The new Tories, sleeping with Belinda Stronach

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey joncha:

I'm from Vancouver as well.

Until this last summer, I've never visited the prairies.

Edit:

Read your post a little more carefully.

Sorry NYE.

[notyoueither]

Don't bet on that, Ben. I'm not usually rude unless it is deserved. You may be stubborn, but I don't feel a need to be rude.

[Napoleon I]

So, Ben, who in your opinion gets the right to "define" marriage for a society?

And whoever that group is, why would you think that it (the group) would have a right to define this.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hey joncha:

I think they're calling me a bigot, and not you.

I'm from Vancouver as well.

Until this last summer, I've never visited the prairies.

Yes, but I dissed Alberta and (unfairly, I admit) compared them to Nazi Germany. I knew I should have compared them to Texas instead.

I actually really hate it when people call authoritarians they don't like "Nazis" because 1) it serves to minimize what the Nazis actually did and 2) it lets the authoritarians off the hook for being authoritarian when they point out how much worse of a guy Hitler was...

But I just couldn't resist that Seinfeld quote.

jon.

[Ben Kenobi]

Legally, that decision has been made in Canada.

There are two options. Either the Federal government can decide to use the Notwithstanding clause to override the constitution and propose an amendment, or we will end up with some sort of marriage provision.

I'm torn between the three options for a marriage provision. Either they will offer the same benefits regardless of sexual preferences, leave some sort of civil union, but declare marriages no longer the responsibility of the govenrment, or they will offer the same benefits, but use a different term other than marriage for homosexuals.

I'm leaning towards the second option, in leaving marriage up to the religious authorities. The problem with this is that there are certain benefits to society from marriage, and the government would no longer be able to provide those benefits.

It's either that or the notwithstanding clause to reassert the supremacy of parliament.

[notyoueither]

I think you went a little beyond Seinfeld.

Now, if the Alberta Reich wants to use the clause to weasel out of it, bring it on. But I think even Ralph "I done drunk the whole dang thing" Klein knows that he'll forever be branded a bigot for doing it.

Forgive me, but how is that like anything in Seinfeld?

Actually, I rather think it is apt that you used the phrase 'branded a bigot'. Kind of ironic.

[notyoueither]

I'm leaning towards the second option, in leaving marriage up to the religious authorities.

Which religious authorities?

[Ben Kenobi]

So, Ben, who in your opinion gets the right to "define" marriage for a society?

In my opinion?

They should hold a binding referendum, and let the people of Canada decide. But unfortunately, we may be beyond that point already here in Canada.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Legally, that decision has been made in Canada.

There are two options. Either the Federal government can decide to use the Notwithstanding clause to override the constitution and propose an amendment, or we will end up with some sort of marriage provision.

Ok, so legally you agree that it is the government that has a right to define what "marriage" is. Then what would be your problem with a law that allows same sex marriages? A legally elected government has the discretion to make such a decision. Why all this talk about a referrendum?

[notyoueither]

Way past it, considering we do not hold referenda very often, for even the most important questions. I rather missed the one on patriating the Constitution.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


In my opinion?

They should hold a binding referendum, and let the people of Canada decide. But unfortunately, we may be beyond that point already here in Canada.

Why call a referrendum on this issue and not others? Would you want to call a referrendum on all isssues that you think are important?

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

That radical option would mean that there is no legally recognised 'marriage' applicable to all of Canada. Each church would perform their own ceremonies, and only those churches that have similar beliefs would recognise each other's marriages.

In my own case, that's a tough question. If I marry a Catholic, would the authority be the Catholic church or my own Mennonite church?

[Asher]

Aren't men > women in most religious societies?

[joncha]

Governments in Canada don't use the notwithstanding clause out of fear that it will lead to the unravelling of the Constitution. This is the whole reason why Quebec has used it so much--they didn't sign the Constitution, they don't like it, so why not erode its influence?

I can't think of an issue in which a non-Quebec government used the clause. Threatened, yes, but actually used it?

If any of you remember it actually being used, please correct me.

jon.

[notyoueither]

What? The important aspect of marriage is the state's recognition of it. Are you seriously suggesting that the RC church would permit the marriage of a man to a Hindi woman who was previously married in a Hindu ceremony?