Santa Suits
I'm too busy to write anything myself so I'll leave you with this e-mail I received to ponder:
I want you to be think correctly on the Supreme Court ruling from the start. The Santa suits said: (1) federal gov has jurisdiction on defining marriage; (2) same-sex marriage would be legal if parliament made it law; (3) religious officials will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages against their beliefs; (4) refused to say that current definition as being between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
If the above is correct then I have no problem with the ruling and in fact I agree with everything except that on item (4) should have been unequivocal that current definition is constitutional. What is the ruling: yes, the feds can define marriage (I say fine); yes, they can define it with or without including man-man or woman-woman (I say good); and yes, either way they can't force it on religious groups (I say good). Basically the ruling is clarifying jurisdiction and saying that it is up to parliament to set the law.
The horseshit starts when Paul Martin erroneously contends it is a"Charter" issue. It would only be a "Charter" issue if the Santa suits said man-woman exclusivity were unconstitutional, which it hasn't. Personally I don't think it violates the "Charter" since there is no group rights in the "Charter" and the law grants every man and woman the same right to marry one willing person of the opposite sex. If it were a"Charter" issue then we know the Liberals won't use the notwithstanding clause, but if it is part of the constitution and if parliament sees fit then it should use the notwithstanding clause. A future government would have the option of reversing bad legislation and using the notwithstanding clause if needed.
The interesting thing will be on the civil law. Provinces cannot use the notwithstanding clause to overrule on federal jurisdiction so they are stuck with how parliament defines marriage. However, they are the masters of the civil rights for the vast majority of citizens. Pension, benefits, succession, hospital visitation, ... laws that can all be redrafted to not reference "marriage" but rather go back to woman-man as they so wish. If the Santa suits say unconstitutional then the notwithstanding clause can be used as desired as these laws are within provincial jurisdiction.
See, the courts may be annoying but they aren't always wrong and they aren't always the problem. The problem here is the Liberal agenda (ifyou don't agree with it) and their scheming, dishonest promotion of their agenda.
I want you to be think correctly on the Supreme Court ruling from the start. The Santa suits said: (1) federal gov has jurisdiction on defining marriage; (2) same-sex marriage would be legal if parliament made it law; (3) religious officials will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages against their beliefs; (4) refused to say that current definition as being between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
If the above is correct then I have no problem with the ruling and in fact I agree with everything except that on item (4) should have been unequivocal that current definition is constitutional. What is the ruling: yes, the feds can define marriage (I say fine); yes, they can define it with or without including man-man or woman-woman (I say good); and yes, either way they can't force it on religious groups (I say good). Basically the ruling is clarifying jurisdiction and saying that it is up to parliament to set the law.
The horseshit starts when Paul Martin erroneously contends it is a"Charter" issue. It would only be a "Charter" issue if the Santa suits said man-woman exclusivity were unconstitutional, which it hasn't. Personally I don't think it violates the "Charter" since there is no group rights in the "Charter" and the law grants every man and woman the same right to marry one willing person of the opposite sex. If it were a"Charter" issue then we know the Liberals won't use the notwithstanding clause, but if it is part of the constitution and if parliament sees fit then it should use the notwithstanding clause. A future government would have the option of reversing bad legislation and using the notwithstanding clause if needed.
The interesting thing will be on the civil law. Provinces cannot use the notwithstanding clause to overrule on federal jurisdiction so they are stuck with how parliament defines marriage. However, they are the masters of the civil rights for the vast majority of citizens. Pension, benefits, succession, hospital visitation, ... laws that can all be redrafted to not reference "marriage" but rather go back to woman-man as they so wish. If the Santa suits say unconstitutional then the notwithstanding clause can be used as desired as these laws are within provincial jurisdiction.
See, the courts may be annoying but they aren't always wrong and they aren't always the problem. The problem here is the Liberal agenda (ifyou don't agree with it) and their scheming, dishonest promotion of their agenda.
