church, the clerk is the minister, the license is the blessing, and the state has become the religion that sanctions it. Politicians have desecrated the wedding ceremony by inserting the blasphemous phrase 'with the power vested in me by the state." When couples get married in a civil ceremony they are in effect marrying the state, as the state becomes their partner and the judge over their relationship terms and behavior.

Marriage is just one type of relationship, there are good marriages and bad marriages, a license doesn't make it good or right, what makes a marriage real is what's in the hearts of the lovers, the morality of their behavior and their personal commitment based on trust. A license doesn't guarantee any of that.

A marriage license means that the state claims ownership of your relationship, that you have to go to the political mob to get permission to wed, (and in some places to make love) to end the union and you have to accept their terms, which they can change at any time--how degrading. Why should adults have to go to a paternalistic political mob to get permission to make love and get permission from a judge you don't even know to end the relationship and allow that a judge who doesn't know you or your children to determine the future of your children?

Licensing sexual acts is intolerably paternalistic, its licensing people like cattle for breeding purposes. The state coerces couples into signing a marriage license which signs over decision making power over the terms of your relationships, how it may be ended and who gets custody of the children after divorce. Its like the devil getting you to sign over your firstborn, only the devil usually offers you something in return to get your consent, the state offers you nothing.

Do you think fighting for this is worth it?

[!!!]

When couples get married in a civil ceremony they are in effect marrying the state, as the state becomes their partner and the judge over their relationship terms and behavior.

Uh..no. A civil marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. As such, the state has little business dictating the terms of said contract. Nor does it.

A marriage license means that the state claims ownership of your relationship, that you have to go to the political mob to get permission to wed, (and in some places to make love) to end the union and you have to accept their terms, which they can change at any time--how degrading.

Where do you live where the state has the power to unilaterally declare marriages null and void? Where I live, I can get get laid, get married or get divorced on my own volition and no individual or institution has the power to comple me otherwise.

[justcrowing]

When couples get married in a civil ceremony they are in effect marrying the state, as the state becomes their partner and the judge over their relationship terms and behavior.

Uh..no. A civil marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. As such, the state has little business dictating the terms of said contract. Nor does it.

A marriage license means that the state claims ownership of your relationship, that you have to go to the political mob to get permission to wed, (and in some places to make love) to end the union and you have to accept their terms, which they can change at any time--how degrading.

Where do you live where the state has the power to unilaterally declare marriages null and void? Where I live, I can get get laid, get married or get divorced on my own volition and no individual or institution has the power to comple me otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

* True a civil marriage is a legal contract but who draws up that marriage contract - do you or does the State do that and why is it registered with the government?

* Where do you get a marriage licence if not from government, if not from government, then where? If from government, then they set the terms or do you change them?

* If you want a divorce, where do you have to apply to do so? Who decides upon your divorce if not the Courts??? Who sets up the Courts - Government???

* One area no one dictates to you is your choice of partner unless one belongs to specific ethnic groups whose parents choose the partner.

* And yes, you can get laid, get married or get divorced onyour own volition if you sign that legal document. If you do not wish to sign that document then you can choose a common-law relationship which is of your own volition. Even so, government now looks at a common-law relationship as legal because of property and child custody issues, therefore, you still have to go through legal hoops and government involvement. Trudeau once stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the country but in effect, that is not true, government does dictate in many ways. Think about it.

My post was to view marriage from another perspective for discussion purposes. We all go and get those licences and arrange for cermemonies, blah, blah, blah, but have any of us stopped to think how much government is involved on this issue? For example, and this is not intended to demean SSM but only for the sake of discussion - if marriage is not government controlled, then why did government get involved in SSM? No I am not speaking of equality only government involvement from a legal aspect. I think different opinions on this should prove very interesting.

[Yaro]

* True a civil marriage is a legal contract but who draws up that marriage contract - do you or does the State do that and why is it registered with the government?

In a civil marriage the state takes the role of the church, when you get married by your church are you marrying your church? It is possible to get married and have no civil attachment.

* Where do you get a marriage licence if not from government, if not from government, then where? If from government, then they set the terms or do you change them?

Marriage in Canada has certain legal ramifications, a marriage licence is an acknowledgement of acceptance for that agreement.

* If you want a divorce, where do you have to apply to do so? Who decides upon your divorce if not the Courts??? Who sets up the Courts - Government???

We have no fault divorce, you can get a divorce anytime you want the courts have nothing to say on the issue.

* One area no one dictates to you is your choice of partner unless one belongs to specific ethnic groups whose parents choose the partner.

Legally nobody can choose your spouse regardless of your age.

* And yes, you can get laid, get married or get divorced onyour own volition if you sign that legal document. If you do not wish to sign that document then you can choose a common-law relationship which is of your own volition. Even so, government now looks at a common-law relationship as legal because of property and child custody issues, therefore, you still have to go through legal hoops and government involvement. Trudeau once stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the country but in effect, that is not true, government does dictate in many ways. Think about it.

Absolutely or you can enter into a legal contract which supersedes common-law with whatever type of arrangement you want.

Uh..no. A civil marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. As such, the state has little business dictating the terms of said contract. Nor does it.

The government dictates to a great extent what one can have in a contract and what one cannot. Contracts cannot violate basic charter rights for one.

At the end of the day though IMO, the government has no business in marriage. Let there be some standard contracts commonly available covering different types of relationships and let that be the end of the involvement.

[justcrowing]

Quote: In a civil marriage the state takes the role of the church, when you get married by your church are you marrying your church? It is possible to get married and have no civil attachment.

Ah, but people get their licence from the State and some take their vows in a Church. A contract from the State and vows of commitment from the church. Or it can be a State contract only, called a civil marriage. So if one gets married without civil attachment, then is it only church sanctioned marriage or common-law marriage that one engages in? Interesting point you brought up.

Quote: Marriage in Canada has certain legal ramifications, a marriage licence is an acknowledgement of acceptance for that agreement.

So admittedly the marriage licence with legal ramifications is set by government. In which case, government controls marriage.

Quote: We have no fault divorce, you can get a divorce anytime you want the courts have nothing to say on the issue.

True but legal papers still have to be signed which of course are drawn up by lawyers. These papers must be registered with government. If children are involved, or alimony then government steps in via the courts. Government, as I understand it, did set a schedule of child support on a scale of one's earnings and raises. Never having gone through a divorce & not likely to, is that not how it works?

QUOTE

* Legally nobody can choose your spouse regardless of your age.

People of India basically follow the arranged marriage system, and they consider it as something great. Some Japanese and other Asians also arrange marriages. Although this practice is changing in Canada, it still does happen.

* Quote: Uh..no. A civil marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. As such, the state has little business dictating the terms of said contract. Nor does it.

But if the State does not dictate the terms of the contract, then who does? You do go to a licensing bureau to get permission from the state.

No matter how one slices it - government is involved in the bedrooms of the nation in one way or another. There is one area where the government does not draw up a contract and that is a pre-nuptial agreement, however, the courts can over-ride the agreement.

[Biblio Bibuli]

There is one area where the government does not draw up a contract and that is a pre-nuptial agreement, however, the courts can over-ride the agreement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that is why Svend won't marry Max. He's afraid young Max would bolt.

Svend is a multi-milionaire, you know? At least that's what the papers say.

I wonder how he came into all of that money.

GO HEDY GO !!!

[justcrowing]

There is one area where the government does not draw up a contract and that is a pre-nuptial agreement, however, the courts can over-ride the agreement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that is why Svend won't marry Max. He's afraid young Max would bolt.

Svend is a multi-milionaire, you know? At least that's what the papers say.

I wonder how he came into all of that money.

GO HEDY GO !!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Slim pickins - Hedy or Svend?? Ms. Fry got really specific about Prince George. She went on to inform a startled House and a horrified Prince George, that even as she was speaking, there were crosses burning on the lawns of Prince George. BC

As for Svend & Max - hey Max can still do a clean out job on Svend and claim half. The same laws apply to common-law as they do to marriages. Since civil marriages are sanctioned, it stands to reason that common-law marriages do too. Luv it!!

[Yaro]

Ah, but people get their license from the State and some take their vows in a Church. A contract from the State and vows of commitment from the church. Or it can be a State contract only, called a civil marriage. So if one gets married without civil attachment, then is it only church sanctioned marriage or common-law marriage that one engages in? Interesting point you brought up.

Yes, it is possible to have a religious marriage with no civil contract (although not common). I agree that the governments role in marriage is outdated and should be done away with, it’s a holdover from before women became responsible for there own well being.

So admittedly the marriage licence with legal ramifications is set by government. In which case, government controls marriage.

Sure, the whole purpose of civil sanction is the acceptance of the civil contract of marriage. Even today I suppose you could engage in a religious ceremony and have a custom contract although I don't know if it’s done in practice.

True but legal papers still have to be signed which of course are drawn up by lawyers. These papers must be registered with government. If children are involved, or alimony then government steps in via the courts. Government, as I understand it, did set a schedule of child support on a scale of one's earnings and raises. Never having gone through a divorce & not likely to, is that not how it works?

Only if you have gone through with the acceptance of the civil contract represented by marriage. You can have a contract which supersedes the civil marriage contract that does not have to be registered with the government. The marriage contract and its registration are not mandatory.

People of India basically follow the arranged marriage system, and they consider it as something great. Some Japanese and other Asians also arrange marriages. Although this practice is changing in Canada, it still does happen.

While I am aware that many cultures have and do practice that tradition, a parent cannot legally entire a child into a binding marriage contract without the child’s consent.

But if the State does not dictate the terms of the contract, then who does? You do go to a licensing bureau to get permission from the state.

The state provides certain criteria which must be met to gain certain privileges, those privileges considered to be net positives in most circumstances are something that most apply for, but it is not necessary. A couple can make any type of contract they wish and call themselves married, saying that your married in the eyes of the government is what your talking about, and since I don't see a way for people to seek the blessing of the government without involving the government then I think your going a little circular on your logic.

No matter how one slices it - government is involved in the bedrooms of the nation in one way or another. There is one area where the government does not draw up a contract and that is a pre-nuptial agreement, however, the courts can over-ride the agreement.

While I agree that the government is to involved in personal lives, pre nuptial agreements are not often overturned and when they are it is virtually always based upon the actual language of the agreement (from my admittedly limited research on the topic).

[!!!]

And yes, you can get laid, get married or get divorced onyour own volition if you sign that legal document. If you do not wish to sign that document then you can choose a common-law relationship which is of your own volition. Even so, government now looks at a common-law relationship as legal because of property and child custody issues, therefore, you still have to go through legal hoops and government involvement. Trudeau once stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the country but in effect, that is not true, government does dictate in many ways. Think about it.

Um...simply stating the ways in which the government is involved in the marriage contract is not evidence that government "sets the terms" or becomes "judge over their relationship terms and behavior." Giving me some examples of how the government dictates the terms of a marriage.