Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by techumseh


While I hesitate to bandy words with an arrogant undergraduate, I'll remind you that the issue (at least as I originally stated it), is whether or not a provincial government can invoke the notwithstanding clause in a matter of Federal jusrisdiction and whether or not the definition of marriage is a federal matter. When you've done your research, you will find the answers are no and yes.

Hahahahaha. Thanks, junior. Haven't had my chuckles for today, yet.

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

[techumseh]

Enough. Here's the quote:

...it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,...

26. Marriage and Divorce

And here's the reference: http://www.uni.ca/constitution.html

Good night. And good luck with your exams.

[Lancer]

The map...so it's the french Canadians that are doing this? I've aways suspected...

[Berzerker]

NYE -

Where was that universal right of man enunciated?

In my last post to you.

Hmmm. Yes, it is a bugger we can't keep them darkies out, ain't it?

Hmmm...from homosexuals to "darkies" and accusations of racism? I'm sure quite a few black people would reject your attempt to equate them with homosexuals. You asked what rights might be violated and I told you. We all have the freedom of association, including racists and people who don't like homosexuals. If you deny this right for others, don't complain if government starts telling you which people you can associate with. And please don't complain about your freedom being violated since you didn't care when it was someone else's freedom being attacked (with your support).

Sorry to be blunt, but the point of rights is that all enjoy them, not just the priviledged few.

I have a right to trespass on your property? I have the right to determine whom you can or cannot associate with? That "right" imposes a burden on others against their will...therefore it isn't a right... If an apartment owner wants to cater to single people without kids, he has every right to refuse entry to married people with or without children... Why? Because it's his property, not yours.

If discrimination is wrong, then it is wrong.

Not all wrongs require government intervention. Remember, government operates by seizing the labor of the citizenry under threat of violence, even death. So a wrong must be committed to correct what you call a wrong...Which wrong is greater? Armed robbery on a massive scale - "taxes" - or refusing to allow a homosexual to live on your property? And even if you can accept "taxation" as morally acceptable, consider the action of the wrong-doer and your actions. He refuses to allow a black person to live on his property. And for this offense, you hire people to threaten (or take, if "necessary") his life.

Society is moving to accept homosexuality as a fact, not a disease.

Diseases and homosexuality aren't facts?

Yes, some people will have to be dragged along by the short hairs. So what?

Obviously freedom is not high on your list of priorities. Just pray the monster you help create doesn't turn on you someday...

Just how different is this from other discriminated against minorities?

There's a difference between behavior and skin color.

So we're talking general principles of marriage and libertarianism, and not just gay marriage and reality. So this can be ejected from the debate.

Not if the benefits being won impose burdens on others against their will.

[notyoueither]

techumseh,

Your assumptions are amusing, if not the indication of an idiot.

btw, here's back at you, from your own source:

Exclusive Powers of the Provincial Legislatures

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.

Now choke on it.

btw, in fact, the federal government does outlaw certain marriages from coast to coast. You can't marry your brother or sister. A marriage under false identity is void. Bigamy is outlawed, etc.

The provinces license marriages. They control everything that is not outlawed by the feds. The provinces say how old you must be. They say who can perform them. They say what happens when it falls apart (divorce). In fact, the provinces decide who can marry, under what conditions, and what happens afterward, so long as those marriages are legal in Canada.

In other words, the feds cannot tell any province to grant licenses to anyone, not white ones, not black ones, not gay ones. They can say who not to licence.

Have a good night, Junior.

[notyoueither]

Berzerker,

At the risk of starting something totally off topic for this thread...

You are big one for rights so long as they do impose on another, is that right?

So what if your rights of association impose ostracism on others due to a biological fact? Are they not unjustly burdened?

Now, we could argue whether the question is nature or nurture, however that may not be too productive. The fact is that homosexuality is a fact, and there are many homosexuals. Would you impose your 'freedom' over theirs? Would you willingly discriminate against them because thay are not as you are? Would you sanction the state denying their equality? If you say yes, then your freedoms are meaningless, because any mob can come and take them away.

[Berzerker]

NYE -

You are big one for rights so long as they do impose on another, is that right?

Do not impose, but a right cannot be a right if it conflicts with another (valid) right. Rights exist by virtue of the umbrella formed by liberty/freedom...therefore they cannot violate other freedoms (rights).

So what if your rights of association impose ostracism on others due to a biological fact? Are they not unjustly burdened?

We don't have a right to be free from ostracism, the same freedom of association enjoyed by the racist is also enjoyed by all the people who believe racism is wrong and will ostracise (boycott, etc) the racist. In most cases, problem solved without "taxing" others or threatening anyone's life.

The fact is that homosexuality is a fact, and there are many homosexuals. Would you impose your 'freedom' over theirs?

You mean my freedom to discriminate against homosexuals as opposed to a homosexual's "freedom" to live or work on my property? Of course... but that would not only be a distortion of the word "freedom", but also the word "impose". The racist imposes nothing, those who want to outlaw racism are imposing their will on others.

Freedom includes choosing friends (who want to be friends of course). Do you think government should stop this discrimination? If I like Pink Floyd, should I have to buy the music of Metallica too so I'm not discriminating against them? I don't know how you define freedom, but I'm using the definition in the dictionary.

Would you willingly discriminate against them because thay are not as you are?

Nope, but how I choose to live my life is not the issue. I believe my freedom of association should be respected, therefore, I must respect the same freedom of others to choose their associations.

Would you sanction the state denying their equality?

We're talking about private discrimination.

If you say yes, then your freedoms are meaningless, because any mob can come and take them away.

Any mob can do that now, but even if I did choose to discriminate against people you think I should associate with, how does that prove my freedoms are meaningless because of a mob's actions?

[optimus2861]

The more I think of this, the more I think it will all blow over in a couple years and nobody will even think twice about it any more. Men will still marry women and they'll still regard it with every bit as much importance as it has today, even though men will be able to marry other men, and women will be able to marry other women. As much as I'm emotionally repulsed by the thought of homosexual marriage, my own personal tastes aren't what the law should be based on.

The next question becomes, though, whether fringe groups can push the equailty argument to further redefine marriage; could bigamists/polygamists argue that their equality rights are denied by not being allowed to marry more than one person, for instance?

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Lancer
The map...so it's the french Canadians that are doing this? I've aways suspected...

Did we assimilate Ontario or something ?

[chequita guevara]

So what are the treaties the US has with Canada. If gay folks get married in Canada, will the US have to recognize the marriage?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
will the US have to recognize the marriage?

I doubt it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So what are the treaties the US has with Canada. If gay folks get married in Canada, will the US have to recognize the marriage?

Wouldn't it be nice?

Canada just keeps looking better and better, all the time -- how easy would it be to become a Canadian citizen?

[St Leo]

Zylka, MANITOBA is also very much in favour of this. Get your facts right.

Canada just keeps looking better and better, all the time -- how easy would it be to become a Canadian citizen?

Apply for landed immigrant status, get it, wait for years, apply for citizenship, get it.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So what are the treaties the US has with Canada. If gay folks get married in Canada, will the US have to recognize the marriage?

1. The US has never been honourable in upholding the treaties it signed.
2. The states that ignore Rhode Island civil unions will ignore this too for a decade or two.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by St Leo


1. The US has never been honourable in upholding the treaties it signed.
2. The states that ignore Rhode Island civil unions will ignore this too for a decade or two.

1. Presumably US citizens could sue the United States to recognize a legal marriage obtained in Canada. We have a bit of an edge over foreign parties.

2. States cannot ignore Vermont's civil unions. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution requires one state to recognize what other states have done, however, as no other state has civil unions, it's effectively meaningless in this particular case.