Apolitical Staples

What you would have is an absurd situation where some gay couples are married and some would be allowed civil unions only. The Supreme Court would strike it down in about 30 seconds. Also, if there is no difference and we are just “arguing about words”, why is the CPC fighting this so hard?

You say the CPC favours civil unions. Is that your guess or a fact? I’m a Conservative in I favour SSM as do a lot of Conservatives in mega-urban areas simply because we have friends that are gay and why not let them get married?

Isn’t Harper’s position on SSM simply … let’s have a free vote? What is “scary” about Harper is that he favours free votes on this “values” issue, Liberals like the whip … err, we’ll leave it at that.

Interesting that the Strategic Council poll says 38% of the population want to scrap SSM. Presumably that number is much higher in the ROC than Quebec, so a free vote might surprise us.

Yes, to say that the CPC supports civil unions is a fact (go to 1710). As to why the CPC is fighting this so hard, there are members of conservative tent who think the word is more important than I do.

This argument is always circular. People who favour gay marriage already conceptualize “marriage” as something very different than what people who favour the traditional definition see. Look at it this way. There is a word, say “horse” that formerly was associated only with one particular type of quadripedal hooved animal. At some point, people began to agitate for the inclusion of other types of hooved bipedals to be included under the umbrella of “horse”, arguing that the benefits of being a horse should not be denied these other worthy creatures. So goats came to be referred to as horses. Is it patently ridiculous to refer to a goat as a horse? Of course. Will such a change really alter any sensible person’s understanding of the differences between the two creatures? Not likely.Will absurdities result from the expansion of the definition of “horse”? Probably more than a few. Will civilization fall? Nope. Eventually, the evolutionary power of language will likely churn out a new word for the horse that can pull a wagon. And that word will be co-opted, and so on, and so on. I guess it would be serious if it wasn’t all so funny. We live in interesting times.

I do not believe there is a “right” to be married just as there is not “right” to have a driver’s liscence.

I’ll have to remember this silly line of reasoning the next time some right whinger starts carping about property rights.

Two different things. You have the right to not have your personal property stolen.

Greg,

It’s not just words. From Reference re Same Sex Marriage [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698: “Civil unions are a relationship short of marriage and are, therefore, provincially regulated. “

The federal government cannot impose civil unions on the provinces, meaning that an end to SSM puts gay and lesbian relationships at the mercy of provincial authorities — fine if you’re in Ontario, less so if you’re in Alberta.

Laws in Canada, laws in Canada’s constitution, have not been followed since 1901 when Queen Victoria died, so why start now?

Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901.

The next day, on January 23, 1901, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867, still stated: “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen”.

On January 23, 1901, Section 17 still stated: “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons”.

On January 23, 1901, Section 91 still stated: “It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; …”.

What was the name of Canada’s constitutional Queen regnant who had executive government and authority of and over Canada after the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of Queen Elizabeth II?

I agree with calling it civil unions for everyone. I believe that would be a compromise.

Allow me to sum up. Canadians have rights, but only as defined by the Conservative Party of Canada. Homosexuals have the right to be treated equally under the law, except when it comes to being married, where they are to be treated differently.

Homosexuals can not have a secular marriage, but they can have a civil union — the difference between which is merely semantics. However, these semantics are sufficient for the Conservative Party of Canada to attempt to revoke rights recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada and the House of Commons (in a free vote I might add).

yawn

Devin (who the original discussion was with), you are being purposely obtuse. The Supreme Court declared that homosexuals were being treating unequally under the law and told parliament to fix the inequity. They did not declare that it had to be marriage just that it had to be equal. The potential is there that they may strike it (civil unions) down in the future if they were not equal but we are not there. People who are married in a religious institution or people who were married by a court offical are treated the same as two people living common law together. Common sense tells you these are different situations but they are treated the same under the law. Thing can be different without taking peoples rights away.

There are two sides to marriages. There is the legal covenant which determines rights of inheritance, who gets to be at whose bedside, et cetera. Then there is marriage as a religious sacrament. Those of us who say that homosexual couples deserve to have their unions recognized by the government tend to focus on the legal covenant side of things, whereas opponents of SSM tend to be upset about the government’s apparent sanctioning of the religious sacrament side of things.

The best compromise position the Conservatives could have put forward the last time was to have the government get out of marriage altogether, perform civil unions and recognize only civil unions — recognizing automatically as civil unions all marriages performed by churches. This would address both sides concerns; it would say that government has no business in the pulpits of the nation, and it would grant legal recognition to same sex marriages performed by such institutions as the United Church of Canada and (within the next ten years) the Anglican Church of Canada.

But James, that is so evil…;)

Obviously there is no “right” to gay marriage. There cannot be any “right” to impose new law without the approval of Parliament.

I wonder if the gay community really understand the consequences of trying to get what they want entirely through lies and intimidation. Do they not understand that we can smash fists into their mouths very much more effectively than they can spout lies out of them? As long as those are the terms of debate, we win.

Gays “at the mercy” of the Alberta legislature? Which voluntarily provided for civil union status, in legislation which completely met every conceivable legitimate need of the gay community, and which was stomped into the ground by the gays themselves? That Alberta? It would seem to be at the mercy of the gays, and they seem to have none.

I’ll have to remember this silly line of reasoning the next time some right whinger starts carping about property rights.

Robert, property rights are inherent (of the person) negative rights. Most civil and political rights are not inherent, and fall on the positive rather than negative side (ie. they are entitlements and powers). Equality before the law simply means having identical entitlements and powers under the law. A positive right for one person implies infringements, generally on the freedoms and other inherent rights, on other people. You can’t have an entitlement (privilege) unless someone else is compelled to provide it. You can’t have a power unless someone else is compelled to yield to it.

The question of marriage in the political and civil arena is rightly concerned only with the privileges and powers conferred by the contract (marriage). A spouse enjoys protections and default legal powers not enjoyed by a mere companion. Most of the trade-offs are between the partners in a marriage, but a few spill over into the public - tax deductions, for example. The name accorded is irrelevant. If everything before the law is encompassed in “civil union”, then it doesn’t matter if all marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages. If people in civil unions require the symbol of the name (“marriage”), people in marriages can (and likely will) move the goal posts and adopt a new name (eg. “traditional marriage”). The gap will always exist.

The only change worth noting is that the pre-eminent basis of the civil union has shifted to freedom of sexual expression - the equal right to enter the contract with one member of the opposite gender (which everyone had, equally, before) is insufficient; the right to enter the contract with one member of one’s sexually preferred gender is now required. Sexual expression being the basis, we really should do the right thing and take the initiative to extend “marriage” to the polyamorous.

Greg

What do you think is insufficient about Section 3 of the Civil Marriage Act in order to protect religious congregations?

Mark, I have already stated that I am in favour of SSM, I just refuse to allow the blatently incorrect arguments people use against the CPC.

Greg, fair enough on the religious thing - I have reread your post :)

However, I disagree that “they would not be struck down as unconstitutional if civil unions were treated the same under the law as traditional marriage.”

Using different words to describe homosexual and heterosexual versions of state partnership is a front of the bus/back of the bus scenario. Just because everyone ends up at the same stop doesn’t mean there isn’t indignity. I’d prefer civil unions for everyone or marriage for everyone, in name as well as fact.