Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[notyoueither]

Hmmm, that's a good point, obiwan, The closer it gets to February, the less the Mangler has to say in the matter. Will Martin want a divisive issue welcoming him into the leadership?

btw, are you against this?

[Zylka]

If it does reach parliament, which provinces other than Alberta would likely invoke the notwithstanding clause? It would kick ass if a near or even full Provincial majority rejected the ruling - reitorating to the nation and showing international viewers just how out of touch the Liberals are with the people outside of Ontario. Powerhouses such as Alberta and BC voicing upset together would take notice largely even outside of Canada. Say what you want of the social leanings in those provinces, or maybe even Saskatchewan, Manitoba (chance?) etc... It just furthers a bias of ignorance, ironic in what you claim to be achieving.

Hell, there is even a large and significant portion of intelligent, successful people within Ontario who are frustrated with their ignorance and rule lately. This could be a major catalyst in repelling our Mickey Mouse governement, and electing strong individuals not in politics for the image of themselves and their family (Chretien)

Or we can keep up with the national frustration, dissent, and move on to a Trillion dollar debt. I'll wait and see

[Zylka]

...and to clarify, I don't see the allowance of gay marriages as just in breaking up a government ALONE - I'm just frustrated and hope for this as a catalyst of accountance for past and future failures.

Opportunist, I guess.

[Ben Kenobi]

btw, are you against this?

Yep.

I support any provincial government in the use of the Notwithstanding clause on this issue.

It would be nice for our incompetent government to grow a backbone and make an unpopular decision to protect the law as it stands.

[Berzerker]

Chretien said the new law would be drafted within weeks and submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for review, then put to a Parliament vote.

Gee, not that the court up there does a better job reading the words in constitutions, but isn't it nice the court reviews the law before it can be voted on? I wish our court did that, but I guess the political process would slow to a crawl if the SCOTUS had to review every bill. So many laws to write, so little time.

I agree with that Klein guy though, if the word "marriage" refers to unions of people from both sexes, then the word doesn't belong in the bill.

[Berzerker]

It would be nice for our incompetent government to grow a backbone and make an unpopular decision to protect the law as it stands.

Even when the law is bad?

[Ben Kenobi]

Even when the law is bad?

I think the law is fine.

Why do you feel the existing law is bad?

[Jaguar]

Damn them progressive canucks. Think they're sooo cool just because their population is more tolerant.

[Berzerker]

It violates the freedom of homosexuals for no good reason. Would Jesus use the state to harass people for getting "married" even if they are homosexual? Do unto others...seems to be violated by the law...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

... but I guess the political process would slow to a crawl if the SCOTUS had to review every bill. So many laws to write, so little time.

I always knew they were pointy hatted, but not that they are a bunch of dunces.

*Agathon wins the poncy erudite joke of the month award*

[techumseh]

The "notwithstanding clause" allows a provincial government to temporarily overide one or more of the essential freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (eg. freedom of speech, assembly, etc.) if its application impacts something in provincial jurisdiction. The definition of marriage is a FEDERAL matter, therefore the invoking if the "notwithstanding clause" is meaningless. This is simply Klein posturing for the benefit of the social conservatives who form an important part of his political base. With some effect, by the sounds of it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It violates the freedom of homosexuals for no good reason. Would Jesus use the state to harass people for getting "married" even if they are homosexual? Do unto others...seems to be violated by the law...

Are you for or against this?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by techumseh
The "notwithstanding clause" allows a provincial government to temporarily overide one or more of the essential freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (eg. freedom of speech, assembly, etc.) if its application impacts something in provincial jurisdiction. The definition of marriage is a FEDERAL matter, therefore the invoking if the "notwithstanding clause" is meaningless. This is simply Klein posturing for the benefit of the social conservatives who form an important part of his political base. With some effect, by the sounds of it.

Too bad for your theory that provinces issue licenses for marriage.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Damn them progressive canucks. Think they're sooo cool just because their population is more tolerant.

Yessir, and our government's tolerance and representation shall so be broadcasted to the rest of the world in newspapers - images such as this accompanying the text:

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Too bad for your theory that provinces issue licenses for marriage.

Would it be possible for the Federal government to usurp that power if they wanted a showdown with Alberta?