Homosexuality is an anomaly

[gnam]

Leafless, there seem to be some problems with your arguments.

First, you say that politicians are passing laws that should be decided in a national referendum. Our politicians are elected to represent us. It is their job to pass laws. It is not their job to go running back to their constituents every five minutes. When you say society should decide, you are missing the fact that society has already decided. It decided when we elected our government and that government went out and passed laws.

Second, even if we were to have national referendums on multiple issues, who decides what must go to a referendum? What issues should be decided by everyone and what issues should be decided by Parliament? You have not made this distinction clear.

Third, your logic seems to say that if the majority of Canadians voted for something then that is the morally correct answer. According to that type of logic if the majority of Canadians voted to establish slavery for all non-white people that would be acceptable to you. This argument also means that the majority of Canadians could vote to outlaw Christianity. Are you really sure that you want to advocate this type of decision making?

Finally, you try to base some of your arguments on the fact that things used to be a certain way so that is the way they must remain. You also say that the British beat the French on the Plains of Abraham therefore the French have no other rights than those given in the original British North America Act. Here are the problems with statements like that:

1. If the British won the ability to impose their views then what stops other groups from now stepping up & doing the same? You say the British got this right by using violence. That argument seems to mean that any group who achieves supremacy, by force or otherwise, can set the rules for everyone. Our system of government is set up so that everyone can have their voices heard, not just those who yell the loudest or use violence.

2. Saying that everything must be exactly as it was in 1867 is extremely short sighted. Should we also get rid of all technology invented since 1867? Should women not be allowed to vote? If you want to roll the clock back to 1867 then please just come out and say that you think women's rights should be rolled back, etc. Times change, societies grow and mature. Our system of laws must accomodate this. If it didn't, then everything from Canadian businesses to Canadian infrastructure would be nothing but a joke in the international community and our system / society could never meet the needs of Canadian citizens living in the 21st century.

Well, I'm not exactly sure that the Canadian system is not a joke in the international community (argus has nearly convinced me that it is)... however, evrything else seems rather well said. All of these issues seem to pose significant problems for Leafless's position. What do you think Leafless?

[Leafless]

Leafless, there seem to be some problems with your arguments.

First, you say that politicians are passing laws that should be decided in a national referendum. Our politicians are elected to represent us. It is their job to pass laws. It is not their job to go running back to their constituents every five minutes. When you say society should decide, you are missing the fact that society has already decided. It decided when we elected our government and that government went out and passed laws.

Second, even if we were to have national referendums on multiple issues, who decides what must go to a referendum? What issues should be decided by everyone and what issues should be decided by Parliament? You have not made this distinction clear.

Third, your logic seems to say that if the majority of Canadians voted for something then that is the morally correct answer. According to that type of logic if the majority of Canadians voted to establish slavery for all non-white people that would be acceptable to you. This argument also means that the majority of Canadians could vote to outlaw Christianity. Are you really sure that you want to advocate this type of decision making?

Finally, you try to base some of your arguments on the fact that things used to be a certain way so that is the way they must remain. You also say that the British beat the French on the Plains of Abraham therefore the French have no other rights than those given in the original British North America Act. Here are the problems with statements like that:

1. If the British won the ability to impose their views then what stops other groups from now stepping up & doing the same? You say the British got this right by using violence. That argument seems to mean that any group who achieves supremacy, by force or otherwise, can set the rules for everyone. Our system of government is set up so that everyone can have their voices heard, not just those who yell the loudest or use violence.

2. Saying that everything must be exactly as it was in 1867 is extremely short sighted. Should we also get rid of all technology invented since 1867? Should women not be allowed to vote? If you want to roll the clock back to 1867 then please just come out and say that you think women's rights should be rolled back, etc. Times change, societies grow and mature. Our system of laws must accomodate this. If it didn't, then everything from Canadian businesses to Canadian infrastructure would be nothing but a joke in the international community and our system / society could never meet the needs of Canadian citizens living in the 21st century.

Surely you must understand everything from the repatriation of our constitution from Britain to amending our constitution was Liberal induced.

If you agree the country was given to us from Britain, then surely you must agree Canadians are entitled to participate concerning changes in our constitution as the Liberals DID NOT win Canada.

I realize politicians have decided for the Canadian public concerning constitutional changes, but all I am pointing out is that it was an undemocratic and corrupt way to initially handle constitutional changes.

Not only was the Canadian public was rejected in being part of the process regarding important constitutional questions but there was no constitutional built in safety device to prevent abuses of power or concerns regarding discrimination by politicians deciding unilaterally who gets what.

Referendum issues I think are any proposals concerning changes in our constitution with less important concerns decided on by Canadians every federal election called mini-referendums. Parliaments role should be implementing and creating laws beneficial to the public pertaining to law and order and implementing laws decided by referendums and mini-referendums at election time.

In a democratic society what possible way can a fair policy be applied other then cater to the interest of the majority. This is of course not excluding necessary social policies that serve as a safety net for Canadians. but at the same time I think its demeaning to the country for political parties to run on implementing social policies continually resulting in creating an unfair level of taxation to subsidize these social programs. Mini referendums at election time would be an ideal way to get the required input from Canadians concerning social programs.

We have laws disallowing the exploitation of Canadians for purposes of slavery. Canada is also seen by many countries as a banana republic due to its overabundance of social programs and control by the government. As a matter of fact Canada's infrastructure is in dire need upgrades.

I don't think we can afford treating provinces like separate countries and this is where we can save a lot of money. Transfer and equalization payments should be reworked to make provinces more accountable for financing their own programs rather than place the burden on all Canadians.

Immigration is not the answer to all problems as these immigrants themselves at a later time become a liability and an additional financial burden. The country or system will only sustain so many Canadians and the expendable purchasing power of individual Canadians remains the same but scattered over a larger area with no real net effect to the economy.

[bradco]

Your use of the word "unprincipled" and "ethical" is probably not accurate but reflects your own subjective views as to what principles or ethics you feel are appropriate. To me it is unprincipled and unethical to discriminate against gay people, call them vicious, anomolies, mentally defficient etc.

It sounds like you feel you have a monoply on understanding what is ethical or principled. Sorry you don't.

How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything. It only is unethical not because you don't approve of it, but if it entails one adult using violence, a power imbalance, duress or coercion or misrepresentation/illegal means/drugs/booze to induce the other side to consent.

You are confusing two separate issue's.

You ask:"How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything."

What you are forgetting, it is government and not society, that gave Gays their LEGAL rights that if left up to society to establish Gays legal rights, morals would certainly play an important part in arriving to a decision for most people. The federal government doesn't care about morals.

For argument sake, we have never had a referendum to establish if Canadians thinks Gays having sex or marrying each other is unethical, did we. If we did and society responded by majority saying , yes it is unethical for Gays to have sex or marry each other. How would you respond then?

I don't have a monopoly on understanding what is ethical or principled but it seems you do. You are establishing what you think is correct pertaining to the words 'ethical' and 'principled' based on LAW only and conveniently forget how society as a whole feels about it and were never given the opportunity to be part of that decision.

your referendum ballot question ought to be changed.

1.Is it unethical? and 2. Should it be allowed? are quite different.Someone can believe it to be unethical by their standards but still believe others have the right to choose their own ethics.

Putting the obvious error in your question aside....if it went to referendum SSM would probably be affirmed and you would have to come to grips with the fact that Canadian society isnt as fundamentalist Christian as you wishfully believe.

[bk59]

I don't see how your response justifies your position against SSM or rights protecting sexual orientation. Here are the questions that I still feel need to be answered by you:

1. When using the BNA Act as justification, are you not advocating to turn back the clock on most of the progress we have made since 1867? If not, then why turn back sexual orientation rights and not other rights (like women's rights)?

2. If the majority can decide what rights homosexuals have, can't they also decide what rights other groups have? In other words, can't the majority also decide to enslave people, or outlaw certain religions (like Christianity)?

3. The distinction you have made between what is a referendum (or "mini-referendum") and what should be left to Parliament without a referendum is quite vague. "Beneficial to the public" could arguably include extending equal rights to homosexuals. Can you make this distinction clear?

My expanded thoughts on those questions:

Q #1: The 1867 Question

Canada is also seen by many countries as a banana republic due to its overabundance of social programs and control by the government. As a matter of fact Canada's infrastructure is in dire need upgrades.

My question to you had nothing to do with how Canada may or may not be seen by the international community right now. One of your arguments against equal rights for homosexuals was that this was not explicitly stated in our Constitution in 1867. So my question is very simple: If this is a rationalization for not allowing homosexuals equal rights, then aren't you saying that it is also a rationalization to turn back the clock in every other area that has progressed since 1867? If homosexuals do not have rights because of the BNA Act, then shouldn't we remove a woman's right to vote? Shouldn't we get rid of our laws that protect the environment? Shouldn't we get rid of the laws that govern air travel? Or the pharmaceutical industry? None of these things were considered when Canada was formed.

Q #2: What Majorities Can Decide

In a democratic society what possible way can a fair policy be applied other then cater to the interest of the majority.

...

We have laws disallowing the exploitation of Canadians for purposes of slavery.

First of all, a fair policy does not necessarily mean catering to the majority. For instance, very few people would see enslaving a minority ethnic group as fair. But enslaving a minority could very well cater to the interest of the majority. Do not confuse the desires of the majority with fairness for everyone.

Second, you have missed my point. Yes, right now we have laws outlawing slavery. But you seem to be advocating that the majority should be able to decide whether or not homosexuals get equal rights. So by that logic, could the majority decide to repeal those slavery laws and start enslaving non-whites? If they can decide what rights homosexuals have, why can't they decide what rights other identifiable groups have?

Q #3: Referendums

Referendum issues I think are any proposals concerning changes in our constitution with less important concerns decided on by Canadians every federal election called mini-referendums. Parliaments role should be implementing and creating laws beneficial to the public pertaining to law and order and implementing laws decided by referendums and mini-referendums at election time.

You haven't answered my question about what should be a referendum question and what should be left to Parliament. All you have said is that some types of questions should be asked at election time (your "mini-referendums") and some should be asked at any time they become relevant (constitutional amendments). Saying that Parliament should make laws "beneficial to the public" is so wide open that nothing would ever have to go to a "mini-referendum". Parliament could easily say that recognizing sexual orientation as a protected right is beneficial to the public. This doesn't even take into account the fact that when you vote for a party platform it pretty much covers what you call a "mini-referendum".

Mini referendums at election time would be an ideal way to get the required input from Canadians concerning social programs.

Kind of like voting for a party platform, right?

[bk59]

Response not related to this thread:

For those only interested in the topic of the thread you can probably stop reading here. What follows is my response to the parts of Leafless' post that I think have nothing to do with his position on homosexuality.

Surely you must understand everything from the repatriation of our constitution from Britain to amending our constitution was Liberal induced.

Early attempts at patriation were made by both Liberal and Progressive Conservative PMs. See this link (particularly the "Early attempts" section): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriation. Not only that, but patriation required the support of multiple provincial governments, not all of whom were led by Liberals.

If you agree the country was given to us from Britain, then surely you must agree Canadians are entitled to participate concerning changes in our constitution as the Liberals DID NOT win Canada.

I realize politicians have decided for the Canadian public concerning constitutional changes, but all I am pointing out is that it was an undemocratic and corrupt way to initially handle constitutional changes.

Canadians are entitled to participate no matter what the history of our country is. This fixation about the British "giving us Canada" is irrelevant. So how do Canadians participate? Through their elected representatives. You might even say that by winning the federal election the Liberals in 1980 did win Canada. Your definition for what is "undemocratic and corrupt" seems to be "anything that our democratically elected government does that I [Leafless] don't agree with".

Not only was the Canadian public was rejected in being part of the process regarding important constitutional questions but there was no constitutional built in safety device to prevent abuses of power or concerns regarding discrimination by politicians deciding unilaterally who gets what.

Please at least look at the Canadian Constitution. No "safety device to prevent abuses of power... by politicians"? How about the court system? How about dividing up responsibility between the provincial and federal governments? There are "safety devices" there, whether you choose to notice them or not.

Immigration is not the answer to all problems as these immigrants themselves at a later time become a liability and an additional financial burden. The country or system will only sustain so many Canadians and the expendable purchasing power of individual Canadians remains the same but scattered over a larger area with no real net effect to the economy.

I have no idea how this rant about immigration has anything to do with homosexuality or my post. Plus it doesn't make sense. But if you want to argue that then we can do that in another thread.

[Leafless]

Putting the obvious error in your question aside....if it went to referendum SSM would probably be affirmed and you would have to come to grips with the fact that Canadian society isnt as fundamentalist Christian as you wishfully believe.

Your predetermined assumptions are incorrect.

Absolutely no problem, I would abide by ANY referendum decision decided by Canadians pertaining to altering our constitution.

[Leafless]

You haven't answered my question about what should be a referendum question and what should be left to Parliament. All you have said is that some types of questions should be asked at election time (your "mini-referendums") and some should be asked at any time they become relevant (constitutional amendments). Saying that Parliament should make laws "beneficial to the public" is so wide open that nothing would ever have to go to a "mini-referendum". Parliament could easily say that recognizing sexual orientation as a protected right is beneficial to the public. This doesn't even take into account the fact that when you vote for a party platform it pretty much covers what you call a "mini-referendum".

Mini referendums at election time would be an ideal way to get the required input from Canadians concerning social programs.

Kind of like voting for a party platform, right?

I did answer your question pertaining to referendums in which I said parliament should be responsible for laws pertaining to 'law and order' and implementing laws decided by Canadians via a referendum.

The types of questions asked pertaining to a referendum are those that affect ALL Canadians pertaining to constitution amendments and ALL questions relating to social equality, even social programs in a mini-referendum.

You seem to believe the Canadian majority is some sort of unqualified monster. What you are not taking into account is the majority only becomes the majority after the results pertaining to any specific referendum issue have been calculated. All Canadians means 'you and I and everyone else, fair enough'.

Comparing referendums to voting for party platform is nonsense.

Politicians don't keep their promises and how they are implemented is something else. Decisions made by political friendly courts is no way to decide the future of Canada.

Nothing can replace a referendum as the true feeling of each and every Canadian COUNTS.

BTW- Bogging down this thread by refuting every sentence makes it impossible to debate in any organized manner.

It seems you disagree with almost everything I said, which actually provides more power for a referendum since what politician is going to answer the concerns of millions of Canadians and millions of other questions by individual Canadians.

You know as well as I do there is no process to accommodate this.

You also know the purpose of political parties is to win votes and not necessarily do the right thing that protect the interest of all Canadians, an impossible feat anyways. That's why you must allow Canadians to decide for themselves as it's the only fair way to ACCOMMODATE every Canadians decision.

[Black Dog]

Oh man. When this thread popped up (11 pages yet), I thought 'This must be where old dinosaurs go to die...'

This thread is like Old Faithful if it spewed crap instead of steam.

[bk59]

BTW- Bogging down this thread by refuting every sentence makes it impossible to debate in any organized manner.

Which is why I gave you three simple questions up front. What really makes debate impossible is when people ignore what is said. Please answer my first two questions since they both call into question major arguments that you have been making in this thread.

Here they are again:

1. When using the BNA Act as justification, are you not advocating to turn back the clock on most of the progress we have made since 1867? If not, then why turn back sexual orientation rights and not other rights (like women's rights)?

2. If the majority can decide what rights homosexuals have, can't they also decide what rights other groups have? In other words, can't the majority also decide to enslave people, or outlaw certain religions (like Christianity)?

As for the third question, which you did answer...

I did answer your question pertaining to referendums in which I said parliament should be responsible for laws pertaining to 'law and order' and implementing laws decided by Canadians via a referendum.

The types of questions asked pertaining to a referendum are those that affect ALL Canadians pertaining to constitution amendments and ALL questions relating to social equality, even social programs in a mini-referendum.

These broad categories would not solve your problem. You could frame the question about homosexual rights as a law and order question (think hate speech, etc.). Apparently we will have to agree to disagree. I think your desire to constantly put questions in front of Canadians is not practical and would quickly lead to (even more) apathy.

As an aside...

You also know the purpose of political parties is to win votes and not necessarily do the right thing that protect the interest of all Canadians, an impossible feat anyways. That's why you must allow Canadians to decide for themselves as it's the only fair way to ACCOMMODATE every Canadians decision.

This statement is why Canadian politics is so depressing right now. The purpose of a political party is NOT just to win votes. The purpose is to give Canadians a plan that they want their country to follow. I think that maybe our current "leaders" have forgotten this. When you talk about Canadians deciding for themselves then I can't help thinking that this is why Canadians should get involved with local candidates and parties, talk to their MP, MPP, etc. Sitting back and saying "Why doesn't anyone listen to me? Why can't we have national referendums all the time?" is the lazy approach. Get involved. Make your voice heard. Canadians will choose as they always have - at election time.

[Rue]

BTW- Bogging down this thread by refuting every sentence makes it impossible to debate in any organized manner.

Which is why I gave you three simple questions up front. What really makes debate impossible is when people ignore what is said. Please answer my first two questions since they both call into question major arguments that you have been making in this thread.

Here they are again:

1. When using the BNA Act as justification, are you not advocating to turn back the clock on most of the progress we have made since 1867? If not, then why turn back sexual orientation rights and not other rights (like women's rights)?

2. If the majority can decide what rights homosexuals have, can't they also decide what rights other groups have? In other words, can't the majority also decide to enslave people, or outlaw certain religions (like Christianity)?

As for the third question, which you did answer...

BK as a lawyer I can answer one question. If we do pass laws to legislate discriminating against homo-sexuals because the majority want to and belief it is religiously the right thing to do and morally the right thing to do, no it does not end there. Next its abortion, euthenasia, prayers in schools, prayers in the work place, what movies are allowed, what books we should read in school, creationism in the class-rooms instead of science, legislation to prevent other religions from practicing their marriages and religions, and so on. The name and identified group changes, but the exercise remains constant-to try use majority rule to impose beliefs on everyone in the name of religion.

This is precisely why I am against using politics and laws to promote religion. I do not believe majority rule establishes what is morally acceptable. I believe majority rule without respect for minority rights is doomed to failure-it becomes nothing but tyranny and disguised mob mentality.

[Leafless]

Here they are again:

1. When using the BNA Act as justification, are you not advocating to turn back the clock on most of the progress we have made since 1867? If not, then why turn back sexual orientation rights and not other rights (like women's rights)?

2. If the majority can decide what rights homosexuals have, can't they also decide what rights other groups have? In other words, can't the majority also decide to enslave people, or outlaw certain religions (like Christianity)?

1. This is matter of 'personal opinion' whether or not the clock was ever INITIALLY advanced concerning the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' pertaining to Quebec, Gays and Aboriginals.

If you think it was an advancement good for you, I don't, for reasons indicated in previous post in this thread.

Women's right to vote cannot be compared to homosexual rights which are totally of a different nature and was not an isolated case relating to only Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suf...rage_by_country

http://citizen.nfb.ca/onf/info?aid=5961&atid=24

2. Canadian citizens should have the right to vote and decide all (social or constitutional in nature) major issues that could benefit or be harmful to Canadian society that could affect all Canadians. Even Christianity if the demand was ever created, that Christianity posed a serious problem for all Canadians.

[gnam]

Oh man. When this thread popped up (11 pages yet), I thought 'This must be where old dinosaurs go to die...'

This thread is like Old Faithful if it spewed crap instead of steam.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

thanks man... that's funny!

[Leafless]

Oh man. When this thread popped up (11 pages yet), I thought 'This must be where old dinosaurs go to die...'

This thread is like Old Faithful if it spewed crap instead of steam.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

thanks man... that's funny!

Cultist would find that amusing.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Black Dog]

I have a cult now? Sweet. Black track suits and new Nikes all around!

[Leafless]

I have a cult now? Sweet. Black track suits and new Nikes all around!

So you got new runners and a track suit.

So what.

[Black Dog]

I have a cult now? Sweet. Black track suits and new Nikes all around!

So you got new runners and a track suit.

So what.

Woooooossshhhh!!!!!

[Leafless]

I have a cult now? Sweet. Black track suits and new Nikes all around!

So you got new runners and a track suit.

So what.

Woooooossshhhh!!!!!

So what!

I got a new Hummer----C-R-U-N-C-H.

LOL

[Black Dog]

Sadly, this Dada-esque exchange is probably the most interesting and coherent thing to emerge from this thread.

[Higgly]

I guess we know what Nike corporate is thinking

[bk59]

1. This is matter of 'personal opinion' whether or not the clock was ever INITIALLY advanced concerning the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' pertaining to Quebec, Gays and Aboriginals.

If you think it was an advancement good for you, I don't, for reasons indicated in previous post in this thread.

Women's right to vote cannot be compared to homosexual rights which are totally of a different nature and was not an isolated case relating to only Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suf...rage_by_country

http://citizen.nfb.ca/onf/info?aid=5961&atid=24

When I say turn back the clock I'm referring to the fact that homosexuals right now have equal rights and the right to SSM and your position that you would like to see those rights removed. In other words, you want to turn back the clock to a time when those rights did not exist.

Here is the problem with saying that women's rights are different because their rights were not just given in Canada. First, other countries have recognized SSM. Only a handful so far, but this is not "only Canada". Second, using your logic nothing would ever change. Every country would look around and say "no one else is doing it, so we shouldn't either". You need some countries to start the process. So distinguishing women's rights from homosexuals' rights based on international acceptance isn't really useful. After all, it took many years for multiple countries to recognize women's rights.

My general point is this: you can't say that everything must be as it was in 1867. So far I haven't seen any reasons why 1867 should be the "set in stone" basis for legislation / rights / etc.

2. Canadian citizens should have the right to vote and decide all (social or constitutional in nature) major issues that could benefit or be harmful to Canadian society that could affect all Canadians. Even Christianity if the demand was ever created, that Christianity posed a serious problem for all Canadians.

Well at least you are consistent by being willing to let the majority outlaw your religion. But don't you think you deserve to practice your religion even if the majority of the country doesn't want you to?

[Leafless]

bk59

SSM is not on the same level as 'women's rights to vote'.

Women's right to vote was a 'human right' in which they were denied that LEGAL right initially.

What I am saying is SSM mainly 'IS NOT' a international human right and 'sexual orientation' is not protected from discrimination.

Any law made legal pertaining to 'sexual orientation' which is not a 'human right' should be decided by Canadians if it to receive Charter protection as there are NO human rights being initially denied to homosexuals.

http://www.queermarriage.com/index.php?content=articles

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/essays/w_rights.html

Countries where SSM is legal.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarrus.htm

[Renegade]

What I am saying is SSM mainly 'IS NOT' a international human right and 'sexual orientation' is not protected from discrimination.

Incorrect! It is indeed a international human right.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Note that it doesn't state that is restricted only to hetrosexuals but is a right of everyone.

[Liam]

Courts have decided that marriage is a civil right (Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man...") and that orientation is, indeed, a characteristic that is protected by anti-discrimination statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class). It might not be universally accepted, but if it is in many places here in the US, I would wager it is, probably universally, across Canada.

[Leafless]

What I am saying is SSM mainly 'IS NOT' a international human right and 'sexual orientation' is not protected from discrimination.

Incorrect! It is indeed a international human right.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Note that it doesn't state that is restricted only to hetrosexuals but is a right of everyone.

What it says is "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

International Human Rights does NOT include same sex couples or does NOT make reference to SEXUAL ORIENTATION relating to marriage as a human right.

Why is it you are unable to read a straightforward piece of legislation and interpret in a way that includes homosexuals, when in fact it DOES NOT.

[Leafless]

Courts have decided that marriage is a civil right (Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man...") and that orientation is, indeed, a characteristic that is protected by anti-discrimination statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class). It might not be universally accepted, but if it is in many places here in the US, I would wager it is, probably universally, across Canada.

What right do courts have or politicians to decide anything that is NOT an 'International Human Right'?

Our constitution was given to ALL Canadians by Britain.

Should it not be the right of all Canadians to decide by way of a national referendum, if SSM which is not an 'International Human Right' should be protected or allowed constitutionally in Canada?