Evil Conservative French! (Homosexual Marriage Thread)

[SlowwHand]

As opposed to what Oncle? Those put there by birth- rights?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DanS
Quite so. But the courts need a warning shot across the bow every now and then by the legislators and the executive.

Gna-hah! I did see that you changed your post to one with the literary metaphor in it! Your first sentence was "we should let the legislative process do its work" or something like this.

Really though, the Courts AFAIK, when they rule a law invalid, usually give the time to the Parliament to change it.

In Canada, that would mean either accepting the decision, or using a derogatory clause from the Charter of civil rights.

[Uncle Sparky]

Currently the courts in Canada's 3 most populous provinces have legalized gay marriages. The Liberal federal government has put the issue on the back burner because we are in the run up to an election and they are corrupt cowards.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
As opposed to what Oncle? Those put there by birth- rights?

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but there are rights granted by the Constitution, right? And what's a right if no one has the power to enforce it? Obviously, this person can not belong to the legislative process.

[DanS]

We have elected executives, legislators, and some judges. It's all good.

Currently the courts in Canada's 3 most populous provinces have legalized gay marriages. The Liberal federal government has put the issue on the back burner because we are in the run up to an election and they are corrupt cowards.

This seems like the worst possible outcome. None of the people were consulted for their opinion and law was made by judicial writ.

Same thing is happening in some States.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The US bears the same arrogance than France, but it uses more guns and fewer words. Yet, my country can be a pompous pile of crap when it wants, such as telling the East-Europeans to shut up when they don't agree with us

That's because we actually have the guns, and are good at using them

My impression about it is that my country is very late compared to our neighbours, and is even monthes late compared to the epitome of evil, the US

That and your seeming lack of protections of freedom of expression

[Uncle Sparky]

Free Vote - Canadian Style

Last week the Canadian Parliament voted to recognize the Armenian genocide. The decision was adopted with 153 votes for the motion and 68 votes against.

After the vote PM Martin, who insisted his cabinet vote against the motion, made it clear that the results did not reflect and would not be reflected in government policy.

So the new PM has promised more free votes to democratize the party system. Is this is an example of what to expect...? We'll give you a free vote and then legislate through order in council whatever we want ?

Anyone want to defend Martin ?

[Kuciwalker]

France != Quebec

Last week the Canadian Parliament voted to recognize the Armenian genocide.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Last week the Canadian Parliament voted to recognize the Armenian genocide.

I agree.

There have been so many...Canada needs to be more specific

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DanS
This seems like the worst possible outcome. None of the people were consulted for their opinion and law was made by judicial writ.

Technically, they were consulted for the Charter of Rights, on which the Courts based their decisions. I am fully in favor it. I don't see how a Charter would hold any force if a citizen could not invoke it in Court.

[Uncle Sparky]

[strike]The point being I posted in the wrong thread ![/strike]

However if the Canadian Parliament holds a free vote on gay marriage or any other "hot button" issue, the current PM has shown he will do whatever he wants to anyway.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DanS
Hey, at least y'all are having a straight-up debate about it. The courts are short-circuiting the political debate state-side.

Hey DanS, I think I asked you this before, but I can't recall your response. I hope you won't mind if I ask you again...

In the US, inter-racial marriage was legalized nationally in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia. However, it was not until 1991 that Gallop recorded more Americans in favor of inter-racial marriage than against it.

My question(s): should inter-racial couples have instead waited 24 more years, until general public approval was higher? Was justice "short-circuited" when the courts approved of inter-racial marriage before the majority of the general public did?

[Spiffor]

Mindseye: I can't reply for the historical fact, but I think I can reply to the argument.

When the Belgian Parliament voted in favor of gay marriage a few years ago (with 120 votes out of 150 or something), the majority of the population was against it. When the French Parliament repelled the death penalty in 1981, the majority of the population was pro-DP (it has changed only very recently).
There are plenty of examples like that, where the Parliament has a strong position that disagrees with the population's. But open debate does help:
1. you can kick the rascals out if you think one of these issues is a no-no.
2. open debate helps promoting new ideas. Very often, these new ideas are fought by nothing else than by prejudice and raw conservatism (in the meaning of conserving the old order). I actually expect many, many more Frenchmen to become pro-gay marriage if the debate matures here, simply because they'll think of the question and be exposed to the arguments.

[Sava]

bigotry and stupidity isn't exclusively an American tradition

[SlowwHand]

DAMN! Sava showns the tiniest bit of appreciation.
I must be going to die today.


As for you, Sparky. Wrong thread or not, what American genocide have you contrived in your mind?