The new Tories, sleeping with Belinda Stronach

[Ben Kenobi]

The feds are in the unenviable position of being asked to referee the brawl

Does one diocese, of one religious organisation get to define marriage for the entire country? No. The entire country should have a say. And the country has not had a say on this issue, at any point of the process.

The government took the step of adding sexual orientation to the federal Human Rights Act. The Supreme Court told them that gays must then be allowed the benefits of unions under federal laws.

Neither of these pertain to marraige, for the reasons in my previous posts. The federal government sets the rules for common law, so they can alter them. The federal government does not have the same privileges with respect to marriage.

[Napoleon I]

Ok, Ben, lets take it step by step.

Who, in your opinion, "defines" "marriage" and what would that definition happen to be as of today?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The federal government does not have the same privileges with respect to marriage.

What gives you that idea?

Marriage is intertwined with today's society, in the private sector and in the public sector. It is an important legal contract that should not be only available to heterosexual Christians.

As I've said before, I concede marriage is a religious institution but it's all f*cked up right now and it's both a religious institution and a legal contract.

Remove all government involvement from marriage, dispense civil unions -- problem solved.

White homophobic Christians are happy and can chant "God hates fags", gays are happy and can go shopping for a new double-ended dildo. Everyone is happy!

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm... I guess since slavery pre-dates the Charter, there'd be no problem in bringing that back too

This is a canadian politics thread, joncha. Slavery never has been in the constitution fo Canada. Marriage is recognised as the union of one man and one woman.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Remember the Tories also had Kim Campbell who was easy on the eyes.

Kim Campbell? yikes! She's about as "easy on the eyes" as Audrey McLaughlin!

It'll the night terrors again for me, now... "Ah! Cobras!"

jon.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Marriage is recognised as the union of one man and one woman.

By who and defined by who?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Does one diocese, of one religious organisation get to define marriage for the entire country? No. The entire country should have a say. And the country has not had a say on this issue, at any point of the process.

Neither of these pertain to marraige, for the reasons in my previous posts. The federal government sets the rules for common law, so they can alter them. The federal government does not have the same privileges with respect to marriage.

Bull ****. There have been two acts of Parliament, so far, Ben. One of them specifically on the subject of gay unions. Parliament says they are on, Ben. btw, Parliament is how we govern ourselves. British history, Constitutions, and all that.

Now, marriage has legal implications, both responsibilities and benefits, so yes it is very much the area of the government so far as the governmentally enforced obligations and benefits are concerned.

Furthermore, your particular sect has no more right to the definition of marriage than the Hari Chrishnas do, and the federal Governent has every right to recognise religious unions of some sects as having the same force as civil unions whether it makes some people turn blue in the face or not.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This is a canadian politics thread, joncha. Slavery never has been in the constitution fo Canada. Marriage is recognised as the union of one man and one woman.

Slavery in BNA predates Canada, and was legal until 1833, when Britain outlawed it for all its colonies.

http://www.griots.net/archives/focus/slavery.html

In Canada, the first African slave was brought by the French in 1628. 6 year old Olivier Le Jeune was taken from Mozambique. By the early 1700s, Africans began arriving in greater numbers to New France (Quebec), mainly as slaves of the French aristocracy. When the British took over in 1759, there were more than 1,000 slaves living in Quebec. Of course the British aristocracy had African slaves also. Just after the American Revolution, in 1783, British Loyalists brought over 2,000 African slaves to British Canada. Approximately 1,200 of the African slaves were taken to Nova Scotia, 300 to Quebec (Lower Canada) and 500 to Ontario (Upper Canada). A few others were taken to Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton Island, and Newfoundland.

My point being that just because something was (legally) ok before, doesn't mean its ok now.

jon.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This is a canadian politics thread, joncha. Slavery never has been in the constitution fo Canada. Marriage is recognised as the union of one man and one woman.

He seems to have central Canadian credentials, complete with allusions to Alberta being similar to Nazi Germany.

Just another bigot on the info highway.

[joncha]

Back on thread (kinda)....

Did anyone else notice how similar Belinda's new logo is to Martha Stewart's?

http://www.belinda.ca/Belinda/index.html

I gotta admit it looks good, and it must have been intentional, but... why would a political "newcomer" and CEO candidate want to be associated--even subconsiously--with another high profile, successful, blonde CEO who just happens to be up on charges of security fraud??? It's just not "a good thing!"

jon.

[notyoueither]

I hear the twittering of an idiot, but I don't see anything of substance.

[joncha]

Originally posted by notyoueither


He seems to have central Canadian credentials, complete with allusions to Alberta being similar to Nazi Germany.

Just another bigot on the info highway.

Nope. I'm from Vancouver. You know, that western Canadian city that doesn't fit in with that whole "Western Canada" b.s.

jon.

[notyoueither]

Yes, I've have in laws from Vancouver Island. One of them is an idiot on the same topic, too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

I'm trying to figure out why I think that myself.

As far as I can tell, this cannot happen because of the Supreme Court opinion has ruled marriage to fall under the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I must be recalling one of the dissenting opinions against the ruling.

However, thy have left the matter to the legislature in terms of how to redefine marriage.

Interestingly, from a Globe an Mail article:

'The Ipsos-Reid survey, done for CTV and The Globe and Mail, found a group of people who support civil unions between those who support and oppose same-sex marriages.

A total of 38 per cent said the word "marriage" should apply to any two people regardless of gender, 37 per cent said marriage should apply only to the union of a man and a woman. About 24 per cent said marriage should refer only to a man and a woman and another legal term should be used for the formal union of same-sex couples."

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:OfFMfX13r5wJ:www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030808.usame0809/BNStory/National/+constitution+marriage+definition&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[joncha]

Granted, Martha has her Valentine's colours up now, but you can't tell me Belinda's logo doesn't share design elements with the Martha Stewart style.

http://www.marthastewart.com/

Just browse around the site awhile.

I think her logo looks good, btw. Especially in relation to the new Conservative logo. I just think its got "Martha" written all over it.

jon.