Canadian Supreme Court OK's Same-Sex Marriage

[xpanda]

Not so fast.They had this Canadian lawyer on last nite on Hannity & Colmes,and he said something about objections in the parliment and how it may be brought to a referundum vote (something like that)So its not a "slam dunk" yet.And it appears that not all Canadians are quite as "enlightned" as some think.

Of course there are those who oppose gay marriage. My mother, for one. I believe the stat is something like 80% of us under the age of 40 approve. Since we're the future of the country, my mother will have to live with this, methinks.

This Canadian lawyer, do you remember his name? There may be objections in Parliament, but since the issue is being put to a free vote, rather than a party vote (in other words, each MP votes on a silent ballot) no referendum will be required, unless the debate gets really heated and takes us in that direction. The Conservatives stated in their party platform that they would make all social legislation such as this subject to a referendum, but they're not in power, are they? There will be a free vote in the House of Commons and no referendum. Gay marriage was a ballot issue in our last election and people elected their MPs with this understanding.

Further, the Conservatives lost the election because they lost Ontario, Quebec and BC. I can assure you that making a massive stink about this issue will not win them any love in the three most progressive provinces in the country, with the highest gay populations.

Sounds a little like nationalist facism to me.

I'm going to make you read my thesis when I'm done, okay? Saying "I love my country sometimes" isn't nationalism. If it was, you guys would have been considered fascist ages ago.

 

[PatPatriot]

This Canadian lawyer, do you remember his name?

No damn it, I thought I would remember his name without writing it down.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Sounds a little like nationalist facism to me. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I'm going to make you read my thesis when I'm done, okay? Saying "I love my country sometimes" isn't nationalism. If it was, you guys would have been considered fascist ages ago.

I was just being a smart ass. (it was an Xism)
Absolutley I'll read it.

 

[truthteller]

Sure, why not? As long as everyone is a consenting adult, who gives a crap? The mormons do it, don't they?


*giggle*

You said 'homo.'


Yes, absolutely.


Also, yes, absolutely.

So because the mormons do it that makes it right and it should be legal? Jehovah Witnesses believe blood transfusion is a sin, should we make that procedure illegal based on their beliefs.

Your views are so extreme but thankfully you are in the minority.

Their was a Canadian lawyer on O'reilly last night who said that except for Quebec, 60%-70% of Canada oppose the legalisation of homos marrying.

 

[xpanda]

So because the mormons do it that makes it right and it should be legal? Jehovah Witnesses believe blood transfusion is a sin, should we make that procedure illegal based on their believes.

I'm about to explain to you what religious expression is, you narrow-minded Evangelical nitwit. The mormons engage in polygamy because it is a part of their faith. Since you are guaranteed the right to religious expression, it is discriminatory on the basis of protecting religious freedoms to disallow consenting adult mormons to marry as they choose. If a mormon man wants four wives, and he can find four women who are cool with this, he should be allowed to do so. Fifty bucks says the mormons in Canada use SSM to rule in draw attention to this issue.

As for your blood transfusion example ... the Jehovah's Witnesses are protected to continue the practice of refusing blood transfusions based on their right to religious freedom. If you made BTs illegal for everyone, that would be ramming the JW religion down everyone's throats and denying everyone else's right to their own freedom of religion, wouldn't it??

In Canada, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of the following: religion, race, gender and sexual orientation. Denying equal treatment under the law based on any of these criterion is illegal. Marriage is a legal, state-supported construct. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled rightly, no matter how this may offend your Evangelical faith. Your religion is not required to perform gay wedding ceremonies because, you might note, your freedom of religion is also protected.

If you want society to leave your religion alone, I suggest you request that your religion start leaving society alone.

Your views are so extreme but thankfully you are in the minority.

Maybe where you live. Here, I'm in the majority. Thank god.

 

[truthteller]

I rather be called an "Evangelical nitwit" than some far left liberal retard. Did it ever cross your little stupid mind that if you allow all these fringe groups to marry that maybe society will erode and eventually you will have total chaos?

Marriage is a common good, not a special interest. You ever thought of the effect this will have on children. Rosie O’Donnell said in an interview that her 6 year old kid asked her "why he can't have a daddy." The selfish ***** replied "“Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.”

The kid didn't ask why his mom didn't have equal protection like married people but why he didn't have a daddy.

I am willing to place a small bet with you that the majority of people in CANADA don't agree with you on group marriage or legalising drugs?

 

[xpanda]

I rather be called an "Evangelical nitwit" than some far left liberal retard. Did it ever cross your little stupid mind that if you allow all these fringe groups to marry that maybe society will erode and eventually you will have total chaos?

I'm not far left. If you even understood what liberalism was, you would never characterise me in such a manner. I believe in individual freedoms, you believe in group-think. This is where we differ.

Why don't you map out how exactly society will erode by allowing gays the right to marry? Do you mean that we will become less Christian? They are coupling anyway, or do you wish to ban homosexuality altogether? What is the difference if they just live together or marry one another?

Marriage is a common good, not a special interest.

How is marriage a 'common good'?? So far as I can tell, it benefits only the couple and maybe their friends and family if they care. Unless you're a fundy, have lots of babies, and bring them all to church so they can become indoctrinated and donate lots of money. Then I guess it benefits your little corner of society.

You ever thought of the effect this will have on children.

Yes, I have. I believe it will make them open-minded, accepting, and less likely to discriminate against homosexuals.

Rosie O’Donnell said in an interview that her 6 year old kid asked her "why he can't have a daddy." The selfish ***** replied "“Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.”

Rosie O'Donnell's parenting is none of your business. Absolutely none.

The kid didn't ask why his mom didn't have equal protection like married people but why he didn't have a daddy.

The kid is six. You were expecting a six-year-old to ask questions about legal protections?

I am willing to place a small bet with you that the majority of people in CANADA don't agree with you on group marriage or legalising drugs?

The majority probably do not agree with me on group marriage. As far as legalising drugs goes, the majority probably agree with legalising pot, and possibly decriminalising other drugs, save for a few hard-core ones like heroin.

 

[bblight]

xpanda - part of the issue is your inability to speak from experience - I don't mean this as an insult, only as an observation.

Before I had kids, I was 100% for sexual liberation - then I had a daughter and did a 180.

When my kids were young and I controlled EVERY aspect of their lives, I figured I'd be in control when they became teenagers - boy was I wrong.

Now my children are adults and I see them making many of the same supid mistakes I made when I was their age. - and they don't want to benefit from my wisdom.

Now I recognize that the greatest teacher is your mistakes - If you step in a pile of crap, and mommy or daddy clean up the mess, you haven't learned a thing and will probably step in crqp again; if you have to clean the crap off of your shoes yourself, you'll be careful not to step in crap again.

As a parent, you would go to any lengths up to and including death to protect your children. You also would go to great lengths to ensure that your children have the best equipment they can have to be successful. Much of that equipment is values.

The gist here is that you want to impart certain values on your children. You want your children to have good solid middle or upper class values. You want them to have good social values equal to the station in life you'd like them to accede to. Religious values (not religion, but religious values - like the ten commandments and the golden rule) also play a role in imparting values to a child. Girls get values and an understanding of what it takes to be a woman from her mother, ditto for a boy and his father - if the children don't get these values from their parents, they'll get them from their peers. Since a childs peers are about as ignorant as the child - well, in boys, testesterone more or less ensures a "Lord of the Flies" set of values".

Substituting homosexual parents for traditional parents might work, but it's just as likely to fail - especially in the values department.

xpanda - I'm not suggesting that you take what I'm saying as gospel (pardon the pun), but just consider it. Remeber - when it comes to their kids, parents can be very protective and extremely narrow minded.

 

[truthteller]

I believe in saying there is a right and a wrong while you don't want to make any judgements on personal behaviour. That's where we differ.

You ask how homos marrying will affect society? Go look at what the thousands of studies say about the millions of children that have been raised without a father?
"These children suffer from much higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational failure, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, as well as physical and sexual abuse".

I think I will prefer a child not having to go through the above than been more open minded toward gays.

The kid is 6 and asking that question shows the child feels abnormal among his peers. You don't think he is already psychologically scarred? How Rosie O'donnel parent her kids is my and society's business if the kid is been abused physically or mentally.

BTW, why do you keep bringing up my Christian faith. I have never mentioned once in this thread a Biblical viewpoint for my stance against homos marrying.

 

[xpanda]

Blight: I'm not insulted. I do, however, want to repeat something I said last week to you ... I believe the single most important thing a child can be given by their parents is a sense of self-worth. And, you might want to know, I do speak from experience on this one.

I am a liberal, with open-minded and values that place acceptance #1, precisely because of the way that I was raised. I have a very hard time imagining that I will suddenly take issue with gay marriage if/when I have children. My best friend's sister is a lesbian, in a committed relationship and we hang out with them all the time. They might just be the happiest couple I know. In fact, half the time I'm jealous and would like to punch them.

I had a friend in high school (he was actually my prom date, lucky me) who came out at age 17. I had already left home by then, and when his parents kicked him out because he was gay, he became my roommate. I'll never forget that so long as I live. He had done nothing wrong, and his parents rejected him.

Time of course will tell, but if/when I have kids, I will return here and let you know if it turned me into a homo-hater or not. I suspect it won't.

With all due respect, Blight, I think this is a generational thing.

 

[xpanda]

I believe in saying there is a right and a wrong while you don't want to make any judgements on personal behaviour. That's where we differ.

Could you please tell me, then, how discriminating against an entire group of people isn't morally wrong?

You ask how homos marrying will affect society?

Homos .... nice. You moral citizen, you.

Go look at what the thousands of studies say about the millions of children that have been raised without a father?

Many more issues involved here, namely, income levels. Further, what about gay couples that are two men? Or what about a lesbian couple and a gay couple that have a child and the four of them raise the baby? Based on your reasoning, that child should be doubly wonderful, having two daddies and all!

The kid is 6 and asking that question shows the child feels abnormal among his peers. You don't think he is already psychologically scarred? How Rosie O'donnel parent her kids is my and society's business if the kid is been abused physically or mentally.

How is she abusing her child? Being gay and raising a child without a father is abusive? Are you prepared to make single parenthood illegal, then?

BTW, why do you keep bringing up my Christian faith. I have never mentioned once in this thread a Biblical viewpoint for my stance against homos marrying.

You forget you were the one who, the day after the election, came screaming in here with a thread title that went something like: Evangelicals spoke and the world will have to listen.

Or something like that.

I have a question for you and I don't mean to inspire negativity with it: do you believe in either Revolutionist or Dominionist Christianity? I'm just doing some reading about them and have some questions if you do.

 

[xpanda]

Not so fast.They had this Canadian lawyer on last nite on Hannity & Colmes,and he said something about objections in the parliment and how it may be brought to a referundum vote (something like that)So its not a "slam dunk" yet.And it appears that not all Canadians are quite as "enlightned" as some think.

Bracketed notes mine:

Prime Minister Martin cool to idea of national referendum on gay marriage

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=420 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=center><TD width="40%"><!-- Yahoo TimeStamp: 1102903260 --><!-- timestamp 1102903260 77536 secs stale 28800 secs -->Sun Dec 12, 9:01 PM ET</TD><TD noWrap align=right width="60%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

NELSON WYATT

MONTREAL (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin was cool Sunday to the idea of a national referendum on same-sex marriage and said handling the controversial issue should be left to Parliament.

"I think that this is an issue that Parliamentarians ought to decide," Martin said before addressing a brunch in his Montreal-area riding. "The courts have now given their direction. I think it's one for Parliament and I think that Parliament ought to accept their responsibility."

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has said he wants a national referendum on gay marriage but his proposal has already been dismissed by Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

"He's trying to do an end run around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Cotler said of Klein's position. "And it's not going to work.

Federal Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has also rejected calls for a referendum on the issue. (this is key.)

The Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday that Ottawa has sole authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples but that churches can't be forced to perform weddings against their beliefs.

Martin has promised the government will table legislation on gay marriage soon.

The prime minister did not seem worried Sunday about suggestions of a possible split in the cabinet over the issue.

"I would doubt this. I would think this is a difficult issue for a number of people. It is going to be a free vote for members of Parliament. Cabinet will be voting with the government."

Pat O'Brien, a Liberal MP from London, Ont., who opposes same-sex marriage, called on Martin to allow a free vote for cabinet ministers as well as backbenchers.

"This is a once in a lifetime, once in a career type issue," O'Brien said Sunday on CTV's Question Period. "I think these ministers should be free to vote their conscience."

O'Brien claimed - without naming names - that one minister has told him privately he would quit cabinet if he has to toe the party line. (he would become a regular MP, then, not quitting gov't altogether.)

O'Brien also suggested Klein's call for a referendum deserves a look.

"'We are talking about the most fundamental institution in our society . . . There ought to be serious consideration of going directly to the Canadian people and asking for their input."
___________________

'Cabinet' is like your administration, except that they are all elected officials that have been appointed to specific posts. They are saying here the non-Cabinet Parliamentarians will vote freely, and that Cabinet will vote with the government. It's a bad move on Martin's part as it gives the appearance he can't handle dissent in the Caucus. Further, I don't think he needs to be so heavy-handed on this issue -- I would imagine a total free vote would still see the legislation passed.