CanPol: Gomery and a Looming Federal Election

[Ben Kenobi]

They retain the power to rule on the constitutionality of any marriage law passed by the federal government, as for any other law.

Again, are they willing to overrule the combination of both parliament and popular sentiment?

Such would be confirmation of judicial tyranny more than any other statement.

[KrazyHorse]

a) popular sentiment is just about split

b) "judicial tyranny" is what it's called when the law protects a minority you dislike, I suppose

You're one of the worst duckspeakers out there.

[KrazyHorse]

But yes, let Harper start a constitutional crisis over something so silly.

That ought to sit well with moderate voters.

[KrazyHorse]

Goodnight, princess.

[Ben Kenobi]

good night funbuns

[Drake Tungsten]

You two are so cute...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, and section 15 specifically rejects the inclusion of ameliorative benefits.

I would argue marriage falls under this category, and as such, is not bound under the equality provisions.

Do you mean rejects or includes? Or what do you mean?

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

Section 15 has that side clause that says ameliorative benefits are not to be provided on the basis of equality. This means things like preferential treatment can be given, provided the idea is to bring others up to par.

The obvious case of this is wheelchairs for disabled. My argument is that marriage is the same way. There is a benefit to society from encouraging marriage, but that there are also burdens placed upon those engaged in marriage. The most obvious of these are the care and raising of children.

A family that takes care of it's members is not going to be as reliant upon the social safety net, of welfare and the rest. The reverse is also true. The disintegration of the family will increase the burden on these safety nets.

However, this means that the burden is placed upon the parents in raising and taking care of their children. In this, the parents are handicapped, by their desire to have and to raise children, particularly early on.

Now, my argument is that traditional marriage qualifies for the ameliorative benefits clause. That we are not required to distribute the benefits of marriage to all people, because of the significant advantage society accrues from families that have children and raise them, and the disadvantage incurred by these same parents who have their children and raise them.

If this is true, than that makes traditional marriage immune to the vagarities of section 15, and thus, it can be justified to provide marital benefits only to those who qualify; in this case, marriage between a man and a woman.

Now I know we can also argue marginal cases, such as the case of two 70 year olds who marry each other. However, I am looking not at the fringes, but at the meat and potatoes. The heart of the batting order, and not the pitcher who bats last.

For the benefit of those unfamiliar with what I am referring to:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[notyoueither]

Well, Ben, I think you are being very imaginative. I also think that I disagree with your interpretation of the bolded bit, especially when you read the words that come after.

[Flubber]

Bumped for spec

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Now I know we can also argue marginal cases, such as the case of two 70 year olds who marry each other. However, I am looking not at the fringes, but at the meat and potatoes. The heart of the batting order, and not the pitcher who bats last.

Ok well lets look at the heart of it. My lesbian friend plans to have children and she has a committed partner. They will have children whether permitted marriage or not BUT on your own argument should they not be permitted marriage as ameliorating the disadvantages to them of having said children.

Lets say I could show that 70% of Lesbian couples planned to have children versus 60% of heterosexual couples. ( The numbers are fictious but assume them for a moment). Then on your own argument should you not ENCOURAGE their marriage???

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well, Ben, I think you are being very imaginative. I also think that I disagree with your interpretation of the bolded bit, especially when you read the words that come after.

I agree. Very interesting. I don't think I have ever before heard anyone propose that marriage is an affirmative action program for parents

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You guys don't even have a proper freedom of the press

What's the big deal about not being able to scream "Kill the Jews, because they are poisoning babies with Quaker Oatmeal" from the rooftops?

It's illegal to run commercials saying "Tylenol cures the AIDS" in the States. OMFG, no freedom of speech!

[St Leo]

Harper doesn't care about gay marriage one way or another.

His evil agenda is:
- destroy the Canadian federal government and delegate everything to the provinces
- neuter the remainder by creating an elected Senate

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You guys don't even have a proper freedom of the press

What's the big deal about not being able to scream "Kill the Jews, because they are poisoning babies with Quaker Oatmeal" from the rooftops?

It's illegal to run commercials saying "Tylenol cures the AIDS" in the States. OMFG, no freedom of speech!

actually i think thats only illegal if you make or sell tylenol. If youre just an ordinary dude, you CAN say "Tylenol cures AIDS". (Cures THE Aids?)