The new Tories, sleeping with Belinda Stronach - Page 3

Ben Kenobi · January 21, 2004, 03:35

Quote:

The feds are in the unenviable position of being asked to referee the brawl

Does one diocese, of one religious organisation get to define marriage for the entire country? No. The entire country should have a say. And the country has not had a say on this issue, at any point of the process.

Quote:

The government took the step of adding sexual orientation to the federal Human Rights Act. The Supreme Court told them that gays must then be allowed the benefits of unions under federal laws.

Neither of these pertain to marraige, for the reasons in my previous posts. The federal government sets the rules for common law, so they can alter them. The federal government does not have the same privileges with respect to marriage.

Napoleon I · January 21, 2004, 03:38

Ok, Ben, lets take it step by step.

Who, in your opinion, "defines" "marriage" and what would that definition happen to be as of today?

Asher · January 21, 2004, 03:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The federal government does not have the same privileges with respect to marriage.

What gives you that idea?

Marriage is intertwined with today's society, in the private sector and in the public sector. It is an important legal contract that should not be only available to heterosexual Christians.

As I've said before, I concede marriage is a religious institution but it's all f*cked up right now and it's both a religious institution and a legal contract.

Remove all government involvement from marriage, dispense civil unions -- problem solved.

White homophobic Christians are happy and can chant "God hates fags", gays are happy and can go shopping for a new double-ended dildo. Everyone is happy!

Ben Kenobi · January 21, 2004, 03:40

Quote:

Hmm... I guess since slavery pre-dates the Charter, there'd be no problem in bringing that back too

This is a canadian politics thread, joncha. Slavery never has been in the constitution fo Canada. Marriage is recognised as the union of one man and one woman.

joncha · January 21, 2004, 03:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Remember the Tories also had Kim Campbell who was easy on the eyes.

Kim Campbell? yikes! She's about as "easy on the eyes" as Audrey McLaughlin!

It'll the night terrors again for me, now... "Ah! Cobras!"

jon.

Asher · January 21, 2004, 03:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Marriage is recognised as the union of one man and one woman.

By who and defined by who?

notyoueither · January 21, 2004, 03:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Does one diocese, of one religious organisation get to define marriage for the entire country? No. The entire country should have a say. And the country has not had a say on this issue, at any point of the process.

Neither of these pertain to marraige, for the reasons in my previous posts. The federal government sets the rules for common law, so they can alter them. The federal government does not have the same privileges with respect to marriage.

Bull ****. There have been two acts of Parliament, so far, Ben. One of them specifically on the subject of gay unions. Parliament says they are on, Ben. btw, Parliament is how we govern ourselves. British history, Constitutions, and all that.

Now, marriage has legal implications, both responsibilities and benefits, so yes it is very much the area of the government so far as the governmentally enforced obligations and benefits are concerned.

Furthermore, your particular sect has no more right to the definition of marriage than the Hari Chrishnas do, and the federal Governent has every right to recognise religious unions of some sects as having the same force as civil unions whether it makes some people turn blue in the face or not.

joncha · January 21, 2004, 03:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

This is a canadian politics thread, joncha. Slavery never has been in the constitution fo Canada. Marriage is recognised as the union of one man and one woman.

Slavery in BNA predates Canada, and was legal until 1833, when Britain outlawed it for all its colonies.

http://www.griots.net/archives/focus/slavery.html

Quote:

In Canada, the first African slave was brought by the French in 1628. 6 year old Olivier Le Jeune was taken from Mozambique. By the early 1700s, Africans began arriving in greater numbers to New France (Quebec), mainly as slaves of the French aristocracy. When the British took over in 1759, there were more than 1,000 slaves living in Quebec. Of course the British aristocracy had African slaves also. Just after the American Revolution, in 1783, British Loyalists brought over 2,000 African slaves to British Canada. Approximately 1,200 of the African slaves were taken to Nova Scotia, 300 to Quebec (Lower Canada) and 500 to Ontario (Upper Canada). A few others were taken to Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton Island, and Newfoundland.

My point being that just because something was (legally) ok before, doesn't mean its ok now.

jon.

notyoueither · January 21, 2004, 03:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

This is a canadian politics thread, joncha. Slavery never has been in the constitution fo Canada. Marriage is recognised as the union of one man and one woman.

He seems to have central Canadian credentials, complete with allusions to Alberta being similar to Nazi Germany.

Just another bigot on the info highway.

joncha · January 21, 2004, 03:56

Back on thread (kinda)....

Did anyone else notice how similar Belinda's new logo is to Martha Stewart's?

http://www.belinda.ca/Belinda/index.html

I gotta admit it looks good, and it must have been intentional, but... why would a political "newcomer" and CEO candidate want to be associated--even subconsiously--with another high profile, successful, blonde CEO who just happens to be up on charges of security fraud??? It's just not "a good thing!"

jon.

notyoueither · January 21, 2004, 03:58

I hear the twittering of an idiot, but I don't see anything of substance.

joncha · January 21, 2004, 03:59

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

He seems to have central Canadian credentials, complete with allusions to Alberta being similar to Nazi Germany.

Just another bigot on the info highway.

Nope. I'm from Vancouver. You know, that western Canadian city that doesn't fit in with that whole "Western Canada" b.s.

jon.

notyoueither · January 21, 2004, 04:02

Yes, I've have in laws from Vancouver Island. One of them is an idiot on the same topic, too.

Ben Kenobi · January 21, 2004, 04:04

Asher:

I'm trying to figure out why I think that myself.

As far as I can tell, this cannot happen because of the Supreme Court opinion has ruled marriage to fall under the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I must be recalling one of the dissenting opinions against the ruling.

However, thy have left the matter to the legislature in terms of how to redefine marriage.

Interestingly, from a Globe an Mail article:

'The Ipsos-Reid survey, done for CTV and The Globe and Mail, found a group of people who support civil unions between those who support and oppose same-sex marriages.

A total of 38 per cent said the word "marriage" should apply to any two people regardless of gender, 37 per cent said marriage should apply only to the union of a man and a woman. About 24 per cent said marriage should refer only to a man and a woman and another legal term should be used for the formal union of same-sex couples."

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

joncha · January 21, 2004, 04:06

Granted, Martha has her Valentine's colours up now, but you can't tell me Belinda's logo doesn't share design elements with the Martha Stewart style.

http://www.marthastewart.com/

Just browse around the site awhile.

I think her logo looks good, btw. Especially in relation to the new Conservative logo. I just think its got "Martha" written all over it.

jon.

Ben Kenobi · January 21, 2004, 04:14

Hey joncha:

I'm from Vancouver as well.

Until this last summer, I've never visited the prairies.

Edit:

Read your post a little more carefully.

Sorry NYE.

notyoueither · January 21, 2004, 04:17

Don't bet on that, Ben. I'm not usually rude unless it is deserved. You may be stubborn, but I don't feel a need to be rude.

Napoleon I · January 21, 2004, 04:19

So, Ben, who in your opinion gets the right to "define" marriage for a society?

And whoever that group is, why would you think that it (the group) would have a right to define this.

joncha · January 21, 2004, 04:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hey joncha:

I think they're calling me a bigot, and not you.

I'm from Vancouver as well.

Until this last summer, I've never visited the prairies.

Yes, but I dissed Alberta and (unfairly, I admit) compared them to Nazi Germany. I knew I should have compared them to Texas instead.

I actually really hate it when people call authoritarians they don't like "Nazis" because 1) it serves to minimize what the Nazis actually did and 2) it lets the authoritarians off the hook for being authoritarian when they point out how much worse of a guy Hitler was...

But I just couldn't resist that Seinfeld quote.

jon.

Ben Kenobi · January 21, 2004, 04:31

Legally, that decision has been made in Canada.

There are two options. Either the Federal government can decide to use the Notwithstanding clause to override the constitution and propose an amendment, or we will end up with some sort of marriage provision.

I'm torn between the three options for a marriage provision. Either they will offer the same benefits regardless of sexual preferences, leave some sort of civil union, but declare marriages no longer the responsibility of the govenrment, or they will offer the same benefits, but use a different term other than marriage for homosexuals.

I'm leaning towards the second option, in leaving marriage up to the religious authorities. The problem with this is that there are certain benefits to society from marriage, and the government would no longer be able to provide those benefits.

It's either that or the notwithstanding clause to reassert the supremacy of parliament.

notyoueither · January 21, 2004, 04:32

I think you went a little beyond Seinfeld.

Quote:

Now, if the Alberta Reich wants to use the clause to weasel out of it, bring it on. But I think even Ralph "I done drunk the whole dang thing" Klein knows that he'll forever be branded a bigot for doing it.

Forgive me, but how is that like anything in Seinfeld?

Actually, I rather think it is apt that you used the phrase 'branded a bigot'. Kind of ironic.

notyoueither · January 21, 2004, 04:33

Quote:

I'm leaning towards the second option, in leaving marriage up to the religious authorities.

Which religious authorities?

Ben Kenobi · January 21, 2004, 04:35

Quote:

So, Ben, who in your opinion gets the right to "define" marriage for a society?

In my opinion?

They should hold a binding referendum, and let the people of Canada decide. But unfortunately, we may be beyond that point already here in Canada.

Napoleon I · January 21, 2004, 04:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Legally, that decision has been made in Canada.

There are two options. Either the Federal government can decide to use the Notwithstanding clause to override the constitution and propose an amendment, or we will end up with some sort of marriage provision.

Ok, so legally you agree that it is the government that has a right to define what "marriage" is. Then what would be your problem with a law that allows same sex marriages? A legally elected government has the discretion to make such a decision. Why all this talk about a referrendum?

notyoueither · January 21, 2004, 04:37

Way past it, considering we do not hold referenda very often, for even the most important questions. I rather missed the one on patriating the Constitution.

Napoleon I · January 21, 2004, 04:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

In my opinion?

They should hold a binding referendum, and let the people of Canada decide. But unfortunately, we may be beyond that point already here in Canada.

Why call a referrendum on this issue and not others? Would you want to call a referrendum on all isssues that you think are important?

Ben Kenobi · January 21, 2004, 04:41

NYE:

That radical option would mean that there is no legally recognised 'marriage' applicable to all of Canada. Each church would perform their own ceremonies, and only those churches that have similar beliefs would recognise each other's marriages.

In my own case, that's a tough question. If I marry a Catholic, would the authority be the Catholic church or my own Mennonite church?

Asher · January 21, 2004, 04:43

Aren't men > women in most religious societies?

joncha · January 21, 2004, 04:44

Governments in Canada don't use the notwithstanding clause out of fear that it will lead to the unravelling of the Constitution. This is the whole reason why Quebec has used it so much--they didn't sign the Constitution, they don't like it, so why not erode its influence?

I can't think of an issue in which a non-Quebec government used the clause. Threatened, yes, but actually used it?

If any of you remember it actually being used, please correct me.

jon.

notyoueither · January 21, 2004, 04:44

What? The important aspect of marriage is the state's recognition of it. Are you seriously suggesting that the RC church would permit the marriage of a man to a Hindi woman who was previously married in a Hindu ceremony?