Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[notyoueither]

Hmmm, that's a good point, obiwan, The closer it gets to February, the less the Mangler has to say in the matter. Will Martin want a divisive issue welcoming him into the leadership?

btw, are you against this?

[Zylka]

If it does reach parliament, which provinces other than Alberta would likely invoke the notwithstanding clause? It would kick ass if a near or even full Provincial majority rejected the ruling - reitorating to the nation and showing international viewers just how out of touch the Liberals are with the people outside of Ontario. Powerhouses such as Alberta and BC voicing upset together would take notice largely even outside of Canada. Say what you want of the social leanings in those provinces, or maybe even Saskatchewan, Manitoba (chance?) etc... It just furthers a bias of ignorance, ironic in what you claim to be achieving.

Hell, there is even a large and significant portion of intelligent, successful people within Ontario who are frustrated with their ignorance and rule lately. This could be a major catalyst in repelling our Mickey Mouse governement, and electing strong individuals not in politics for the image of themselves and their family (Chretien)

Or we can keep up with the national frustration, dissent, and move on to a Trillion dollar debt. I'll wait and see

[Zylka]

...and to clarify, I don't see the allowance of gay marriages as just in breaking up a government ALONE - I'm just frustrated and hope for this as a catalyst of accountance for past and future failures.

Opportunist, I guess.

[Ben Kenobi]

btw, are you against this?

Yep.

I support any provincial government in the use of the Notwithstanding clause on this issue.

It would be nice for our incompetent government to grow a backbone and make an unpopular decision to protect the law as it stands.

[Berzerker]

Chretien said the new law would be drafted within weeks and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for review, then put to a Parliament vote.

Gee, not that the court up there does a better job reading the words in constitutions, but isn't it nice the court reviews the law before it can be voted on? I wish our court did that, but I guess the political process would slow to a crawl if the SCOTUS had to review every bill. So many laws to write, so little time.

I agree with that Klein guy though, if the word "marriage" refers to unions of people from both sexes, then the word doesn't belong in the bill.

[Berzerker]

It would be nice for our incompetent government to grow a backbone and make an unpopular decision to protect the law as it stands.

Even when the law is bad?

[Ben Kenobi]

Even when the law is bad?

I think the law is fine.

Why do you feel the existing law is bad?

[Jaguar]

Damn them progressive canucks. Think they're sooo cool just because their population is more tolerant.

[Berzerker]

It violates the freedom of homosexuals for no good reason. Would Jesus use the state to harass people for getting "married" even if they are homosexual? Do unto others...seems to be violated by the law...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

... but I guess the political process would slow to a crawl if the SCOTUS had to review every bill. So many laws to write, so little time.

I always knew they were pointy hatted, but not that they are a bunch of dunces.

*Agathon wins the poncy erudite joke of the month award*

[techumseh]

The "notwithstanding clause" allows a provincial government to temporarily overide one or more of the essential freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (eg. freedom of speech, assembly, etc.) if its application impacts something in provincial jurisdiction. The definition of marriage is a FEDERAL matter, therefore the invoking if the "notwithstanding clause" is meaningless. This is simply Klein posturing for the benefit of the social conservatives who form an important part of his political base. With some effect, by the sounds of it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It violates the freedom of homosexuals for no good reason. Would Jesus use the state to harass people for getting "married" even if they are homosexual? Do unto others...seems to be violated by the law...

Are you for or against this?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by techumseh
The "notwithstanding clause" allows a provincial government to temporarily overide one or more of the essential freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (eg. freedom of speech, assembly, etc.) if its application impacts something in provincial jurisdiction. The definition of marriage is a FEDERAL matter, therefore the invoking if the "notwithstanding clause" is meaningless. This is simply Klein posturing for the benefit of the social conservatives who form an important part of his political base. With some effect, by the sounds of it.

Too bad for your theory that provinces issue licenses for marriage.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Damn them progressive canucks. Think they're sooo cool just because their population is more tolerant.

Yessir, and our government's tolerance and representation shall so be broadcasted to the rest of the world in newspapers - images such as this accompanying the text:

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Too bad for your theory that provinces issue licenses for marriage.

Would it be possible for the Federal government to usurp that power if they wanted a showdown with Alberta?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Too bad for your theory that provinces issue licenses for marriage.

This is not a theory. The administration of licenses is not the same as the power to determine who is eligible to marry and under what circumstances. While a province might refuse to administer the new law, this would certainly result in a court ordering them to comply. But they definitely cannot invoke the "notwithstanding clause" in a matter of Federal jurisdiction.

[Berzerker]

NYE -

Are you for or against this?

I'm opposed to the word "marriage" being used in a law legalising OR criminalising homosexual marriage simply because the word refers to unions between men and women. If homosexuals want to say they are married, who cares. If they want the benefits of married people attached to their unions, I'd have to know what these benefits are. If they don't violate the nature of what a "right" is, i.e, they (the benefits) don't impose a burden on others against their will, fine.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
NYE -

I'm opposed to the word "marriage" being used in a law legalising OR criminalising homosexual marriage simply because the word refers to unions between men and women. If homosexuals want to say they are married, who cares. If they want the benefits of married people attached to their unions, I'd have to know what these benefits are. If they don't violate the nature of what a "right" is, i.e, they (the benefits) don't impose a burden on others against their will, fine.

What possible rights of others could be effected by two men or two women being 'married' and them having matrimonial status accepted by the state?

And if matrimonial rights did impose a burden on others outside of the couple, what possible arguments for restricting those rights to one man and one woman are there?

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker:

It violates the freedom of homosexuals for no good reason.

In Canada they are free to go the common-law route. How are their freedoms limited by the law as it stands?

Would Jesus use the state to harass people for getting "married" even if they are homosexual?

Jesus wouldn't need the state to rebuke.

what possible arguments for restricting those rights to one man and one woman are there?

Cinch:

Is there a 'right' to be married? I don't see that in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You'll need a different argument.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by techumseh


This is not a theory. The administration of licenses is not the same as the power to determine who is eligible to marry and under what circumstances. While a province might refuse to administer the new law, this would certainly result in a court ordering them to comply. But they definitely cannot invoke the "notwithstanding clause" in a matter of Federal jurisdiction.

The gun registry is going to fail because many provinces are refusing to enforce it. That is a matter entirely of federal jurisdiction, although some people want to say otherwise.

The granting of licences for marriage is a provincial jurisdiction. The feds can pass all the laws they want, they will have the same effect as federal labour laws. They will only apply to very large companies or to smaller companies doing significant business with the federal government. ie, they will mean squat unless the provinces go along.

If the Federal government clothed any such over-riding law in the language of the Charter, as the courts have done, then any province would have a very fine case for invoking the notwithstanding clause.

Welcome to Canadian civics class.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Cinch:

Is there a 'right' to be married? I don't see that in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You'll need a different argument.

No cinch. Here are the rights under the Charter:

equality rights: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination
democratic rights: the right to participate in political activities, to vote and to be elected to political office and similar rights
legal rights: the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to retain a lawyer and to be informed of that right, and the right to an interpreter in a court proceeding are examples
mobility rights: the right to enter and leave Canada, and to move to and take up residence in any province or to reside outside Canada
language rights: generally, the right to use either the English or French languages in communications with Canada's federal government and certain of Canada's provincial governments
minority language education rights: generally, French and English minorities in every province and territory have the right to be educated in their own language

Number one is the one you're looking for.

[Berzerker]

NYE -

What possible rights of others could be effected by two men or two women being 'married' and them having matrimonial status accepted by the state?

First, my right not to have government distort the language.
If I own an apartment complex or hotel and allow married folks in, I might have to allow homosexuals in because they too are "married". If I own a business and provide a benefit to married employees, the homosexual employees could argue I'm discriminating if I don't give them the same benefit since they are "married". "Civil rights" have been co-opted by the left to outlaw our freedom of association in all sorts of areas, this will only continue the process.

And if matrimonial rights did impose a burden on others outside of the couple, what possible arguments for restricting those rights to one man and one woman are there?

It doesn't matter if the couple is a man and a woman or two homosexuals, neither should get benefits by imposing a burden on others.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Would it be possible for the Federal government to usurp that power if they wanted a showdown with Alberta?

They could start another round of constitutional suicide.

In the mean time, the provinces will ignore them when they want to.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Zylka


Yessir, and our government's tolerance and representation shall so be broadcasted to the rest of the world in newspapers - images such as this accompanying the text:

Hey, it's still better than us.

[Ben Kenobi]

equality rights: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination

Lacking one step...

How does marriage discriminate against a group? A gay person can still get married to a person of the opposite sex.

Now if people were to ban marriages between gay people and straight people of the opposite sex, then you have a concrete case for discrimination.

Finally, what rights do married people get that common-law ones do not? From the perspective of taxes, there is no difference.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

In Canada they are free to go the common-law route. How are their freedoms limited by the law as it stands?

I was under the impression homosexual "marriages" were about to be legalised in Canada. That implies they can't marry now...If this is all about a semantic difference, then their freedoms aren't being infringed upon.

Jesus wouldn't need the state to rebuke.

Assuming he would rebuke homosexuals, why do you? And if he wouldn't, aren't you making a risky assumption?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
NYE -

First, my right not to have government distort the language.

Where was that universal right of man enunciated?

If I own an apartment complex or hotel and allow married folks in, I might have to allow homosexuals in because they too are "married". If I own a business and provide a benefit to married employees, the homosexual employees could argue I'm discriminating if I don't give them the same benefit since they are "married". "Civil rights" have been co-opted by the left to outlaw our freedom of association in all sorts of areas, this will only continue the process.

Hmmm. Yes, it is a bugger we can't keep them darkies out, ain't it?

Sorry to be blunt, but the point of rights is that all enjoy them, not just the priviledged few. If discrimination is wrong, then it is wrong. Society is moving to accept homosexuality as a fact, not a disease. Yes, some people will have to be dragged along by the short hairs. So what? Just how different is this from other discriminated against minorities?

It doesn't matter if the couple is a man and a woman or two homosexuals, neither should get benefits by imposing a burden on others.

So we're talking general principles of marriage and libertarianism, and not just gay marriage and reality. So this can be ejected from the debate.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Lacking one step...

How does marriage discriminate against a group? A gay person can still get married to a person of the opposite sex.

Marriage, if we are to include homosexual unions as marriages, doesn't discriminate. The government that tells a man he can only marry a woman discriminates against men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women. It would be no different than government saying you cannot choose your friends while allowing someone else to choose theirs.

Now if people were to ban marriages between gay people and straight people of the opposite sex, then you have a concrete case for discrimination.

Huh?

Finally, what rights do married people get that common-law ones do not? From the perspective of taxes, there is no difference.

How about civil rights laws? I'm not familiar with Canada's laws, but I suspect the homosexual lobby up there isn't pushing for this simply to get the word "marriage" attached to their unions.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The gun registry is going to fail because many provinces are refusing to enforce it. That is a matter entirely of federal jurisdiction, although some people want to say otherwise.

The granting of licences for marriage is a provincial jurisdiction. The feds can pass all the laws they want, they will have the same effect as federal labour laws. They will only apply to very large companies or to smaller companies doing significant business with the federal government. ie, they will mean squat unless the provinces go along.

If the Federal government clothed any such over-riding law in the language of the Charter, as the courts have done, then any province would have a very fine case for invoking the notwithstanding clause.

Welcome to Canadian civics class.

While I hesitate to bandy words with an arrogant undergraduate, I'll remind you that the issue (at least as I originally stated it), is whether or not a provincial government can invoke the notwithstanding clause in a matter of Federal jusrisdiction and whether or not the definition of marriage is a federal matter. When you've done your research, you will find the answers are no and yes.

The question of the gun registry has to do with administration of federal laws by provincial governments. I acknowledged that provincial governments may refuse to administer federal laws. To oversimplify somewhat, refusing to administer a federal same-sex marriage law would put a provincial government at odds with the Charter, while refusing to administer a federal gun law would not. Hence, one is more likely to be enforced than the other, especially given the judgements already rendered by the courts.

You see, Canadian "civics" (really an American term) isn't really enough.

[notyoueither]

In Canada, laws for married and common law are different. Just how different depends on the jurisdiction. Again, it is a provincial jurisdiction.