News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

FightingMadd:

Apparently Layton bannished a MP to the back benches for voting against the legislation. So much for allowing freedom of expression in the NDP. I would expect such behaviour from the Liberals, especially under Creitien.
Click to expand...

So? The official party position is to support same-sex marriage, and voting against it is a violation of such. It is no different from what one'd expect if say a Conservative MP voted for the budget. It has nothing to do with "freedom of expression" whatsoever.

For me, the best approach to the SSM issue would have been a simple referendum. Ask the people of Canada for their view on what marriage should and should not include. Seems silly if SS is allowed to disallow consensual polygamy or consensual close-incestual marriage. No, I'm not inferring that we start the old slippery slope debate. Instead I'm suggesting that, if marriage rules are so important that they must tie up the courts, senate, provinces and commons for months and months, perhaps we should let the people decide directly what marriage should mean.
Click to expand...

Why such selective application of referendums to such a matter? Last time I've checked, the budget, traffic violations, spousal disputes, etc, also took up a significant chunk of time at various governmental institutions. Why not subject all these decisions to citizen referenda?

GB
 
I don't know if that would work, because it's not very specific. Unless maybe in Quebec....

You'd need something justifying the use of the "notwithstanding" clause, or a Constitional amendment. Anything else won't pass Consitutional scrutiny.

Kevin
 
Having a referendum on this issue would defeat the purpose of the Charter, unless of course you're talking about having a referendum on whether or not the Charter should be abolished.
 
The Charter, the Commons, the Senate, electoral process, the Courts and everything else concerning government in Canada exists purely at the will of the people. I know that sounds like some sort of CPC red neck talk, but I don't mean it to; all I want us to remember is that the Charter is not written in stone no more than having the Queen as head of state (but that's another debate).

Don't forget that the first line of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms starts with, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." If Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the principles that reorganize the supremacy of God, this begs the question, "Does Canada recognize the supremacy of God?" Almost every religion will tell you that God abhors homosexuality. Obviously this part of the Charter is not being applied. Thus, the charter is not a static being, but instead can be interpreted to suit whatever political leaning or policy is in vogue. Just hold onto your seats if the pendulim ever swings to the right, since the Charter can be equally applied in that direction with vigor.

Why should this specifically have been put to a referendum? IMO, because it's probably the most contentious cultural national issue we've thus far this century. If we can have national referendums on prohibition, conscription and the Charlottetown Accord, surely we could have on marriage definition.
 
Fighting Madd:

The Charter, the Commons, the Senate, electoral process, the Courts and everything else concerning government in Canada exists purely at the will of the people. I know that sounds like some sort of CPC red neck talk, but I don't mean it to; all I want us to remember is that the Charter is not written in stone no more than having the Queen as head of state (but that's another debate).
Click to expand...

Indeed - but if one goes by such a broad definition of what "will of the people" is, and how that will is supposed to manifest itself, then one might as well question as to whether any of those institutions are valid expression of public power. It also assumes, without question, that "will of the people" equate to good and free from the possiblity of discrimination and injustice, which I would argue, from both Canadian and other jurisdiction, isn't necessarily the case.

Don't forget that the first line of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms starts with, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." If Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the principles that reorganize the supremacy of God, this begs the question, "Does Canada recognize the supremacy of God?" Almost every religion will tell you that God abhors homosexuality. Obviously this part of the Charter is not being applied. Thus, the charter is not a static being, but instead can be interpreted to suit whatever political leaning or policy is in vogue. Just hold onto your seats if the pendulim ever swings to the right, since the Charter can be equally applied in that direction with vigor.
Click to expand...

Yes, but whose interpretation of God, exactly? Unlike other aspects of the Charter, this one is somewhat beyond the realm of government to decide; nor is it for one single religion to dictate their interpretation on others. As to the part about "all major religions" - you are confusing religious interpretation of God, with human dogma with personal interpretation here.

Why should this specifically have been put to a referendum? IMO, because it's probably the most contentious cultural national issue we've thus far this century. If we can have national referendums on prohibition, conscription and the Charlottetown Accord, surely we could have on marriage definition.
Click to expand...

And quite a few other important ones, like Canada Health Act, NAFTA, etc didn't. So your point?

GB
 
Why is this a "contentious" issue? The interesting point to this debate is that it is not occurring in the abstract. SSM has been legal in Ontario for over two years, and in most other parts of the country for 1-2 years.
During that time, how have the lives and rights of heterosexual couples, whether childless or raising children, been materially affected? Please provide me specific examples.
Opponents of SSM never cite specific, material impacts that the extension of civil marriage rights to gays and lesbians have had, and instead resort to arguments based on a desire to see no change to the definition, and nothing else.
It's bigotry, pure and simple.
 
The plebiscite card is constantly being played by these people because there is a history of it working to polarize public opinion, which is maybe the best they can hope for. It is a stunt they pull, now and then, in such places as California.
 
And used to great (and gruesome) effect by Karl Rove in the 2004 US election. Nothing like pitting fellow citizens against one another to advance the cause.
 
It's interesting how these ezboard and other forums mirror society, where like minded folks seek each other's company.

For example, if i look at forums like the the freedominion site I mentioned earlier (a damn scary place, IYAM) you get all the right wing extremists aggressively opposing any descenting opinion. On the other hand, you have this forum, apparently populated by mostly young, recent-grads/still in school, left-leaning secular-humanists, seemingly disproportionately gay (or gay positive/supportive). A centre right, mildy conservative (small "c") voice, questioning this thinking, such as mine rarely appears on the scene, so it seems anyway.

Back OT, in the end all this chatter about SSM will come to nothing, since the majority of provinces have already legislated SSM. A referendum could have dealt with the issue years ago, which is why I suggested it.

I don't believe such free and democratic nations as Australia, the USA, New Zealand, Britain, France, Germany, etc... are now to be seen as regressively oppressive because they don't allow SSM. I heard a lad on the radio suggest this during pride week. That's just silly; IMO, to most people in most free countries it's not all that important of an issue.
 
not important to those not affected. To those gay/lesbian citizens, it is VERY important.
 
Extending human rights changes society in general, not just the lives of those who are most immediately affected. Establishing that women are persons, giving them the right to vote, making it illegal to deny people housing or employment because of the colour of their skin, extending pension, income tax and marriage rights to gays and lesbians, these things remove privileges from the few, creates a more equitable society, and changes the ground rules for all of us.
 
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." If Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the principles that reorganize the supremacy of God, this begs the question, "Does Canada recognize the supremacy of God?" Almost every religion will tell you that God abhors homosexuality.
Click to expand...
it says canada is founded on principles but that doesn't mean our laws are bound by them. even if we recognize the supremacy of god, we can still disagree with what he says. whose definition of god is the charter using anyway? if it's the christian god and our laws have to follow the bible, wouldn't it say so?

it's intentionally vague language that doesn't have any legal weight. if it did we'd have heard about it long ago - hundreds of things that the bible says are wrong are perfectly legal, yet nobody complains about those.
 
From the opinions I have read of FightingMadd, I wouldn't characterize him as "mildly conservative"..I would say you are solidly on the right-wing.
 
It is maybe a bit of a departure from the NDP's history, since Tommy Douglas is on record saying that homosexuality should be treated as a mental illness. I certainly don't support the idea of a referendum on something that is fundamentally an equality issue. Moreover, I don't think referenda should be used at any time other than to approve major constitutional change. Members of parliament are democratically elected to represent their constituents, and if their position is so far away from that of the general population, they will be voted out within a few years.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top