It ain't over till it's over

[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]

UPDATE

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.