 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
OTTAWA -- The federal government is altering its request to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the contentious issue of gay marriage, a move that will likely delay a high court hearing until after an expected spring election.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler announced Wednesday that he wants the court to clarify "whether the opposite-sex requirement is, with regard to the common-law definition of marriage, compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom."
Cotler said the move does not mark a shift in the government's position.
"Our support for same-sex marriage has not changed," he said, but added that "we are aware that there is division in this country."
Former prime minister Jean Chretien chose not to appeal an Ontario court ruling last year that struck down the traditional definition of marriage as an infringement of the rights of gays and lesbians.
Instead, Chretien announced that his government would draft legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, but would hold off introducing it in the House of Commons until the Supreme Court had ruled on its constitutionality.
Critics complained the government was jumping the gun. They maintained it should have asked the country's highest court to rule first on whether traditional marriage - or failing that, civil union - met constitutional requirements.
The issue has deeply divided the Liberal caucus. Martin and Cotler have been under intense pressure from backbench MPs who oppose same-sex marriage to buy some time by modifying the court reference.
The change to the reference raises procedural issues that make it difficult for the court to stick to its currently scheduled hearing date of April 16 for oral arguments from interested parties.
Martin is widely expected to call a federal election in April, a strategy that would have put the original hearing date in the middle of the campaign.
......................................................................................
So if Martin is so confident in the support of his party, why wait until after the election? Why does he continue to delay the right of the people to have a say on this issue?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
He's going to get hammered from both sides for this waffle. Why does he think a delay will just make the issue go away? |
It's not that it'll go away... it's just that it will be less of an issue during election time if the gay marriage bill is still a 'future prospect' (of sorts) as opposed to legislation that is actually being passed at that very moment.
This way, Martin might even be able to say that he wanted to "gauge public approval" some more, or any other number of do-nothing buzzwords to appease the middlin's.
The point is: it'll be easier for him to appease the anti-gays this way, and once he does that and is re-elected, he can damn well do whatever he wants.
As for both sides nailing him for waffling: Sure, I fully expect the NDP to go after Pauly-boy, but Layton's on a tear in that department, so I don't think Martin has much to lose. Most Big-L Liberal folk will see this as the wise political move that it is, I think, rather than jump on Their Man for 'waffling'.
Of course, I could be wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Let the people vote, and show that your government is confident in supporting gay marriage. A waffle like this just indicates that they know they do not have the support in Parliament to pass the bill under the current regime. |
Charlottetown '92 should be enough to tell you that referenda can be risky (although, what am I saying! Any accord that Quebec signed on to must have been EVIL!
 ). Anyway, putting the referendum issue aside (because it's illogical and wasteful):
I think, on the contrary to what you say, the Libs have plenty of support to pass the bill (if the Alliance bill from last time around was any indication) as of now, and they'll have just about the same amount of power after the spring election.
I reiterate: a wise political move by Martin (in that he can still pass the bill during the beginning of his new mandate, instead of at a time when the anti-gay elements would be a bit more volatile and powerful), which bothers me only in that it compromises rapid equality in the name of re-election. But hey, that's politics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If it's about minority rights, why not force churches to do gay marriages, because churches ought not to discriminate? Surely discrimination takes precedence over religious freedom. |
Private non-profit organizations can discriminate all they like for all I care. Churches should not be forced to marry gay people.
I don't see your point. There are benefits to marriage, legally, even today. Gay people are not eligable for those benefits, because Christians are being stubborn, arrogant bastards and shoving their moralities down the throats of everyone else. You are not allowing two consenting adults to marry and gain those benefits, and you have no rational reason to do so.
quote:
How does defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminate against homosexuals? You have precisely the same rights as I do, to marry a woman of your choice, should she also consent. Unless you can show me why the old definition violates section 15, then I cannot agree with your argument. |
This is absolutely moronic. Totally, and utterly.
Homosexuals are people defined as being attracted to people of the same gender. In my case, NOT WOMEN. You and I have the same rights in that we can both marry women, but the problem is that's only really applicable to people who are able to marry women. I simply could not -- it would be terrible for everyone involved.
I am still rather speechless at that comment. It really shows me how hopelessly backwards and brainwashed the Christian mind really is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
1) Marriage, as an institution, cannot be redefined or limited by parliament, because parliament does not have the authority to redefine or limit marraige. This would render this change null and void, as well as ruling out gay marraige. |
If that were the case, on what authority can parliament prohibit gay marriage?
quote:
2) Section 15. Does sexual orientation really belong with such physical traits as race and gender? I would argue that it should not, because it has not been shown that people have a fixed orientation. This interracial marriage provision would violate section 15 under equality rights, whereas a provision against gay marriage would not. |
Suppose this is true. However, religion isn't a physical trait like race and gender. So parliament must then have authority to pass a law prohibiting Christian marriage.
quote:
3) What are the benefits society expects from marriage? There cannot be shown any reasonable difference between interracial and other married couples, therefore there can be no justification for the ban. The same cannot be said for gay marriage. |
1. This argument doesn't override your constitution.
2. Why is the difference between gay and straight marriages any less "reasonable" than the difference between a same-race and interracial marriage?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2004 10:14
|