CanPol: Gomery and a Looming Federal Election

[notyoueither]

Oh joy. He throws up his hands in a pig pool of apathy.

Oh more joy, he then launches into an equation of gay mariage with income tax.

Do you mean to torture me with having to read all that drivel?

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh joy. He throws up his hands in a pig pool of apathy.

If you hadn't noticed, I've been pretty apathetic on this subject for a long time. I'm pro-civil unions and apathetic on gay marriage. I would like to see a compelling reason to alter the centuries old definition of marriage, however, which has so far eluded me.

As for the article, you're under no obligation to read it if you don't want to, so stop whining...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Oh joy. He throws up his hands in a pig pool of apathy.

If you hadn't noticed, I've been pretty apathetic on this subject for a long time. I'm pro-civil unions and apathetic on gay marriage. I would like to see a compelling reason to alter the centuries old definition of marriage, however, which has so far eluded me.

Well, if you don't recognise basic human rights, then I could probably drive a mac truck over yours and your neighbours without you noticing.

[notyoueither]

I like the part where he equates welfare with encouraging single mothers to the detriment of society.

Is this guy a character from Dickens brought to life?

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, if you don't recognise basic human rights, then I could probably drive a mac truck over yours and your neighbours without you noticing.

I've yet to see a convincing reason why I should consider the ability of homosexual couples to get married to be a "basic human right".

[notyoueither]

Can you follow the ball?

Sexual orientation is a basic human right in Canada.

Discrimination based on basic human characteristics is unconstitutional in Canada.

Banning gay marriages is unconstitutional in Canada so long as there are any benefits that accrue to marriage by decision of the state.

Clear?

[Drake Tungsten]

You think I'm talking about Canada?

You guys don't even have a proper freedom of the press, so why should I give two ****s about what your constitution says about anything? I'm only interested in the Canadian example as a possible glimpse into the future of the gay marriage debate in America...

[notyoueither]

Solomon might cleave the issue in two by seperating religious marriage from unions subject to government recognition.

Unfortunately, the zealots are up in arms about Joe and Bob having a ceremony at the local United Church.

In other words, the Catholics and Anglicans are upset with the neighbours, again.

I would have thought they'd all have learned their lesson some 4 or 500 years ago. But who can bet how stupid some people will be?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You think I'm talking about Canada?

You guys don't even have a proper freedom of the press, so why should I give two ****s about what your constitution says about anything? I'm only interested in the Canadian example as a possible glimpse into the future of the gay marriage debate in America...

Well, you could be a jackass who posted in a Canadian thread where our laws and Constitution were being discussed, and have been talking about Lower Bokovina all this time.

However, that would just make you one silly son of a *****.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm still can't believe you thought I would care about what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has to say about anything. Jesus, I'm older than it is...

[notyoueither]

Incidently, I am waiting for an explanation for how your republic went wrong when Congress did not override the courts and mandate that blacks sit at the back of the bus.

Can you produce one?

How undemocratic!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm still can't believe you thought I would care about what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has to say about anything. Jesus, I'm older than it is...

I couldn't give a **** if you gave a ****, but I would have thought your dignity would need the support of actually knowing what the **** you were talking about before launching in.

[Drake Tungsten]

There wasn't a sufficient amount of public support for such an action, so I fail to see how the lack of effort on Congress' part to pass an absurd hypothetical law shows the undemocratic nature of the civil rights movement.

but I would have thought your dignity would need the support of actually knowing what the **** you were talking about before launching in.

I never claimed to be talking about the Canadian issue specifically; I thought it was pretty obvious that I was talking about very general issues (undemocratic judicial legislation, dangers of tampering with social institutions) from the very get go. That's why I found it funny that you thought a specific reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would somehow matter to me.

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression about what we were talking about...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

Are you being deliberately dense? They didn't rule that not having gay marriage was unconstitutional because they didn't have to. They'd rather let the politicians draft a new law. If the federal government forces their hand, however, you will see how quickly they rule it unconstitutional.

And then you're going to have a crisis on your hands.

But nothing would please me more than to see Harper try that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
There wasn't a sufficient amount of public support for such an action, so I fail to see how the lack of effort on Congress' part to pass an absurd hypothetical law shows the undemocratic nature of the civil rights movement.

Do you care to give your idiots view of the support for the use of the notwithstanding clause in the debate that is under discussion, or are you just shooting your mouth off?