CanPol: Gomery and a Looming Federal Election

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Incidently, your civil rights movement got kicked off in the courts. It was the only place the wronged could get a hearing.

It didn't end there, though, which is precisely my point. People accept decisions that are ultimately decided in a democratic fashion. They aren't so willing to accept the dictates of judicial fiat.

It hasn't ended there on this issue up here either. However, I doubt the bus or school admission issues should have been overturnable by any legislature.

Either you have a Constitution that is worth more than toilet paper and courts with the balls to stand up to the mobs, or... well just hope you are in the majority in every issue that will come up during your life time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because lower courts in 7 provinces have already made the determination that it is unconstitutional to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. The SCoC declined to rule on the issue, but it is extremely likely that if forced to rule by the federal government appealing the lower court decisions that they would not reverse the lower courts.

Correct. The fact that the SCoC ruled that there must be one marriage law across Canada. Now, what that law contains is up to parliament. That is the role of the federal parliament to ensure that there is only one law for marriage across Canada.

Now, they affirmed that it is constitutional to allow gay marriage. They also refused to declare it unconstitutional to decline gay marriage.

That being said, we really have two paths. The first is to allow gay marriages in all provinces in Canada, the second is to allow traditional marriage in all provinces in Canada. Either is constitutional, according to the SCoC, and either is permissible for the Federal Parliament to enact.

[Drake Tungsten]

It hasn't ended there on this issue up here either.

You just said that there's no democratic avenue available to overturn the decision of the Canadian courts, save a constitutional amendment. Sounds like the issue is decided to me...

[notyoueither]

Incidently, abortion is still an issue because a lot of people think it is wrong as administered in some, many, or all cases.

Your equating civil rights and abortion falls down on the point that a reasonable person could not hold onto segregation as a reasonable policy, whereas people can be against unrestricted abortion for the same reason they are or were against slavery and segregation. A human life is being affected in an unjust way and the practice should not be allowed to continue in a willy nilly fashion.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

It hasn't ended there on this issue up here either.

You just said that there's no democratic avenue available to overturn the decision of the Canadian courts, save a constitutional amendment. Sounds like the issue is decided to me...

Realistic.

A bill could be passed and punted off to the SCoC to be ruled unconstitutional.

Would you have wanted the Senate to pass a bill allowing blacks to be driven to the back of the bus, only for the Senate to be dragged through the muck of being told they were *******s?

[Drake Tungsten]

Your equating civil rights and abortion falls down on the point that a reasonable person could not hold onto segregation as a reasonable policy

Plenty of reasonable people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and should stay that way.

[Ben Kenobi]

70 year old people are getting married for tax and estate benefit.

How is that not discriminatory if discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited under Section 15, which the SCoC says it is?

Because a 70 year old gay man has just as much right as a 70 year old straight man to get married to a straight 70 year old woman.

That's why.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Your equating civil rights and abortion falls down on the point that a reasonable person could not hold onto segregation as a reasonable policy

Plenty of reasonable people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and should stay that way.

Yes, and many crackers in the South were slow to accept sitting next to a black man on the bus.

Acceptance of bigotry should not form the basis of public policy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Because a 70 year old gay man has just as much right as a 70 year old straight man to get married to a straight 70 year old woman.

That's why.

Ben, meet tail. Chase.

[Ben Kenobi]

So I'm a bigot NYE?

Yall going to say that to my face?

[notyoueither]

'White people are free to marry white people and black people are free to marry black people. Mixing the two would be... disasterous!'

Unfortunately, I would like to put that in the 19th century among modern nations, but I can't.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, and many crackers in the South were slow to accept sitting next to a black man on the bus.

Acceptance of bigotry should not form the basis of public policy.

Well, this is obviously a waste of time. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So I'm a bigot NYE?

Yall going to say that to my face?

Unfortunately, Ben, you are if you really think your religious morals should invade other people's lives and families.

I will say it to your face.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Yes, and many crackers in the South were slow to accept sitting next to a black man on the bus.

Acceptance of bigotry should not form the basis of public policy.

Well, this is obviously a waste of time. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot...

Maybe it is, if you can't see why interfering with the lives of other people based on a 'traditional' proscription, that isn't even agreed to by all religions, wouldn't be the basis of justice for all.

[Drake Tungsten]

I guess I'm just a little more cautious about how I approach changes to venerable institutions, nye. How conservative of me...

Anyway, here's a good piece on why changes to social institutions should be carefully considered. I think its interesting and thought-provoking, but then again I am just a bigot.

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html