Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Answering My Critic -- Part 4

Anyone who is reading this gets it by now, so I'm dispensing with the explanation.

7. What the Conservatives have purposed to do is deny same-sex couples the right to marry by singling them out using the 'not withstanding" clause. hence denying them the right to practice there own religion. This is not a "Liberal scare tactic" this is the truth, this is the result.

Wrong. The notwithstanding clause is not necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. Buy into the propaganda if you want, but constitutional scholars say it isn't (link to document-- THIS IS A PDF) Besides, the notwithstanding clause is a valid tool for government -- apparently the drafters of the constitution thought it was both valid and necessary.

And -- denying who the right to practice their own religion? --- what, there's a religion of gay now? or is that cult-Liberal.

8. Religion is something that has long been separated from the state, and where as the people want it to remain this way, the Conservatives want to change it. If the people agreed with them, the Conservatives would have won the election. I don't think I have to point out they didn't.

Like the US, we don't have a state religion, but we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which recognizes the supremacy of God. The constitution, BTW was written while we were under a Liberal government. The tenets of this Charter of Rights and constitution are derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage.

You are implying that everyone must agree with SSM because the Conservatives didn't win the election. I am saying the Conservatives didn't win the election because the Liberals cleverly marginalized the moderate position. Many members of the Liberal party don't agree with the Liberal position. They voted against it, and many others would have if they'd been allowed a free vote, but they weren't because Mr. Democratic Deficit knew that if they could vote their consciences the bill would fail and then the Conservatives couldn't be painted as bigots, because they would have to concede that if Conservatives who are against same-sex marriage are bigots, Liberals who are against it must be too.

. . . only a few more to go.

3 comments:

Les Mackenzie said...

I believe 36 Liberal cabinet members to be exact - but I'll have to check with the wife, she handles all the SSM, pro-life stuff ;)

'Peg City Kid said...

7. As stated in that very document, it is an opinion, and the first one I've heard stating that.

However, legal expert after legal expert, lawyer after lawyer I think the article said 134, have stated that yes, the government will need to enact the "not withstanding" clause in order to the definition. I guess he's right, all one-hundred and thirty-four legal experts were all playing politics, and this innocent kind soul felt the need to show us this. I'm laughing out loud.

Let me get this straight? what reason would someone have for not performing a ceremony in a certain hall?

Was it ok to force African Americans to drink from separate fountains? ride at the back of the bus? be excluded from certain events?

And no, there is nothing in the constitution defending SSM, that's the point.

I sorry Canadian this is just stupid.

As you said:

"And -- denying who the right to practice their own religion? --- what, there's a religion of gay now? or is that cult-Liberal."

Is marriage not a part of Christianity? Judaism? the teachings of Islam?

Is arrogance cult-conservative? Did you have to write some sort of test to be conservative?

Bravo Canadians!! You've really outdone yourself this time.

this is getting a bit tedious.

8. Just like I tell Americans, things change. You either adapt or die.

Canadianna, I'm saying your wrong. The Liberals won the election becuase THE PEOPLE vote for them.
but your right, you have the freedom of speech and you say, and think whatever it is you want.Whatever Canadianna, think what you want. I'm not going to sit here and humor you wacky conspiracy theories. If that's all you got you should find something else to do.

Did you have a chance to read the first point? Or the second point for that matter?

Besides, Many of the conservatives don't agree with Conservative position. Conservatives have spoken out against Harper policy on SSM and Abortion issues, so?

Canadi-anna said...

Just because this is the first you've heard, doesn't mean it's any more wrong the 'opinions' of the lawyers you're citing. The difference is, they are trying to push an agenda. Almost all of them have party affiliations, or are known for the advocacy on gay rights issues. Bias comes into every argument --from both sides.

If you think it's getting tedious for you, you can leave. I can't leave unanswered accusations on my blog because that's like conceding defeat. So long as you continue to challenge, I will face the challenge. If you're bored, move on.

Trying to equate segregation with the SSM debate is specious. We're not talking about basic civil liberties, we're talking about an institution that is subject to limitations by its very definition. You are advocating change to the definition and I am not. That doesn't equate to hating gays and lesbians or thinking they are inferior or sitting them at the back of the bus. It means they don't fit the criteria for marriage.

And many Liberals don't agree on the Liberal side. Who cares? My opinions aren't based on the Conservative party line.