Comments on: Political convenience

By: dh

dh — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:41:33 +0000

I feel that people who are in sin shouldn’t receive special rights. I feel that that is what the law does and so indirectly is condoning, publically, something that is private.

I think sin promoted in public leads to more people sinning than sin done in private. Both are equally wrong but one “causes people to stumble”.

I believe strongly in 1 Cor 6:8-10. That goes for all of its forms.

By: Bene Diction

Bene Diction — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:32:15 +0000

Okay.
The federal government is responsible for the definition of marriage.
The provinces are responsible for administration.

Bill C-38 was about definition, it was passed to the Supreme Court to see if it aligned with the Charter of Rights.
Alberta (for example) has not passed it’s own legislation to fall in line with the federal definition.
If Alberta doesn’t want to they can:
a) get out of the marriage business
b) use the ‘not withstanding’ clause

They are unlikely to use b) because the federal government didn’t overstep it’s juristiction

Alberta can opt out of sanctioning marriages, just recognize civil unions and leave marriage to religious institutions.

Alberta, P.E.I., Nunavut and the Northwest Territories haven’t recognized same sex marriage but Nunavut will accept a union from elsewhere in the country. The above provinces will adapt their legislation or get out of the marriage business.

Ontario (for example) has recognized same sex marriage for two years. Since it has, 3 thousand couples have applied, 1 thousand of those were from out of the country, mostly the US and Isreal.

Thats a very short version.:^)
What is it you feel Canada should do to make these decisions ‘unconsitutional.’?
What does that mean to you?

When is the next federal election…
We don’t know when we will have a federal election. The current minority government has been in place a year, had 40 non-confidence motions this past session.
Most people expect it will be after the results of the Gomery inquiry.

Could this passed bill, if it becomes law, be declared unconstitutional?

The bill goes to the Senate for approval and then to royal assent.
Good question. Would the Supreme Court would have to overturn it’s current decision on the charter?
If a new government decided to revisit the legislation they could do what was done - hold a free vote, or if overwhelmingly elected - introduce new legislation. I don’t know if they would/could chose amendments.
I don’t know if the (hypothetical new government) decision would foster charter challenges.

I know you feel our society has been harmed.
How so?

By: dh

dh — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:17:19 +0000

I personally feel Parliament did the wrong thing and if enough Canadians dislike the result there could be a change in Parliament.

Some questions: When is the next PM and Parliament elections? Could this passed bill, if it becomes law, be declared unconstitutional? Have there been rulings on this? Just curious.

By: Bene Diction

Bene Diction — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:03:41 +0000

I think so.
So with the passage of this bill what do you think happened?

By: dh

dh — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:38:17 +0000

I think this is more idealogy than it is what the politicians say. I know down south politically people liked the Democrats but in terms of ideology that is what over-road what trhe politicians said. I think in the US we vote on the basis ideology and whoever supports that ideology. I feel it would be nice for Canadians to follow suite and not be clouded by politicians comments. To me both parties used the Federal argument. I feel Canadians are smart and will overlook the Federal argument and do the right thing in not promoting something that gives privileges over and above rights (if you get my drift).

By: Bene Diction

Bene Diction — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:17:22 +0000

The bill is in 3rd and final reading and will be voted on tonight. If you look at the debate closure vote yesterday it isn’t as far apart or dire as US friends might think.

This post is about Canadian politicans, and using federalism as a foolish and inept argument.
If the conservative party wants the definition of marriage back they are going to have to pull themselves together, stop spouting stupidness, and get an election platform Canadians can support.

This is a free vote DH, there was no excuse for Harpers remarks.

Canada as a nation has pressing issues to deal with - travesty over federal definitions aside.

Is irregardless a word?:^)

By: dh

dh — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:48:52 +0000

I think the whole passage, irregardless, is a travesty to the country of Canada. Oh well, I’m just an American. However, only three nations have this so its not like we are “out-of-touch” like those outside of the US think.

By: Mark Byron

Mark Byron — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:59:41 +0000

When all else fails in Canadian politics, blame the Bloc and cry seperatism. The Liberals did it when the Tory-BQ coalition came this close to taking out the government; now the Conservatives are doing likewise when the BQ is on the other side.

It ain’t pretty when either side is doing it.

By: Richard B.

Richard B. — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:51:16 +0000

I actually snurfled (combination of a snort, guffaw, and chuckle) when I listened to Mr. Harper’s comments yesterday.

Its funny how language changes depending on the situation. A couple of months ago it was “the corrupt Liberal government, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois” - then it became “the corrupt Liberal government, the socialists, and the Bloc”… finally it became “the corrupt Liberal government, the socialists, and the separatists”.

There will be a lot of people who don’t like C-38… but I don’t think their upset will have much to do with the Bloc.