Same-Sex Marriage

[Hicksey]

Which is what? Civil unions, right?

Yessir.

It doesn't stop them from holding whatever celebration they want to affirm their union. They can even have a marriage type ceremony with a justice of the peace.

It doesn't change what we feel in our hearts. It just makes everything equal to everyone. We can still celebrate our union any way we please.

Does that mean we could go bullfighting?

You can even do it while bungee jumping if you want.

[tml12]

that is real democracy, will of the people type idea

Pure democracy is little more than mob rule -- two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

As none other than Benjamin Franklin himself put it.

[rbacon]

In order for Harper to get out of the marriage business you would need a constitutional amendment, it states in the BNA that the Federal government is responsible for marriage and divorce. I still say that the those that would be governed should decide by a referendum. Why should it be a tyranny of the minority. That is a far worse sin against democracy. Besides if everyone is so sure that the ssm crowd and Canadians enmasse support their perversion what have you to worry about. Put it to a binding referendum. Settle the issue once and for all. Let all Canadians be heard legally and binding on everyone. And use the NWC on the SCC they are a rank appointed bunch anyway and well steeped in bias.

[Yaro]

In order for Harper to get out of the marriage business you would need a constitutional amendment, it states in the BNA that the Federal government is responsible for marriage and divorce. I still say that the those that would be governed should decide by a referendum. Why should it be a tyranny of the minority. That is a far worse sin against democracy. Besides if everyone is so sure that the ssm crowd and Canadians enmasse support their perversion what have you to worry about. Put it to a binding referendum. Settle the issue once and for all. Let all Canadians be heard legally and binding on everyone. And use the NWC on the SCC they are a rank appointed bunch anyway and well steeped in bias.

I personally believe that there should be several issues put to referendum, marijuana primary among them. However if you are going to put SSM up to a simple majority vote with no respect to Tyranny of the majority I would have to ask if you would have any problem also putting up a referendum to force churches to perform the marriage if the SSM issue passes. After all if it’s the will of the Majority. In fact I would ask if we could have a referendum banning all religion in public places similar to the French ban.

And how about a referendum on changing the laws to create a national energy program? Or a referendum on whether a unity clause should be added to the Charter so that no province could ever threaten separation again? Isn't the power of the unchecked majority grand?

[Shakeyhands]

I've yet to see any one who opposes SSM explain how it has affected them. Perhaps I should help, it hasn't.

Those opposed, it seems to me, are more likely to have issue with homosexuality itself. What does that make them? Well, on that I am not sure.

I can tell you that to the majority, it matters not what gay people do or don't do. And frankly, why should it matter us?

[YankAbroad]

I would have to ask if you would have any problem also putting up a referendum to force churches to perform the marriage if the SSM issue passes. After all if it’s the will of the Majority. In fact I would ask if we could have a referendum banning all religion in public places similar to the French ban.

Of course they wouldn't. They'd go and cite the charter which they have so much contempt for when it says people they don't like have the same rights that they do.

Although such an effort would certainly charge up the Christian-rightwing-political machine's delusion of "persecution," which is central to their continued political viability. If they cannot convince people they're "persecuted," then they lose thier sense of purpose.

It's hilarious -- they have all the power in Washington at the moment, and their enemies have virtually none -- and they still bellyache about how oppressed they are by the "establishment." Ummm. . . they ARE the establishment.

[mar]

We're apparently already in danger of suffering "a tyranny of the minority," rbacon.

I think this was covered on several other threads but we have - as do most Western countries - a consitutional democracy. You can view a constitution as the expression of shared core beliefs about the fundamental rights of citizens in our country.

Let's take the U.S. constitution as an example. The U.S. consitution holds that "all men are created equal." Many of the men both framing and signing this doucument were slave owners and none of them thought women were created equal. nevertheless, this document served as an expression of core beliefs and also of hope for the future and dreams for a better world. At many - in fact most - points in U.S. history the practices of the government and the view of the majority was definitely NOT that all men were created equal but the constitution stood as a beacon.

Do you actually want to live in a country with no overall framework of law to protect its citizens? Where any bigoted, homocidal or genocidal group who can manage to arrange a vote of 51% gets to make law?

The entire point of a constitutional democracy is it posits that some rights of citizens are inviolate. It doesn't matter if those citizens are a minority, it doesn't matter if we all approve of them, it doesn't even matter if the rest of us agree with those citizens as long as they are not practising something harmful to the rest of us.

What you are talking about is using the power of parliament to strike out a right. To in effect say, we are not all equal under the law, which would be a very sad legacy for any government.

[compaq905]

Hmmm, let's try a few variations on that theme....

"If the majority of Canadians are against inter-racial marriage it shouldn't happen anything else isn't a democracy."

"If the majority of Alabamans are against desegregation it shouldn't happen anything else isn't a democracy."

"If the majority of Germans are against Jews owning property it shouldn't happen anything else isn't a democracy."

.....

Nope; can't say I like that line of reasoning at all...

Your obviously taking this out of context, I think we all know I could do the same with minority rights but that would be pointless.

[YankAbroad]

Your obviously taking this out of context

No, he's simply applying your logic to other minority situations.

[rbacon]

The minority of ssm adherents have no problem forcing their will on the majority. But scream bloody murder when the majority reject the tyranny of the minority. To compare this to a slavery issue is childish. Marriage for over a thousand years has been a hetro institution. The hetro's need to have their say on the issue and they are in the majority. If homosexual's want some form of marriage get your own. You see it is not a matter of ssm it is a matter of power. The ssm adherents want the hetro majority to accept them and bow down to their unhealthy lifestyle. A lifestyle that shorten's life more than heavy cigarette smoking by the way. I say it should go to a binding referendum, because it is a constitutional amendment to change the institution of marriage. Let's vote on it and settle it once and for all. And then when the ssm crowd loses they can dream up their own jump the broomstick sham marriage. Complete with rings and confetti. No to honouring a very unhealthy lifestyle. Just my opinion.

[YankAbroad]

How are they forcing their will on the majority?

Are gay marriage advocates forcing you to marry someone of the same gender?

[YankAbroad]

The hetro's need to have their say on the issue and they are in the majority

Everything I've seen shows a majority of "hetro's" (sic) support equality under the law.

[geoffrey]

The hetro's need to have their say on the issue and they are in the majority

Everything I've seen shows a majority of "hetro's" (sic) support equality under the law.

Equality doesn't mean re-writing the dictionary. Equal benifets from a secular perspective by all means. Marriage isn't a right, its a word that belongs with religion, something that should have been protected by seperation of Church and State. Government had no business with marriage in the first place, we need to take a step back, put marriage into the hands of the religious institutions that promote such activity.

Marriage is not a right or anything, its a definition. Government has already over-stepped its bounds, and now is taking another step in the wrong direction.

[YankAbroad]

Marriage isn't a right, its a word that belongs with religion

Again, my religion recognizes and honours same sex marriage. If you're going to argue from that perspective, you cannot argue that SSM is a "violation of tradition" either.

[mar]

Equality doesn't mean re-writing the dictionary. Equal benifets from a secular perspective by all means. Marriage isn't a right, its a word that belongs with religion, something that should have been protected by seperation of Church and State. Government had no business with marriage in the first place, we need to take a step back, put marriage into the hands of the religious institutions that promote such activity.

Marriage is not a right or anything, its a definition. Government has already over-stepped its bounds, and now is taking another step in the wrong direction.

I have a suspicion you'd be the first to complain if individual's were claiming OAS, CPP, tax and other benefits because the Church of the Divine Tony the Tiger had married them in accordance with its religious rights.

Historically, marriage was first defined by the state and only later was the ceremonial aspect of it "licensed" to religions. Perhaps the solution is to go the Netherlands route where the religious cenemony has no legal standing. All marriages must be performed by the state and it is up to citizens if they choose to celebrate this with some additional religious or other ceremony.

[cybercoma]

Can someone show me somewhere in the constitution or charter of rights where it says anything about anyone getting married?

[YankAbroad]

Can someone show me where the charter permits discrimination based on gender?

[CCGirl]

Why do people think marriage = religion?

This is about equal rights. That is all. Noone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.

[tml12]

Why do people think marriage = religion?

This is about equal rights. That is all. Noone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.

I have said it before...in a democracy, governments should govern and not define many of these things they have no business defining in the first place.

Enough of these "marriage" acts...let people live as they themselves see fit.

[YankAbroad]

That's too radical, tml. After all, I know best about how you should live your life. And you don't deserve things like tax benefits and immigration unless you're living a life which I believe is moral.

That's what democracy is all about.

Hey, wait a minute, what do you mean I'm immoral too?!?

This is outrageous! I have rights!

[geoffrey]

Some of these SSM advocates are actually annoying me into agreement with their failure to even try to see the other side.

[justcrowing]

Upon evaluting the pros & cons debated here about SSM I conclude that Opposite-sex marriage is also the affirmation of the unique bonding that arises from a heterosexual relations that serves as a bridge between past, present and future generations. The deconstruction of opposite-sex marriage leads to the unravelling of society.

Public benefits should not be awarded to promote personal or special-interest agendas. Public laws are intended to protect and promote public interests, not private lifestyle preferences. Legal marriage is a public institution established to achieve public purposes, which is to encourage the birth and the raising of children; it is not meant to promote private interests.

My tin foil hat is on.

[mar]

Upon evaluting the pros & cons debated here about SSM I conclude that Opposite-sex marriage is also the affirmation of the unique bonding that arises from a heterosexual relations that serves as a bridge between past, present and future generations. The deconstruction of opposite-sex marriage leads to the unravelling of society.

Public benefits should not be awarded to promote personal or special-interest agendas. Public laws are intended to protect and promote public interests, not private lifestyle preferences. Legal marriage is a public institution established to achieve public purposes, which is to encourage the birth and the raising of children; it is not meant to promote private interests.

My tin foil hat is on.

LOL

Better watch out, justcrowing.

If there's one thing Conservatives say they hate more than taxes its social engineering by government. Oh, wait. That was traditional conservatives, the neoCons are all in favour of social engineeering. Or am I thinking of the Stalinists, or the fascists? Its getting so confusing these days.

[geoffrey]

Upon evaluting the pros & cons debated here about SSM I conclude that Opposite-sex marriage is also the affirmation of the unique bonding that arises from a heterosexual relations that serves as a bridge between past, present and future generations. The deconstruction of opposite-sex marriage leads to the unravelling of society.

Public benefits should not be awarded to promote personal or special-interest agendas. Public laws are intended to protect and promote public interests, not private lifestyle preferences. Legal marriage is a public institution established to achieve public purposes, which is to encourage the birth and the raising of children; it is not meant to promote private interests.

My tin foil hat is on.

LOL

Better watch out, justcrowing.

If there's one thing Conservatives say they hate more than taxes its social engineering by government. Oh, wait. That was traditional conservatives, the neoCons are all in favour of social engineeering. Or am I thinking of the Stalinists, or the fascists? Its getting so confusing these days.

Grouping the neo-Conservatives, Stalinists and Fascists together is somewhat ridiculous. Actually really ridiculous. I know the Stalinists like social engineering, and Nazi's liked social engineering. But I've yet to hear any neo-Cons want this, or your average run of the mill Pinochet type fascists.

[mar]

Grouping the neo-Conservatives, Stalinists and Fascists together is somewhat ridiculous. Actually really ridiculous. I know the Stalinists like social engineering, and Nazi's liked social engineering. But I've yet to hear any neo-Cons want this, or your average run of the mill Pinochet type fascists.

Gee, geoffrey, do I have to diagram the jokes for you too?

One could certainly argue that the campaign to deny gays-lesbians the right to marry is social engineering if one was so inclined (as justcrowing humourously suggested). Equally, one can argue that a law enforcement program that stipulates higher penalties for users of drugs most easily available to a certain strata of sociery is social engineering when the result is the destruction of their family structure due to a 1 in 4 incarceration rate.

Yeah, yaeh, I know its just a happy coincidence, unanticipated by anyone; kind of like the SUV loophole that just nobody noticed and apparently can't fix.

The general point of the post was that political parties of all stripes will happily adopt policies they feel are to their benefit, regardless of supposed ideological conflicts.