Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[Asher]

Would the homosexuals want to treat me the same way I treated them?

Golden rule.

Shi has the right idea. Incase you haven't noticed, Christianity is growing less and less popular and less and less influential by the day. Make no mistake, soon Christians will be a minority, and all the people your tyranny has shat on over the years will remember that when you start protesting.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by techumseh


This is not a theory. The administration of licenses is not the same as the power to determine who is eligible to marry and under what circumstances. While a province might refuse to administer the new law, this would certainly result in a court ordering them to comply. But they definitely cannot invoke the "notwithstanding clause" in a matter of Federal jurisdiction.

You are right that a province can't legislate in areas of SOLELY federal jurisdiction-- the notwithstanding clause applies to the Charter not to the division of powers. Too bad you are wrong here--There is a provincial jurisdiction . . .

See section 92 item 12

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.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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

You are both partly right . . . As I stated above "solemnization of marriage" is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction while "marriage and divorce" is exclusively federal jurisdiction. This mix means that the feds can pass the law they wish defining marriage but the provinces have ample ability to thwart it in application and prevent a homosexual marriage from taking place in their province. . .

So

1. Alberta or any other province can validly prevent homosexual marriages by using the notwitstanding clause.

2 An Alberta gay couple getting married in another province would get some "married "rights and some not, it would be a mess. If they split up they could get divorced and be entitled to the property division rights in the divorce act (federal law). For any provincial benefits though they would still get them under the various cohabitation rules ( which in Alberta do apply to same sex couples IIRC). So for the purposes of federal law they could be married while for the purposes of provincial law they may not be considered married.

[techumseh]

Nice try, Flubber.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by obiwan18

.

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?

Wrong wrong wrong. The BC and Quebec courts came to exactly the same decision and struck down the marriage law BUT gave Parliament a two year window to pass new laws before the "striking-down" came into effect. They declined to rewrite the law but it was clear that anything that made homosexual marriages illegal would not be acceptable.

The Ontario Court adopted the same reasoning as the courts in BC and Quebec and even quoted those decisions approvingly and at length. The only difference was the remedy. The Ontario court saw no reason to delay and instead used the remedy of "reading in" words so that the legislation no longer violated the Charter.

So basically 3 out of 3 courts have ruled in favor of Homosexual marriage. It is now my understanding that 9 out of 10 provinces intend to accept this.

get your facts straight.

[Flubber]

QUOTE] Originally posted by obiwan18

.

What will happen, is that they will file a suit against the church for discrimination on the basis of their section 15 rights. They'd win.

It's a problem with Canada, that we don't have equitable freedom of association. It's a problem stemming from the courts ruling that section 15 applies to sexual orientation. [/QUOTE]


WRONG. The charter applies to government actors only. No action of a church can be challenged on Charter grounds . Do you not understand the slighest about waht the Charter does.



32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province


A church may be challenged under a human rights code for violating someones human rights but there are multiple protections built in there for religious and fraternal groups

Obiwan18-- you really should try to understand things before making blanket statements like the above. Even the most recent Court of Appeal decison ( dealing with the issue in obiter) stated that no religious group would be forced to marry people if such marriage did not comply with their beliefs. The logic of thinking otherwise is ridiculous.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by techumseh
Nice try, Flubber.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Why strange for Christ to forgive those who execute him?

Forgiveness is not an endorsement of what the state did. I can forgive someone who punches me without endorsing assault.

The passage I'm thinking of is from Romans 13:6
You really should read Romans carefully, it's one of the most important books in the entire Bible.

Sorry , that came from Paul, not Jesus. You see, I hold Paul responsible for destroying Christianity, turning it into just the opposite of what Jesus wanted. Jesus tried to get rid of the mindset of putting the letter of the law above the principles they were supposed to reflect. So, the Golden Rule has been largely ignored because we have Paul and all his "laws"...

What Christ said is that give to Caesar what is Caesar's, as you already alluded to.

Which was not an endorsement of the state.

On matters of civil authority, Christians should respect the state. They also have a duty to serve God, and the tension between the two comes forth in civil disobedience.
Duty to God should always be highest, but there are usually effective means within the system to evoke change.

Did Jesus say that? Does that mean German Christians should have respected the Nazis?

That does not deal with the problem of Ananias. Ananias testified in Acts 9:11 that God spoke to him and told him to meet Saul of Tarsus, confirming his appearance.

Ananias even expresses doubt that Saul would be called, as a persecuter of Christians.

Again, this is according to Paul. He is the author of "acts", not the apostles, and not Ananias. But notice how Ananias somehow knew Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus? Did Jesus tell that to Ananias? No, so how did he know when and where Paul was "converted"? Paul knew, so who wrote that into the Bible? Not Ananias...

Where? I don't know what you allude to.

Hehe, you wouldn't know by reading what Paul said, but we have early church writings from the original members, including James. There's a book called, "Paul, the Mythmaker", or just, "The Mythmaker", by a bible scholar who delves into Paul's conduct and why unnamed "Jews" were trying to kill him. Notice how we have 4 gospels that roughly corroborate each other? We have no corroboration for Paul, just his words about his deeds...

We all end up in the same place when were done, before God. Some of us have more challenges than others.

That doesn't justify intentionally creating cripples.

Nothing to do with the preferences, just the gender? If so they should file a complaint under gender, not sexual orientation.

Preferences are involved for all parties. Would they have grounds?

A man shows up on your door who has been killing your supporters, what would your response be? Open arms, if he comes in peace? Of course they are going to be initially frightened until they get independent confirmation of his testimony.

But they never got confirmation, Barnabas took up Paul's cause.
And based on what? Paul's word...

[Agathon]

Slightly OT but coming soon to a Canadian province near you - gay adoption. The next barricade in the right's war to keep homosexuals from taking over the country.

I'm not sure I agree with this guy, but he has a point.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3508533&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue

[MrFun]

What do those poor children suffer from, when they have one parent of one race, and another parent of another race?

And how about that poor lad who is being raised by a single parent?

Oh, and what about that poor kid who is made fun of in school because he was adopted?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrFun
What do those poor children suffer from, when they have one parent of one race, and another parent of another race?

And how about that poor lad who is being raised by a single parent?

Oh, and what about that poor kid who is made fun of in school because he was adopted?

I think his point is that these things don't seem to matter much anymore. However, there is still a lot of prejudice against gays - that's why many gay kids are advised not to come out at high school.

Of course it's a moot point as to whether allowing it would aid in lowering the rate of prejudice.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hardly, the left's idea of "tolerance" is "do what we say is moral or get hurt".

How ironic.

This is a thread in which the Liberals are saying that gays can do what they want, while the conservatives are trying to deny rights to those the conservative claim are immoral.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by obiwan18
One of the purposes of marriage provides a stable environment to have and to raise children.

Leaving out castrated men, which I'll get back to, none of these categories should affect this purpose of marriage. Anyone in a homosexual union would have to rely upon adoption to begin a family.

So are you suggesting that an infertile couple should not have the right to get married? Or that a couple who do not want children should be denied the right to get married?

[Ben Kenobi]

Tingkai:

So are you suggesting that an infertile couple should not have the right to get married? Or that a couple who do not want children should be denied the right to get married?

Infertility? No reason to bar a couple that finds one partner or the other to be infertile, or if one person of the couple has a pre-existing condition for infertility.

None of these exceptions apply to a homosexual person who is perfectly capable of having kids, yet chooses to avoid having one.

Or that a couple who do not want children should be denied the right to get married?

General argument along these lines goes that I don't want my kids to grow up because I have some problem that I don't want to be passed onto my kids.

I'll be honest, this question has some personal implications, I've had to think hard about why I would want to have kids and get married.

I don't feel that it is fair to the other partner to marry her, and not to have kids. I'd rather encourage her to marry someone else, so that she can enjoy these benefits.

I would hate to see such a marriage break up because one of the parties changed their minds later. Best to avoid the situation all together.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry , that came from Paul, not Jesus. You see, I hold Paul responsible for destroying Christianity, turning it into just the opposite of what Jesus wanted. Jesus tried to get rid of the mindset of putting the letter of the law above the principles they were supposed to reflect. So, the Golden Rule has been largely ignored because we have Paul and all his "laws"...

Jesus also gave applications to how one should love ones neighbours. So does Paul. How do Paul's insights represent the old Law that Paul tried hard to get away from? They in no way guaranteed salvation, but simply help Christians to live their lives in the proper manner.

Which was not an endorsement of the state.

Tough. It's an endorsement of state authority for taxation. Not very libertarian of Jesus.

Did Jesus say that? Does that mean German Christians should have respected the Nazis?

No, the German Christians should have violated an unjust law due to their duty with God. An unjust law cannot hold moral force. The question is to examine why a law would be unjust before simply breaking one.
Maybe reading Paul will help you understand.

Again, this is according to Paul. He is the author of "acts",

Source?

not the apostles, and not Ananias.

The "Acts of the Apostles' heading does not mean that the books were written by the apostles, but about the apostles.

Consensus credits Luke as the author of Acts.

But notice how Ananias somehow knew Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus? Did Jesus tell that to Ananias? No, so how did he know when and where Paul was "converted"? Paul knew, so who wrote that into the Bible? Not Ananias...

God did speak to Ananias. How else would he know the details of Paul's testimony, and where to meet him? I would think that it would take the word of God for a Christian to agree to meet with Paul.

quote:
Where? I don't know what you allude to.

we have early church writings from the original members, including James.

Well then, please show me where James says that Paul embezzled money from the Jerusalem church.

That doesn't justify intentionally creating cripples.

Aren't we all cripples? Chew on that for a bit, Berzerker.

Preferences are involved for all parties. Would they have grounds?

Not for discrimination. Discimination can't be based on sexual preference, but only on sexual orientation if it can be shown that sexual orientation can be inherited like skin colour, or the rest.

But they never got confirmation, Barnabas took up Paul's cause.
And based on what? Paul's word...

Why would they trust a man who had just tried to kill them? They would have sought independent testimony as to the validity of his conversion. It makes no sense your way.