Same-Sex Marriage And American Money

Keep in mind that the 'two solitudes' are not so distant when it comes to political parties. The liberals were quite opposed to SSM in 1994, and even after the supreme court ruled they didn't bring in legislation. Interestingly enough they waited til they had a minority government.

Part of the problem is that people focus so much on same sex marriage that they forget all the other people who at least as legitimately have an equal grievance, the supreme court simply refuses to hear their claims.

SSM affects only a tiny minority in the country and only in one specific way. Human rights are obviously not an issue with any canadian government as most of the UN resolutions on human rights continue to be ignored. I've written elsewhere about tenants rights and how entire segments of the population are not covered under residential tenants acts. These people have no rights whatsoever and can be harassed, evicted, have their heat turned off, etc.

We can also look at immigrant farm labourers who have no rights as canadians, and look even at the homeless who consistently have their human rights trampled on. Not to mention natives, which has even seen Canada listed as a human rights violator.

So one complaint on this issue is perfectly valid and is the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal government. Here we see ONE human rights issue become the WHOLE human rights issue.

That 'traditional' definitions of marriage is changed is a perfectly valid conservative issue, even on non-religious grounds. There are HUGE implications to 'opening the floodgates' on the definition of 'marriage'. Most of the people who like to think themselves egalitarian usually don't even recognize those floodgates, and typically don't spend much time on the other equally viable human rights issues in the country.

Remember, this 'right' is NOT in the CHarter, it was READ IN to the charter by a group of judges. That's a HUGE issue, since now we're saying that not only are we going by a charter's words, but also what judges may read into it. That has HUGE implications on the law, and of course on society.

The legislation should have been seperated. There should have been one bill for same sex civil unions, and another bill for the redefinition of marriage. The same sex civil union bill would have passed, while the redefinition of marriage bill might have failed. Canadians were divided down the middle on the issue. It would have been best for both sides, same sex couples would have been able to get married, while the religious crowd would have been able to keep marriage definied as between a man and a woman. Everybody wins.

But we know why the legislation was included in the same bill. The Liberals knew the Conservatives would not have supported the redefinition of marriage and they needed to paint the Conservatives as being extremists for the current election campaign. So they put the bills together to ensure the Conservatives would vote against civil unions, even though the Conservatives supported civil unions. Fear is the only thing the Liberals have to run on, and so that's why it happened the way it did.

Marriage is not a human right, it is a social value. Different cultures value marriage in different ways. From same sex economic marriages in Sudan, to Hindu women being married off to trees in southern India. Every culture has a different view of marriage. If I don't believe in marriage, am I therefore abusing my own human rights? Of course not. What utter nonsense.

Furthermore, what a group of appointed lawyers who call themselves Supreme Court justices say on the matter means nothing to me. They were appointed by one man, not by Parliament. Any ruling made by the Supreme Court is not legitimate in my eyes.

People say Harper has a hidden agenda. What is so hidden about his agenda? On the first day of the campaign, he came out and said what he's going to do! If he's trying to hide his agenda, he's doing a poor job of doing it.

Let the Conservatives bring up the issue in the next Parliament. They're not bringing up civil unions, they want to re-redefine marriage. If they form government it will be a minority, and as Harper says if Parliament turns them down they'll let the issue go.

SSM affects only a tiny minority in the country and only in one specific way.<<

You are right! The issue should be over and accepted as it is. On with more important things. But Noooo! Harper has to rehash it all over again. Federal laws apply to all Canadians and yet each province decides if they will allow SSM. Get on with the show. Whats done is done and nobody is loosing their rights because of it. The House has to many important issues to deal with, then to rehash the old.

You write - "same sex couples would have been able to get married, while the religious crowd would have been able to keep marriage definied as between a man and a woman. Everybody wins." However, gay couples cannot simultaneously get "married" while "marriage" gets defined as between a man and a woman. Civil unions, while sounding like a nice compromise, help no one. They do not have the same legal or social standing of marriages, thus separating out gay couples into a lesser class, and they present a viable alternative to heterosexual couples who do not wish to get married in the traditional sense, thus further eroding traditional marriage. You could argue instead that the state could sanction civil marriages between all couples, gay and straight, while allowing churches to sanction religious marriage for whomever they please.

It is also somewhat scary to read that "Any ruling made by the Supreme Court is not legitimate in my eyes." I cannot begin to discuss how important the judiciary is to the establishment and protection of all of our rights as citizens. Without it we have democracy run amok. These justices are (ideally) those most qualified to interpret the rule of law and ought to be beholden to no one. If none of the rulings of the Supreme Court are legitimate to you then there is nothing to protect the citizenry from abuses of government. That you do not agree with one decision does not de-legitimize its very existence.

I appreciate that people are reading this post, which by the way is not mine but one from a member of <a href='http://canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/'>Cerberus</a>, a website that I find very dynamic and interesting. Except for the first sentence, all of the remaining text should have been "blockquoted". I thought I had tagged appropriately but apparently it was not done properly. <p> That said, I should mention that the purpose of my reproducing it here at <i>Vive</i> was to raise awareness on the freaky role that the American Religious Fundamentalists seem to be playing in our Canadian elections. As the author at <i>Cerberus</i> wrote: <p> <blockquote>This is nothing less than an affront to our democracy and sovereignty. No wonder these people and organizations, like Harper's National Citizens Coalition, oppose caps on election spending! When leading, extremely wealthy and influential organizations and people like Focus on the Family and Ralph Reed are trying to influence Canadian policies, that frightens me enormously. When these kind of special interests align themselves with the Conservative Party and it's position opposing gays and gay marriage, I have to ask who their masters are on this issue. <p> Let me be very clear here: this concern is not about Canadian faithful getting involved in politics or voting based on their faith or even organizing among other faithful. It is the extremely dangerous invasion of far right American money and power attempting to influence and shape our political landscape through the backdoor.</blockquote> <p> More gall <a href='http://canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/2005/12/american-christian-conservative.html'>here</a>!

I knew when I read it that that was the main point, but it was hard to get sidetracked. I do 'somewhat' agree with the above poster about the illigitimacy of the supreme court, because it is true that they know how to interpret the law, they should not be used to MAKE law, which is what happened when they 'read in' this as a charter right.

Keep in mind though that it is somewhat misleading about civil unions, as we have to remember what is meant by 'traditional marriage'. This has been changed already by 'common law marriages' which already existed for both heterosexual and homosexual unions, making this somewhat of a misnomer.

So do you think that gay couple in 1976 who failed to get their union legally recognized should have given up and move on to bigger issues? How about the other challenges that the gay community initiated to get their "marriages" legally recognized? So now that you tolerant liberals have won after decades of fighting we should get over it and accept it as is? The house of commons voted against same sex unions before. By your resoning the issue should have died there, liberals and homosexuals should have accepted it, and the whole country should have moved on to bigger issues and never revist the same sex marriage issue again. But that's not how liberals think. They think it is their duty to educate us ignorant masses on human rights issues and fight until they get what they want and those of use who challenge it should accept it and move on to bigger issues.

Love liberal hypocrisy. I also find their fascist attitudes very scary.

Is there somethig wrong with the conservatives expressing a point of view that many Canadian's share? So what if it is funded from the US at least it is being expressed. I'm sure the song would be different if a "progressive" issue was being funded from the US but that should be expected from liberal hypocrisy. I am confident that SSM would not be recognized if a general referendum were held on the issue. It only passed because Martin demanded his cabinet vote with him and even then barely did it pass. This is an affrnot to our democracy if you ask me so dont be so quick to sling the mud.

I would just like to point out in response to a response to my post, that the United Kingdom, the original parliamentary system has just legalised same sex civil unions, but kept the definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

And one more thing, I do not oppose same sex marriage at all, nor do I really care one way or another as to which definition of marriage we have in this country.

In a true democracy a justice to the Supreme Court is appointed by democratically elected representatives of the people, not one single man with approval from no one. So until the day the Supreme Court is appointed by Parliament, and not the Prime Minister's Office, their words meaning nothing to me. Democracy in Canada is an illusion.

And when the Supreme Court says that a ten year sentence for attempted murder with an illegal firearm infringes on the rights of the defendants, their words mean even less to me.

Sorry for the double postings.

That is quite true about the supreme court, but it is not so bad as that, and we often get anecdotes, usually out of context, that will try to paint the legal system as somehow being 'on the side of criminals'. No court is going to state the above in that way, because clearly duration of sentencing has no effect on an individual's rights. The courts are often downright draconian when it comes to sentencing, so much that natives are demanding their own courts, because they at least understand that crime is not as simple as 'doing wrong-rot in jail'.

However, I disagree that there is no problem if a certain ideology gets funding from the US, that's clearly a problem, and we can really see the shadow of american society with the increasing use of the word 'progressives'. THere is really no such thing in Canada, being supportive of gay rights is not really 'progressive', neither is opposing a conservative government. Issues are issues, each is distinct and every person is unique with their views, so labels are unhelpful. The fact that a specific issue, and ANY specific issue is maintained by funds from another country is indeed worrisome, and the claim that 'if you guys were doing it you'd have no complaints' is not a defence at all. Mainly, but not only, because it's completely false. The legitimacy of international environmental groups is almost ALWAYS called into question even when the group makes only an incidental public appearance, it would certainly be under greater scrutiny if it were the driving force behind the votes of almost half of parliament.


THere's really nothing else for me to say here, so again I'd like to plug democracy. We in Canada often like to denounce americans as uninformed hicks if the electorate ever votes the way we would have preferred, however, in the states where they actually voted on this issue the people actually HAD all of this information and had these types of conversations. In Canada we were spectators in our own country and our 'democracy' only extended as far as the occasional camera in the local 'tim horton's' where it would be maintained that canadians were having such in depth conversations. When you play no part in the process, it's pointless to get all the facts straight.

The successful appeal of pastor Ake Green by the Swedish Supreme Court on a lower court conviction of hate crime may have a ripple effect on Canada's legislation.

It is now allowed in Sweden and in Europe) to state (as he did) that "homosexuality is a terrible cancer in society." That includes same-sex marriage. Praise be to God.

As a happily married man for 54 years, I would like to know: Who the hell cares about such non issues ?

It is characteristic of people like Harper to try to appeal to the mindless for votes.

If they'd really worry about homosexuality, the first thing they should do is abolish birth control pills, which now infect the water supply of the whole Earth and in my wife's opinion are the cause of many, especially breast cancers. Just look at the statistics before and after the introduction of the pills and never mind what the "studies", paid for by the pharma companies say.

Also abolish the lacing of meats with hormones, etc., which in the opinion of some scientists, are changing male genes and lowering the sperm count. Apart from being the main cause of the epidemic of obesity, especially in children. Neither do we know what the use of GM foods do to people.

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

What does birth control pills and the water supply have to do with homosexuality?

Not to badmouth anyone's wife, who are always smarter than we are, but cancer cannot be linked to 'cause and effect'. In fact the clearest case is a bit of a misnomer to say 'smoking CAUSES cancer'. If that were true then every person who smoked would have cancer and that's far from true. In fact they've even found many lungs of smokers to be in a good a condition as non smokers. That's not big tobacco talking, because certainly evidence correlates smoking to lung cancer.

Breast cancer is another big one and your wife is quite correct, in fact women are strongly advised to not take BCP for more than five years at a time. However, research (and not just big pharma research) shows that while SOME cancers are more prevalent in women who take birth control pills, other cancers are LESS prevalent. Likewise, cancers are VERY specific to individuals, one wouldn't be too far off the mark to say that there is a different form of cancer for every cancer patient. The 'causes' will again vary heavily and depend on thousands of factors, so many that we barely have a good understanding of ANY of them. In science, all that is known is when something works, not WHY it works.

I do agree in general though, however, genetics plays a big role in it. In 'The Corporation" one doctor who has done nothing but study these diseases says that virtually ALL cancers can be traced to the environment. Then of course comes the question of why everybody doesn't have cancer. My wife, who is a bio-molecular researcher who researches cancer and other auto immune disorders doesn't agree with that doctor. Like many native religions and wholistic practitioners, I don't think there is any clear separation from our self and our environment so I would tend to agree with both.