Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by techumseh


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.

Hahahahaha. Thanks, junior. Haven't had my chuckles for today, yet.

Get it straight, junior. Marriage is a provincial jurisdiction.

[techumseh]

Enough. Here's the quote:

...it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,...

26. Marriage and Divorce

And here's the reference: http://www.uni.ca/constitution.html

Good night. And good luck with your exams.

[Lancer]

The map...so it's the french Canadians that are doing this? I've aways suspected...

[Berzerker]

NYE -

Where was that universal right of man enunciated?

In my last post to you.

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

Hmmm...from homosexuals to "darkies" and accusations of racism? I'm sure quite a few black people would reject your attempt to equate them with homosexuals. You asked what rights might be violated and I told you. We all have the freedom of association, including racists and people who don't like homosexuals. If you deny this right for others, don't complain if government starts telling you which people you can associate with. And please don't complain about your freedom being violated since you didn't care when it was someone else's freedom being attacked (with your support).

Sorry to be blunt, but the point of rights is that all enjoy them, not just the priviledged few.

I have a right to trespass on your property? I have the right to determine whom you can or cannot associate with? That "right" imposes a burden on others against their will...therefore it isn't a right... If an apartment owner wants to cater to single people without kids, he has every right to refuse entry to married people with or without children... Why? Because it's his property, not yours.

If discrimination is wrong, then it is wrong.

Not all wrongs require government intervention. Remember, government operates by seizing the labor of the citizenry under threat of violence, even death. So a wrong must be committed to correct what you call a wrong...Which wrong is greater? Armed robbery on a massive scale - "taxes" - or refusing to allow a homosexual to live on your property? And even if you can accept "taxation" as morally acceptable, consider the action of the wrong-doer and your actions. He refuses to allow a black person to live on his property. And for this offense, you hire people to threaten (or take, if "necessary") his life.

Society is moving to accept homosexuality as a fact, not a disease.

Diseases and homosexuality aren't facts?

Yes, some people will have to be dragged along by the short hairs. So what?

Obviously freedom is not high on your list of priorities. Just pray the monster you help create doesn't turn on you someday...

Just how different is this from other discriminated against minorities?

There's a difference between behavior and skin color.

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.

Not if the benefits being won impose burdens on others against their will.

[notyoueither]

techumseh,

Your assumptions are amusing, if not the indication of an idiot.

btw, here's back at you, from your own source:

Exclusive Powers of the Provincial Legislatures

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws
in relation to matters coming within the Classes of Subject
next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, --

...

12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.

Now choke on it.

btw, in fact, the federal government does outlaw certain marriages from coast to coast. You can't marry your brother or sister. A marriage under false identity is void. Bigamy is outlawed, etc.

The provinces license marriages. They control everything that is not outlawed by the feds. The provinces say how old you must be. They say who can perform them. They say what happens when it falls apart (divorce). In fact, the provinces decide who can marry, under what conditions, and what happens afterward, so long as those marriages are legal in Canada.

In other words, the feds cannot tell any province to grant licenses to anyone, not white ones, not black ones, not gay ones. They can say who not to licence.

Have a good night, Junior.

[notyoueither]

Berzerker,

At the risk of starting something totally off topic for this thread...

You are big one for rights so long as they do impose on another, is that right?

So what if your rights of association impose ostracism on others due to a biological fact? Are they not unjustly burdened?

Now, we could argue whether the question is nature or nurture, however that may not be too productive. The fact is that homosexuality is a fact, and there are many homosexuals. Would you impose your 'freedom' over theirs? Would you willingly discriminate against them because thay are not as you are? Would you sanction the state denying their equality? If you say yes, then your freedoms are meaningless, because any mob can come and take them away.

[Berzerker]

NYE -

You are big one for rights so long as they do impose on another, is that right?

Do not impose, but a right cannot be a right if it conflicts with another (valid) right. Rights exist by virtue of the umbrella formed by liberty/freedom...therefore they cannot violate other freedoms (rights).

So what if your rights of association impose ostracism on others due to a biological fact? Are they not unjustly burdened?

We don't have a right to be free from ostracism, the same freedom of association enjoyed by the racist is also enjoyed by all the people who believe racism is wrong and will ostracise (boycott, etc) the racist. In most cases, problem solved without "taxing" others or threatening anyone's life.

The fact is that homosexuality is a fact, and there are many homosexuals. Would you impose your 'freedom' over theirs?

You mean my freedom to discriminate against homosexuals as opposed to a homosexual's "freedom" to live or work on my property? Of course... but that would not only be a distortion of the word "freedom", but also the word "impose". The racist imposes nothing, those who want to outlaw racism are imposing their will on others.

Freedom includes choosing friends (who want to be friends of course). Do you think government should stop this discrimination? If I like Pink Floyd, should I have to buy the music of Metallica too so I'm not discriminating against them? I don't know how you define freedom, but I'm using the definition in the dictionary.

Would you willingly discriminate against them because thay are not as you are?

Nope, but how I choose to live my life is not the issue. I believe my freedom of association should be respected, therefore, I must respect the same freedom of others to choose their associations.

Would you sanction the state denying their equality?

We're talking about private discrimination.

If you say yes, then your freedoms are meaningless, because any mob can come and take them away.

Any mob can do that now, but even if I did choose to discriminate against people you think I should associate with, how does that prove my freedoms are meaningless because of a mob's actions?

[optimus2861]

The more I think of this, the more I think it will all blow over in a couple years and nobody will even think twice about it any more. Men will still marry women and they'll still regard it with every bit as much importance as it has today, even though men will be able to marry other men, and women will be able to marry other women. As much as I'm emotionally repulsed by the thought of homosexual marriage, my own personal tastes aren't what the law should be based on.

The next question becomes, though, whether fringe groups can push the equailty argument to further redefine marriage; could bigamists/polygamists argue that their equality rights are denied by not being allowed to marry more than one person, for instance?

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Lancer
The map...so it's the french Canadians that are doing this? I've aways suspected...

Did we assimilate Ontario or something ?

[chequita guevara]

So what are the treaties the US has with Canada. If gay folks get married in Canada, will the US have to recognize the marriage?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
will the US have to recognize the marriage?

I doubt it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So what are the treaties the US has with Canada. If gay folks get married in Canada, will the US have to recognize the marriage?

Wouldn't it be nice?

Canada just keeps looking better and better, all the time -- how easy would it be to become a Canadian citizen?

[St Leo]

Zylka, MANITOBA is also very much in favour of this. Get your facts right.

Canada just keeps looking better and better, all the time -- how easy would it be to become a Canadian citizen?

Apply for landed immigrant status, get it, wait for years, apply for citizenship, get it.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So what are the treaties the US has with Canada. If gay folks get married in Canada, will the US have to recognize the marriage?

1. The US has never been honourable in upholding the treaties it signed.
2. The states that ignore Rhode Island civil unions will ignore this too for a decade or two.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by St Leo


1. The US has never been honourable in upholding the treaties it signed.
2. The states that ignore Rhode Island civil unions will ignore this too for a decade or two.

1. Presumably US citizens could sue the United States to recognize a legal marriage obtained in Canada. We have a bit of an edge over foreign parties.

2. States cannot ignore Vermont's civil unions. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution requires one state to recognize what other states have done, however, as no other state has civil unions, it's effectively meaningless in this particular case.

[RedFred]

This decision not to appeal is kind of a good news/bad news story. On one hand some gays may be pleased about having this option. On the other hand, I assume various benefits at the federal level will now be available to gay spouses particularly 'dependant' gay spouses.

I would like to see some sort of estimate of the financial impact of this decision for taxpayers. At the risk of offending some of Poly's gay posters I am not certain that I believe that gays should gain the special rights and privileges that other marrieds have. Basically it is a cash transfer from all singles and cohabitants in non-recognized marriages to the straight and gay marrieds.

Perhaps we should be going the other direction. Eliminate special cash payments and tax exemptions for straight married people unless they are directly tied to the married couple's children.

[Zylka]

Zylka, MANITOBA is also very much in favour of this. Get your facts right.

Gee whiz, LEONS

I guess the "bracket-Chance-QuestionMark-Bracket" after naming Manitoba wasn't enough to list it as a question. Go team anarchy!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
1. Presumably US citizens could sue the United States to recognize a legal marriage obtained in Canada.

The issue would have already been settled when Norway (or was it the Netherlands?) started recognizing gay marriage. That's why I'm of the opinion that there is no treaty regarding this issue.

[Sava]

It's nice to see a progressive country in North America...

I never understood the objection to gay marriages. I mean, if you don't want to get married to a gay guy, don't.

I've heard the whole "family values" schpiel... there are enough abusive straight people to fill a country with. If two gay people want to get married, or adopt children, for that matter, and want to raise children in a loving environment, how can anyone in their right mind be against that? Sorry if this sounds silly, but I don't understand bigotry/hate/nazism.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by RedFred
I would like to see some sort of estimate of the financial impact of this decision for taxpayers. At the risk of offending some of Poly's gay posters I am not certain that I believe that gays should gain the special rights and privileges that other marrieds have. Basically it is a cash transfer from all singles and cohabitants in non-recognized marriages to the straight and gay marrieds.

On the financial impact to taxpayers, my guess would be: insignificant. Our federal & provincial governments flush so much good money down the drain right now (what're we up to on the federal gun registry boondoggle now, $1 billion? And the Conservative government here in NS has been on a pre-election spending spree, throwing money out left & right to try and stave off a probable election loss), that whatever benefits that will now be paid out to spouses of same-sex employees are going to be a drop in the ocean by comparison, especially given their minority status. And if the two people in the marriage are as committed to each other as two people in a traditional marriage, then there's really nothing wrong with this.

And "singles and cohabitants in non-recognized marriages" have nothing to stop them from getting married, unlike the gays & lesbians until now.

[cinch]

I agree with Optimus' last post. Gay marriages won't bankrupt the country; that's what the gun registry is for.

Zylka:

Shouldn't BC be shaded on your map? Their courts already passed laws regarding homosexual unions before the latest Ontario ruling, so one would think that the province would likely go along with it.

[techumseh]

From today's Edmonton Journal:

Although (Canadian Justice Minister) Cauchon said homosexuals in other provinces will have to wait, gay-rights advocates and a constitutional expert say gay couples across the country have a persuasive legal argument to be permitted to marry immediately.

"It seems to me that someone in another province would be able to get a court order on the basis that the government is conceding," said Patrick Monahan, a constitutional expert at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

Though Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has threatened to block gay marriage, legal analysts say there is little provincial governments can do, considering the definition of marriage is federal jurisdiction. Provinces are responsible for the solemnization, which includes registering marriages.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Berz:

Jesus rebukes everyone who persists in sin, not just homosexuals. That's the same reason I'm not afraid to encourage people to leave the lifestyle.

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.

Following your reasoning, the law discriminates against people who want to marry their dog, who want to marry 2 women at the same time, who want to marry their sister or brother, mother or father.

The law does not treat homosexuals any different from heterosexuals, in marrying someone of the opposite sex. Hence, the law is not discriminatory against the person, but against the act. Valid laws certainly can discriminate against acts, they do so all the time.

I believe my freedom of association should be respected, therefore, I must respect the same freedom of others to choose their associations.

Fair enough, but does 'respecting their associations' entail the legal privilege of marriage? Why can't they just let marriage be since they can live common-law here in Canada?

[Ben Kenobi]

considering the definition of marriage is federal jurisdiction.

Gee, do they have any jurisprudential statements to defend this claim?

I don't see any in the article.

Where does the state have the right to define marriage? Many argue that marriage predates the Charter, and exists outside of the Charter here in Canada. Therefore, marriage cannot be changed by the federal parliament.

States do have the right to decide who gets the legal privileges that marriage gets, but does not get the right to redefine marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would like to see some sort of estimate of the financial impact of this decision for taxpayers.

Redfred:

Without changing the topic, nil. Common law already allows gay couples to reduce their tax burden in the same fashion as married people.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by cinch
Zylka:

Shouldn't BC be shaded on your map? Their courts already passed laws regarding homosexual unions before the latest Ontario ruling, so one would think that the province would likely go along with it.

I'm not too sure, but it does seem that San Francisco somehow slipped on to that map as a supporting "province" while I wasn't looking

[Ben Kenobi]

Shouldn't BC be shaded on your map? Their courts already passed laws regarding homosexual unions before the latest Ontario ruling, so one would think that the province would likely go along with it.

Actually, I thought everyone regarded that map as a joke.

The same court challenge occurred in BC, Ontario and Quebec. In BC and Quebec, the courts rejected the case.

So if we are looking at these two provinces, the court precedent should bar recognising homosexual unions as marriages.

Instead, we see the Federal Government choosing to rule in Ontario's favour, and against the results in Quebec and BC. Any wonder when the Liberals have 100 seats in Ontario?

[Asher]

obiwan: What do you lose from letting gays marry?

Does it tempt you too much or something?

[Zylka]

Ok, I've fixed the data map to give a more accurate portrayal. Asher - wanna come over to my house tonight?

[Agathon]

Obiwan

This legislation benefits you by increasing your freedom. You too now have the power to marry a man.