It ain't over till it's over

[Ben Kenobi]

Supreme Court of Canada to Consider Hearing Homosexual 'Marriage' Appeal Monday

OTTAWA, October 3, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments Monday in an application to appeal the June Ontario Court of Appeal decision to redefine marriage to allow homosexual couples to wed. The Application for Leave to Appeal the decision on same-sex marriage was filed by the Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario, which includes REAL Women of Canada, Focus on the Family and the Canada Family Action Coalition.

Gwen Landolt, a lawyer with REAL Women told LifeSite that normally three justices of the Supreme Court decide whether or not to grant leave to appeal based on submitted written arguments. However, the Monday October 6 hearing will be presided over by five judges and the court has requested that oral arguments be made to supplement the written arguments. "This shows they are taking the case very seriously," said Landolt.

Homosexual activists and the Liberal Government scoffed at the pro-family groups' attempt to appeal the ruling. The federal Government also joined the homosexual activists in an appeal to the court to quash the pro-family association's application to appeal.

Landolt believes the argument to grant an appeal was handed a significant boost when the homosexual activists' website featured photos and commentary from a "gay pride" celebration party 16 days after the Ontario ruling redefining marriage. On the party guest list were two of the three justices which ruled to redefine marriage - Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, and Mr. Justice MacPherson. REAL Women told the Supreme Court that an appeal should be heard since the judges' participation in the celebrations give "an apprehension of bias" in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Landolt says there is an even chance of the Supreme Court deciding either way on the application to appeal and that the decision on hearing it will likely be reserved for a later date.

[Ming]

Let's try this again... I've deleted the crap, and you can start again. I wouldn't recommend spamming this thread AGAIN.

[Nubclear]

This is a really bad decision. Social regression, in fact.

[Asher]

I agree, it's regression.
Where did you come up with such a perfectly apt word, Tass.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think it is perfectly fine. Why should a controversial court decision being brought up for appeal be considered regression? Seems like democracy in action to me.

[Asher]

The fact that it's up for appeal isn't regression, the fact that some people want to appeal it is social regression on their behalf.

The same, but different.

Some people curl up in the fetal position and cry at the prospect of two people of the same gender marrying eachother if they love eachother. Why? Who knows what they're thinking.

[Drake Tungsten]

How can it be "regression" if the society hasn't even really progressed to the point it's supposed to be regressing from yet? It's not like gay marriages have become an established right in Canada. Calling it "maintenance of the status quo" would be more appropriate.

[Asher]

Gay marriages are indeed legally recognized in Canada, Drake.

[Drake Tungsten]

Only for a few months and this appeal is questioning the decision that made them legal. They aren't established yet and won't be until the result of this appeal is known.

[Asher]

I would say if they are currently legal, they are currently established and anyone who argues otherwise is playing with semantics and being a bit obtuse.

And those who argue that we need to take away those rights are, indeed, socially regressing.

[Drake Tungsten]

I would say if they are currently legal, they are currently established

You would be wrong.

and anyone who argues otherwise is playing with semantics and being a bit obtuse.

Nice try, but your tactics are getting pretty stale.

[Asher]

Yes, it's a bit stale these days to approach situations with logic and reason.

Drake, what's the point of an appeal? Is it not an attempt to turn over something already established?

And just what do you define established to be? If we currently have something legal, how is that not established? If the courts ruled that it shall be legal, how is that not established?

It is established until the event of an appeals court saying it was an incorrect decision, and retracting the ruling.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, it's a bit stale these days to approach situations with logic and reason.

Yes, preemptively implying that your opponents are stupid is the epitome of logic and reason.

Drake, what's the point of an appeal? Is it not an attempt to turn over something already established?

No, it's an attempt to prevent what they see as an incorrect judicial decision from become established law. If you don't appeal, then you allow gay marriage to become an established right.

If we currently have something legal, how is that not established?

Legal decisions don't suddenly become established law, unless they're made by a supreme court. The system is set up to examine an issue several times and only once a consensus has been reached or the supreme court steps in can an issue be considered definitively ruled upon and any laws created by it "established."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Legal decisions don't suddenly become established law, unless they're made by a supreme court.

Hello! Bingo.

Which court do you think made the ruling, Drake?

[Drake Tungsten]

Which court do you think made the ruling, Drake?

The...

Ontario Court of Appeal

?

At least try to read the article before trolling, Glonk.

[Asher]

The Ontario Supreme Court ruled it (which is synonymous with the Court of Appeal -- they are one and the same)

Try reading more than one article, particularly when that one article comes from a religious pro-life site that probably isn't fond of the concept of gay marriage.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Ontario Supreme Court ruled it.

Fine, in order to clear it up for you, when I say "supreme courts" I mean national supreme courts, not state or provincial supreme courts.

[Asher]

Do you understand how Canada's government works...?

The Supreme court of Ontario ruled that it was unconstitutional, which affects all areas affected by the constitution in Canada. The only province, AFAIK, that still strictly prohibits gay marriage is Alberta, and that's due to more complications in the Canadian governmental system.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Ontario Court of Appeals is not the last available voice on this matter, so it is a "supreme court" in name only. The Supreme Court of Canada is the one who has the last say on any issue and they are the only ones who can make a law established, not the Ontario court.

BTW, weren't you the one who was *****ing about "semantic games" earlier?

[Asher]

Yes, I've no idea why you're still playing them.

You seem to have trouble with the idea that something that has been legally established, by a supreme court, is somehow not established until an appeals process is done.

It is purely a semantic game to argue that it's not regression because the Appeals court hasn't ruled on it yet. A very stupid semantic game at that.

The simple fact is:
1) In most of Canada, Gay marriage is legal.
2) Therefore, the process of making this illegal once again is that of regression.

Do you follow this?

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, I've no idea why you're still playing them.

Well, you've been reduced to "I know you are but what am I" arguing as per usual, so I think this is where I leave the discussion. Maybe Imran will be in the mood to explain the appeals process to a brick wall at a later time; I don't really know.

[Asher]

I'm at a loss as to why you think Canada has an identical appeals system to the US. I'm also at a loss how you think making something currently legal to be illegal is not some form of regression.

*shrug*

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Do you feel the applicants ought to be able to appeal this decision?


Ming:

Thanks for cleaning out the spam. I'm just glad I walked away from the thread.

[Sharpe]

Actually gay marriage is only legal in the Ontario and British Columbia provinces. It is illegal still in every other province (although I think Quebec has a civil union provision).

The appeals court decisions in those provinces didn't affect the other provinces.

Most likely the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of these groups and then probably combine their appeal into the Federal government's bill session giving them status there and that's all.

[chequita guevara]

I think those who oppose gay marriage are sad, pathetic, evil, little-minded people. I hope the people of Canada can hold on to their rights.

[molly bloom]

What I find so funny about this, are the narrow minded groupuscules who have to put 'family' or 'moral' or 'real' in their titles, just so no one will mistake them for morally bankrupt, parochial close-minded control freaks with little Hitlers in their heads, stamping out social progress of any kind.

Like Mary Whitehouse's National Viewers' and Listeners' Association in Great Britain- the old witch was always getting her face in the papers and on television pontificating about bare breasts on television or a kiss between two men in a film, and of course the name of her group was designed to give the impression they were a mighty force in the land. They weren't of course, but I suppose if you have a blue rinsed spinster in Dundee and a savagely homophobic racist retired colonel in Eastbourne, then that makes you national.
Similarly, one dried up old prune in Etobicoke and a fundie pig farmer in New Westminster makes for a 'National Alliance of Moral Evangelicals For Upright Conduct & Kindred Suckers'.

Just for the record- I consider myself a 'moral' person, I am part of a 'family', and my lesbian friends are 'real' women- not illusory. Oh, and I've been with my same sex partner for 19 years this November- and no, we're not married. Living in glorious flaming SIN is so much more satisfying.

[Ben Kenobi]

sad, pathetic, evil, little-minded people.

Che:

So no substantive analysis, they are just evil and that's all there is to it?

Secondly, can the state grant a 'right' to be married, on the lines with our other fundamental rights in the Charter.

The charter says nothing about marriage, so I fail to see how marriage falls under the jurisdiction of either the courts or the legislature.


molly:

Similarly, one dried up old prune in Etobicoke and a fundie pig farmer in New Westminster makes for a 'National Alliance of Moral Evangelicals For Upright Conduct & Kindred Suckers'.

NAME****S?

I hope you did not spend too much time on that rant. Again, you have nothing on these folks but insults.

Just for the record- I consider myself a 'moral' person, I am part of a 'family', and my lesbian friends are 'real' women- not illusory.

Who doesn't consider themselves to be a moral person? Who would call themselves not in a 'family?'

[Ben Kenobi]

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Application to Appeal Homosexual 'Marriage' Ruling

OTTAWA, October 7, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Yesterday, a 5-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in the application to appeal the June Ontario Court of Appeal decision to redefine marriage to allow homosexual couples to wed. After hearing arguments the court reserved its decision without offering a date for the ruling.

In addition to the family groups which sought to appeal the decision, another group representing religious organizations also sought to appeal. The Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario included REAL Women
of Canada, Focus on the Family and the Canada Family Action Coalition. The Interfaith Coalition includes the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops (OCCB), the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), the Catholic Civil Rights League and the Islamic Society of North America.

The federal government joined homosexual activists in an attempt to quash the application to appeal.

One of the lead partners in the Interfaith Coalition, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada informed LifeSite that "No other court in the world has ruled that heterosexual marriage violates human rights." Janet Epp Buckingham, director of Law and Public Policy of the EFC said, "Even the United Nations Committee of Human Rights has ruled that this is not a human
rights issue."

EFC points out that the issues raised by the appeal of the (Halpern) case differ significantly from those raised by the government Reference on the proposed legislation on marriage. The Reference does not address whether the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman offends section 15 of the Charter. Even within the context of the lower court decisions that find that section 15 is violated, the Reference does not ask the court if there are legislative options other than redefining marriage that would meet the requirements of section 15. An appeal of the Halpern
case would allow the court to address these issues as well as consider the impact on religious institutions and organizations.

The Interfaith Coalition on Marriage is seeking to challenge whether the Charter requires the definition of marriage to be changed. It will also argue that if the definition is to be changed, it should not be done by the
courts but by Parliament. Finally, they will raise the importance of religious freedom if the definition of marriage is changed.

EFC quotes Statistics Canada figures for 2000 indicating that clergy, who act as officers of the state to perform state-recognized marriages, solemnize 97.74% of marriages in Ontario. "There is no separation of church
and state when clergy pronounce a couple married by the authority invested in me by the state," argues EFC.

EFC President Bruce Clemenger said "One of the most important reasons the state recognizes marriage is for the benefit and protection of the children
of the marriage." A Statistics Canada longitudinal study of children found that children fare better when they live with their two biological parents who are married to one another. "These are facts that cannot be disputed. Marriage of a man and a woman needs to be publicly recognized because the children of Canada have the right to public policy that is in their best
interests," he concluded.