“Dear Honorable Stupid Git” seems like an appropriate greeting from here in the cheap seats… 
And on another forum it was pointed out that the Charter didn’t exist when the Jews were turned away.
Not that that makes it right, but it does mean the argument’s not terribly relevant to begin with.
From here
Religious Tolerance has combined approve and don’t care into 1 group.
Then it splits again down generational lines with those over 50 or 60 being more likely to oppose while the younger set are more likely to support the idea.
So there is a significant portion of the population that does not want this legislation passed.
Correction. I’m mixing legislation with acceptance of a proposition.
Doesn’t matter. Equality is equality. The lawyers have said that not extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians is discriminatory, according to our Constitution, so it doesn’t effing matter if every single Canadian thinks that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, goatfucking, and the division of integers by zero.
Tyranny of the majority won’t rule this time, motherfuckers. Suck. It. Up.
True, but it does point out why Liberals, Tories and NDP members may not support the bill. There are enough voters opposed to the idea to make neglecting their view politically difficult. Tie that into a MP’s personal views and it comes down to a question of doing what you personally feel is right, what your constituents (which you represent) feel is right or what you think is best for Canada in the long run.
In other words, as long as the Charter is interpreted the way it presently is, nationwide same-sex marriage is inevitable and undefeatable, but that doesn’t mean the politicians won’t fight like fuck to defeat it if it’ll get them votes.
Allow me to fight some ignorance: from http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/24/lesbian-wedding-050124.html:
“A B.C. lesbian couple, who accuse a Catholic men’s group of discriminating against them by refusing to rent them a hall for their wedding reception, took their case to a human rights tribunal Monday.”
The Catholic men’s group is the Knights of Columbus. It is also notable that once the KOC realized that the reception involved a same-sex couple and cancelled the booking, they paid for both the rental of a new hall and the printing of new invitations.
The B.C Human Rights tribunal has not ruled on the case yet. Based on the state of democracy in Canada these days, I expect them to issue their ruling the day after the Liberal Party passes their same-sex marriage legislation.
Well, no, not undefeatable. They could invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. Every 5 years. This, of course, is not going to happen.
However, it’s conceivable that the Tories could cludge together enough votes to pass some sort of seperate but equal civil union bill. Given the tone of the decisions on the matter, I’m virtually certain that the civil union compromise would be rejected by the Supreme Court, but it would take a few years to happen. Just because something is inevitable doesn’t mean that it will happen quickly.
Well no, the clever ones will fight like fuck to get it defeated knowing that it’ll pass. Then they get the best of both worlds.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
In other words, as long as the Charter is interpreted the way it presently is, nationwide same-sex marriage is inevitable and undefeatable, but that doesn’t mean the politicians won’t fight like fuck to defeat it if it’ll get them votes.[\QUOTE]
What is the process for amending the charter?
snogs matt_mcl
When I lived in BC, every one I knew was pro gay marriage.
I moved to Alberta and landed smack in the middle of the conservative heartland. Now, I rarely meet people who are pro ssm.
I find myself completely befuddled by this, but they take Harper’s rhetoric as though it were the word of God himself. They are constantly sucking his dick on talk radio, and people quote his reasons for being anti ssm as gospel.
The arguments are inherently contradictory…
Marriage is not a a “right” or an issue of discrimination, and the government MUST protect marriage.
Huh?
Idiots, all.
An amendment must be approved by the Commons and Senate, and by the legislative assemblies of two thirds (i.e., 7) of the provinces consituting at least 50% of the population. Actually, I believe it’s become somewhat more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it. And it ain’t gonna happen in this case, so it’s a moot point.
Well, colour me better-informed. I was not aware that the B.C. Human Rights Code says “a person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification, discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public”, and consequently I had assumed that a case like Chymyshyn’s and Smith’s wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. On that I stand corrected.
Still, I don’t think that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s decision is going to influenced in Chymyshyn’s and Smith’s favour by the Civil Marriage Act. The Civil Marriage Act is very specifically worded and only refers to marriage. What Chymyshyn’s and Smith’s case is going to hinge on, it seems to me, is whether or not the religious freedom of the Knights of Columbus is a “bona fide and reasonable justification” to deny the use of the hall. If anything, the fact that the Civil Marriage act makes a point of stating that churches don’t have to marry anyone they don’t want to would seem to strengthen the Knights of Columbus’ position. But as you said, the tribunal hasn’t ruled yet, so we’ll just have to see.
I still think Mr. Harper is being an nitwit, but I must admit he’s not a preposterously alarmist one. Thanks for the reference.
If they rent the hall to the general public then it is a Place of Public Accomodation. Therefore, as I understand the issue, they aren’t allowed to discriminate. The Knights weren’t being asked to participate in the wedding or even the reception, so their religious beliefs are being offended. They offer a building for rental to the general public and it was rented.
Perhaps not preposterously alarmist, but he is being disingenuous. That BC human rights case depends not one whit upon the legal status of gay marriage. If gay marriage weren’t legal in BC, and the couple in question were celebrating a religious wedding that wasn’t legally recognized, and the KOC had refused the use of their hall, the status of the case would be precisely the same. The state of federal law is irrelevant. It would be rather odd to cite the nature of BC’s provincial anti-discrimination law as a reason to oppose federal same-sex marriage legislation, since the two have bugger all to do with each other. If social conservatives don’t like BC’s Human Rights Code, then the appropriate response is to try to convince the BC government to change it, not to oppose an unrelated federal bill. I wish those attempting to convince the BC government to legislate in a socially conservative fashion all the luck in the world. They’ll need it. 
… so their religious beliefs are being offended.
Should read “… are not being offended.”
Exactly. I wonder what kind of party we would be seeing now if Peter MaCay had headed the “new” Tories. Better yet, bring back John Crosby; he must have learned French by now.
I was unaware that he’d even mastered English. I can only remember him speaking Newfie.