Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

[cobl04]

This is a really great article on a singer from Australia. He's religious, and he became the poster boy for conservative religious organisations when he won Australian Idol.

Check out these quotes in particular.

"I still believe in God, I still believe in the fundamentals of that. But I base it on the fact God is love. I don't feel God is what people have said He is throughout generations. For me it's a faith. People sometimes lose the concept of faith. I don't know if there's only one God, I don't know if there's a God, I just have a faith that there is. That's what I've grown up with. But the minute it starts to become about hate, I switch off."
Sebastian's eyes were opened when a male friend he grew up with came out as gay - and fled overseas out of fear of the flak he might cop from the church.
"He moved countries, he was that scared about the whole religious thing because he was brought up in the church. My friends and I were like, 'Dude, why did you leave, what did you think we would say?' It became not a big deal at all.
"Look at gay marriage. I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone who they can and can't be in love with. You look back at the unfair things that happen in history, and this will be looked back on as one of those things.
"People will think 'Oh my gosh, I can't believe the world was in that state, that they held those views'. It's pretty unfair for people to not claim the same benefits; that's ridiculous."


Read more: Losing my religion: Sebastian | News.com.au

It's really not that hard to be Christian and not a cunt at the same time, like so many Christian conservatives who have made the news recently.

 

[Galeongirl]

And that's the difference between faith, or believing, and religion. There's no hate in having faith, no calling others inferior, not looking down on people because they look different, talk different, or have different sexual orientation.
Faith is a personal thing, not forced down other people's throats.

I see faith as a beautiful thing. I wish I could believe in something like that.

Religion though? I don't see anything good abotu that. At all.

Especially on this topic. People use it as an excuse to be homophobic or xenophobic. It's really weird how that seems to be acceptable.

 

[digitize]

And that's the difference between faith, or believing, and religion. There's no hate in having faith, no calling others inferior, not looking down on people because they look different, talk different, or have different sexual orientation.
Faith is a personal thing, not forced down other people's throats.

I see faith as a beautiful thing. I wish I could believe in something like that.

Religion though? I don't see anything good abotu that. At all.

Especially on this topic. People use it as an excuse to be homophobic or xenophobic. It's really weird how that seems to be acceptable.

Even though I don't fully agree with you, that was very beautifully stated.

 

[Pearl]

And that's the difference between faith, or believing, and religion. There's no hate in having faith, no calling others inferior, not looking down on people because they look different, talk different, or have different sexual orientation.
Faith is a personal thing, not forced down other people's throats.

I see faith as a beautiful thing. I wish I could believe in something like that.

Religion though? I don't see anything good abotu that. At all.

Especially on this topic. People use it as an excuse to be homophobic or xenophobic. It's really weird how that seems to be acceptable.

Totally agree!

Religion is about seeing the world through human eyes. Faith/Spirituality is about seeing the world through God's eyes - and God doesn't hate, so therefore people of faith cannout hate.

 

[anitram]

It's really not that hard to be Christian and not a cunt at the same time, like so many Christian conservatives who have made the news recently.

I don't want to sound like I'm picking on you but it's also not that hard to make your point (which was very good) without using that word. I get that it doesn't bother everybody and that inevitably somebody will come around with the "reclaim the power" stuff, but the source of it is ugly, and the longer I spend on this planet as a woman, the more it bugs me to hear it tossed around. Especially from a young guy who probably really doesn't get why.

Just a thought.

 

[Irvine511]

The intimidation, political bullying and rhetoric from politicians and SSM advocates related to recent events such as Chick-fil-A and the publishing of names and addresses of donors to causes opposed to SSM frankly scares the crap out of me. It's not only un-American but everything SSM supporters project on their opponents... it's borne of sheer hate.

sheer hate like this?

Sally Ride: Dead at 61

Sally Ride, the first U.S. female astronaut, died this year at 61 of pancreatic cancer. Most women live until their 80s. Something strange afoot?
Ride was married to a fellow astronaut from 1982 to 1987. But it was just revealed she had a ‘long time lesbian relationship’ of 27 years. Do the math: her 27 year relationship with a professor of school psychology (and co-founder of Sally Ride’s company) means that she got into that relationship in 1985, smack in the middle of her marriage. It would appear that her childhood friend broke up her marriage.

And Sally may have paid with some of her lifespan. Our latest research into recent homosexual obituaries from San Francisco indicates that lesbians are dying on average around 60ish. Ride fits the pattern of lesbian deaths, but not that of married women’s deaths, which usually extend into the early-to-mid 80s.

Is this proof that homosexual activity leads to an early death? No, of course not. Had she stayed married, Sally Ride might have died at the same age and of the same malady. But, on average, her death fits a consistent pattern suggesting that homosexuality is associated with an early demise.

Family Research Institute ? Blog Archive ? FRR Aug 2012 — Protecting Homosexuality

don't you dare, FOR A SECOND, draw an equivocation between the passion of SSM-supporters and this kind of actual, real, measured hatred that tries to tell gay kids that they're going to die young because they are gay.

 

[Galeongirl]

This reminds me also of the haters I got involved with on a facebook post a couple days ago.

PETA has these kind of haters, though these guys were from ALF. I tried to reason with them, but they kept insisting I was blind and stupid, and that truly, we all are herbivores.

Yep, you heard me. Herbivores. Totally. Even when I stated our intestines and teeth don't agree, they said the exact same thing and gave me a PETA link stating otherwise, comparing us to carnivores of herbivores. They had never heard of the word Omnivore. Because we totally don't look like bears, guys!
In the end, I stated pretty much that I got tired and that I hoped they picked up a book sometimes to read actual facts(which, hilariously enough they told me earlier when I stated biological facts. Which I happen to know as I study biochemistry, lol). And that I would enjoy my steak on their account. To that, they lovingly told me they hoped BSE and Creutzfeld Jacob's disease would make a quick return.

How tolerant and loving and free spirited is that?

It's maybe a bit different, but really, is it? These people are so overconvinced of their wrong and bigoted 'truths', they feel it's their right to insult everyone who does otherwise? Why? What makes them better than us?

I like your statement Pearl. Indeed I do believe, that if there is a god, he doesn't hate. People do that, and they blame God to it. All this violence in the name of god, allah or whatever you want to call him. Is that really what faith is about? I highly doubt it!

 

[BVS]

sheer hate like this?

"And Sally may have paid with some of her lifespan. Our latest research into recent homosexual obituaries from San Francisco indicates that lesbians are dying on average around 60ish. Ride fits the pattern of lesbian deaths, but not that of married women’s deaths, which usually extend into the early-to-mid 80s."

This is truly groundbreaking stuff...

Irvine, why do you hate science?

 

[cobl04]

I don't want to sound like I'm picking on you but it's also not that hard to make your point (which was very good) without using that word. I get that it doesn't bother everybody and that inevitably somebody will come around with the "reclaim the power" stuff, but the source of it is ugly, and the longer I spend on this planet as a woman, the more it bugs me to hear it tossed around. Especially from a young guy who probably really doesn't get why.

Just a thought.

Sorry, I won't use it here anymore. I know the connotations. It has just become a part of my lexicon.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Thanks, cobl, for sharing that, that was very well-stated.

As for religion, I've no problem with it in and of itself, and certainly am all for faith and spirituality in people's lives. I have issues with organized religion, because of the fact that people can hide any sorts of prejudices or discriminations under the, "Well, it's my religion, this is what we believe" statement. That always bugs me.

But making religion a more personal thing, being a part of an organized religion because of the good things it can bring (a sense of community and people who can help you through tough times or with questions specifically related to said religion, getting together to praise and worship and celebrate) yet not being afraid to question said religion when it does or says things you may not personally agree with, coming to the answers you're seeking in the way you feel most comfortable with? All of that I'm absolutely fine with and encourage.

And on that note, I saw a letter in my local paper today from a religious person that I thought was absolutely awesome and worth sharing. Here's the snippet that best pertains to the topic at hand in this thread:

Jesus never rode an elephant

I believe in higher education, and those wishing to attend college should have access to Pell Grants that will help them to achieve their goals. I believe in preserving Medicare for the elderly; they deserve more than a voucher that leaves them to fend for themselves. I believe that everyone was created equal and everyone should be entitled to the same basic human rights regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. I believe that women deserve equal pay for equal work and I believe that Jesus believed in helping the poor.

The whole thing is awesome, though, and here's a link to the full letter if you wish to read it. As is often the case, I don't recommend scrolling through the comment section, though :

Jesus never rode an elephant (Editor's Inbox)

 

[Axver]

Australian Senate today rejected a Greens motion that would have ruled out legal challenges to state-based marriage equality laws. Damn.

 

[INDY500]

pointing out areas... that invites shades of gray, and seeing both sides of something, and we can't have that.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever a gay couple should be denied the chance to be married to each other and have their marriage recognized by law.

Now, your top quote is from back a page but it points out an inconsistency that many posters have here. Those that so proudly claim to see shades of gray and nuance in all things are 100% black & white on the issue of SSM. They see no complexity in this issue despite holding a view that is contrary to the teachings of ALL major religions as well as the laws, customs and traditions of the past 100 generations.

No, you just went on a massively glowing post about how our country is so much better than everyone else's, and insinuated that those of us who disagreed even slightly were "indoctrinated" and "anti-American".

Actually what I said is that one that is indoctrinated would only respond emotionally with anger and smears, which we saw, but that an educated person might offer a retort, which Kieran McConville and Galeongirl provided. I wish more people would give us a "glowing post" about their country now and then actually, nationalism is not a bad thing.

Heck, I think the "Feel good stories" thread alone is full of examples of America and its people at its best, and I can list my own personal examples of where I think this country gets it right. Plus, people like to complain about anything. I complain, you complain, everyone complains. That's life. It doesn't mean, however, that we "haven't learned how to appreciate or defend" our country's good moments.

That's a good point.

 

[INDY500]

Pardon me, I haven't seen you up in arms over various ballot initiatives to overturn the legislative process. The referendum in Washington State being but one example.

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...r-same-sex-marriage-204380-3.html#post6626257

01-20-2010

3 weeks after gay marriage law, NH takes up repeal

CONCORD, N.H. -- Three weeks after the state legalized gay marriage, opponents on Wednesday asked a House committee to repeal the law.

Gay marriage opponents want the law repealed and also want to change the state constitution to ban the unions.

In recent weeks, opponents began a grass-roots effort to challenge the law indirectly by suggesting New Hampshire's 400 House members and 24 senators aren't representative of the people's wishes. They point out that in the 31 states where voters have had a say, gay marriage has been rejected.

I admit to being torn on this one. We have a representative democracy which means we don't vote directly on everything. If same-sex marriage is to become law this is the "legitimate" route in my opinion.

Actually I've been very consistent as you now can see. Now to address this:

When I asked INDY about how the Canadian society had disintegrated once gay marriage was legalized he actually pointed me to an article in which Michael Coren (a well-known homophobe and bigot - but I'm sure INDY doesn't know a thing about him) complained that his rights had been curtailed because there was an increase in complaints filed with the various provincial human rights tribunals in the wake of gay marriage being legalized. In other words, our country had gone to shit because gays started to insist that their rights be respected.

"Disintegrated" and "gone to shit" are your gross exaggerations of course. But let's read something from a Jonathan turley article from this week on free speech in the West:

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech - The Washington Post

(on page 3)
Canada outlaws “any writing, sign or visible representation” that “incites hatred against any identifiable group.” These laws ban speech based not only on its content but on the reaction of others. Speakers are often called to answer for their divisive or insulting speech before bodies like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This month, a Canadian court ruled that Marc Lemire, the webmaster of a far-right political site, could be punished for allowing third parties to leave insulting comments about homosexuals and blacks on the site. Echoing the logic behind blasphemy laws, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that “the minimal harm caused . . . to freedom of expression is far outweighed by the benefit it provides to vulnerable groups and to the promotion of equality.”

In Canada, comedian Guy Earle was charged with violating the human rights of a lesbian couple after he got into a trash-talking session with a group of women during an open-mike night at a nightclub. Lorna Pardysaid she suffered post-traumatic stress because of Earle’s profane language and derogatory terms for lesbians. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled last year that since this was a matter of discrimination, free speech was not a defense, and awarded about $23,000 to the couple.

Ironically, while some religious organizations are pushing blasphemy laws, religious individuals are increasingly targeted under anti-discrimination laws for their criticism of homosexuals and other groups. In 2008, a minister in Canada was not only forced to pay fines for uttering anti-gay sentiments but was also enjoined from expressing such views in the future.

So you see, the real problem is that bigots can't be bigoted in public anymore.

Which, however one feels about SSM, should be considered truly dangerous to a free society, especially when "bigotry" or "hate speech" is in the eye (or ear) of the offended. A point that sadly alludes some of you.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Actually what I said is that one that is indoctrinated would only respond emotionally with anger and smears, which we saw, but that an educated person might offer a retort, which Kieran McConville and Galeongirl provided. I wish more people would give us a "glowing post" about their country now and then actually, nationalism is not a bad thing.

Please explain?

 

[INDY500]

I can't stand misplaced patriotism, but I'm proud to live in a country dominated by modern, educated decisions

From the Toronto School Board web page as well as the walls of all schools.

Stickers/Posters

 

[INDY500]

I can't stand misplaced patriotism, but I'm proud to live in a country dominated by modern, educated decisions

From the Toronto School Board web page as well as the walls of all Toronto schools.

Stickers/Posters

The two daddies and a mom stick figure is interesting but SSM marriage would never open the door for polygamy would it?

"Masculine and feminine are labels not definitions." Same-sex marriage is definitely not part of a broader attack on gender specificity and you'd be crazy to think so. Which is why:

There's no reason boys can't wear dresses and if you're a "modern, educated" parent... nothing to see here.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Now, your top quote is from back a page but it points out an inconsistency that many posters have here. Those that so proudly claim to see shades of gray and nuance in all things are 100% black & white on the issue of SSM. They see no complexity in this issue despite holding a view that is contrary to the teachings of ALL major religions as well as the laws, customs and traditions of the past 100 generations.

Except that we have noted there are shades of gray on this issue. There are people who are against same sex marriage because they're against marriage altogether. And there are gay people who are opposed to it for their own reasons. And there are people who are personally opposed to it but don't think it's the government's place to regulate such things (you know, small government interference, and all that sort of thing).

But those people aren't out in full force actively trying to stop gay people from getting married, at least, not to my knowledge. You can believe whatever you want about this issue, but there is a vast difference between personally having issue with such things for your own variety of reasons and actively trying to deny people the right to get married because your religion says it's wrong or because it's what "customs" and "tradition" states. You're going to need to come up with something stronger than that, and the anti-gay marriage side has yet to do such a thing. Every argument they come up with has been easily debunked-look back through this thread and previous same-sex marriage threads and you'll see how filmsy at best the arguments are.

It always winds up coming back to, "Well, my religion says it's wrong", and to that I say, "So what?" Pro or anti-gay, I honestly couldn't care less what hundreds of years worth of generations, or any religion, or whatever, have to say on this topic. Those people's time periods were different and they didn't have the knowledge about the issue then that we do now, and we don't base our laws on any one religion. All I know is that two men or two women are in love (and fully consenting, legal age, yada yada yada, 'cause apparently this needs to be clarified...). As a result, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to be open to the same rights and privileges I would get to enjoy with a man. I don't see why this is something that I need to be bothered by, or try and stop. I don't see why some religious people, who talk all the time about the sanctity of marriage and how valuable it is to our society, and how it's important to "love thy neighbor", would be against this. They want to be married. They are fighting hard to be able to be part of an institution that is supposedly so sacred and valuable and meaningful. Why do you think you need to stop them from being part of that?

This is something I have asked a zillion times in this thread, and what I, above anything else I've asked, want an answer to: Why do you and others who think along the same lines as you on this issue think it's your place, your right, to tell others what to do with their love lives, to decide who can and can't get married?

And besides that, discriminating against people is a wee bit different on the black and white/gray scale than the "criticism of this country is tied to indoctrination/anti-Americanism" situation.

Actually what I said is that one that is indoctrinated would only respond emotionally with anger and smears, which we saw, but that an educated person might offer a retort, which Kieran McConville and Galeongirl provided. I wish more people would give us a "glowing post" about their country now and then actually, nationalism is not a bad thing.

When the country, or individuals in said country, does something that is worth praising, trust me, we'll praise away. Again, we go with what the thread relates to. This one is likely to invite criticism of our country (Australians are doing the same with their nation over this issue, after all, in this thread).

And I wouldn't say people who react with anger and smears are indoctrinated. I would say they're reacting that way because many people would feel it's rather offensive for someone to presume they are "indoctrinated" simply because they may not agree on an issue, or are critical about something. They could perhaps word their disagreement better, but when they feel insulted, rational responses don't always come about right away.

That's a good point.

A moment of agreement .

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The two daddies and a mom stick figure is interesting but SSM marriage would never open the door for polygamy would it?

Has yet to take hold here in my state, so...nope.

Meanwhile, Utah hasn't legalized gay marriage, and hey, look at all the polygamists living there! And then there was that big polygamist compound in Texas that got busted a few years ago, and that state hasn't legalized gay marriage, either. Hm.

"Masculine and feminine are labels not definitions." Same-sex marriage is definitely not part of a broader attack on gender specificity and you'd be crazy to think so.

Yes. You would be crazy to think such a thing. So stop reaching.

There's no reason boys can't wear dresses and if you're a "modern, educated" parent... nothing to see here.

Given that there's been plenty of guys who have done such a thing and yet somehow have turned out all right, no, there isn't anything unusual to see here.

 

[INDY500]

It really is like you're proud of your ignorance.

You're what's wrong with America, but you're too ignorant and arrogant to realize it

Have I ever personally attacked either of you? Please ignore me if you can't be passionate and civil at the same time.

 

[Jive Turkey]

From the Toronto School Board web page as well as the walls of all Toronto schools.

The two daddies and a mom stick figure is interesting but SSM marriage would never open the door for polygamy would it?

I'll go ahead and assume you saw the posters and read nothing else whatsoever about it, or else you wouldn't be posting it.

"Masculine and feminine are labels not definitions." Same-sex marriage is definitely not part of a broader attack on gender specificity and you'd be crazy to think so.

I've met some pretty masculine women and some pretty feminine men. What's your point? Those with dicks are masculine and those with vaginas are feminine?

There's no reason boys can't wear dresses and if you're a "modern, educated" parent... nothing to see here.

oooooh, I see. Your point is that we should try and nib it in the bud before it becomes a problem! Honestly man, what are you trying to get across? Because it would really seem that you have a problem with children either knowing about homosexuality or knowing from an early age that they might be homosexual themselves. I hope I'm wrong, but that post, more than any other of yours, really seems to point toward a distaste of the idea that people might be gay before.. I dont know.. the age of majority or some other arbitrary age

 

[Jive Turkey]

Have I ever personally attacked either of you? Please ignore me if you can't be passionate and civil at the same time.

actually, no. I'm erasing what I first wrote and saying: Indy, I'm sure if we met in real life I'd think you're a fine person. Shit on here gets blown up more than it should. I honestly mean that

 

[Galeongirl]

There's no reason boys can't wear dresses and if you're a "modern, educated" parent... nothing to see here.

Didn't expect to ever say this, but for the first time we agree on something here.

Gender stereotypes are exactly that. Stereotypes.

As a kid, I preferred to play with action figures and lego rather than dolls and make up. Man. I must be some butch lesbian then!


Oh wait. No actually, I turned out quite straight and fine with that. Shocking, eh? Why not let kids be kids? Find their own path?

 

[anitram]

actually, no. I'm erasing what I first wrote and saying: Indy, I'm sure if we met in real life I'd think you're a fine person. Shit on here gets blown up more than it should. I honestly mean that

I would agree.

INDY, I actually do feel that you have been personal but in the vein of JT's post I generally separate delivery and staunchness here from real life people.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Ok, wanna talk nationalism? Let's talk nationalism. Let's boogie. The secret ballot (aka the Australian ballot) and compulsory voting. The US should adopt the latter. Clean out the stables. I rest my case.

 

[anitram]

Actually I've been very consistent as you now can see.

I am not sure how you saying that you are "torn" one time demonstrates that you have been as strong of a supporter of legislated gay marriage as you have been a supporter of anti-SSM marriage. I respect that you recognize the difference in the process but even in that post I sensed that you still had issues with the outcome.

Which, however one feels about SSM, should be considered truly dangerous to a free society, especially when "bigotry" or "hate speech" is in the eye (or ear) of the offended. A point that sadly alludes some of you.

There are lots of issues to take with that article. It is very clearly written by somebody who has read a lot about our legal system but isn't actually familiar with how it operates or the context.

We should begin by recognizing that Canada is not the best country to compare the US to with respect to free speech because our constitutional documents do not place the emphasis on the same things and your free speech clause reads differently than our section on freedom of expression under the Charter.

Now for the boring law lesson. Section 15 of the Charter states that every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection under, and equal benefit of, the law. It also enumerates grounds for discrimination, which include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. These grounds are an example, and you have section 15 protection so long as you can demonstrate that you have been discriminated against on an analogous ground. Back in the mid-90s, our Supreme Court found that sexual orientation was implicitly read into section 15 and thus, is an analogous ground. From that point on, legalization of SSM was the obvious conclusion. All these articles that you post suggest that suddenly there is a rash of cases being brought before the federal and provincial human rights tribunals (which you should be aware of are not courts and therefore have very limited powers, particularly when it comes to enforcement - constitutional litigation, that is to say Charter litigation is extremely expensive and therefore it is almost never undertaken except in some landmark case where you have big firms willing to go pro bono). Well the reason that these cases are popping up isn't that there is a concerted effort to stifle free speech, it's because sexual orientation was not considered a discriminatory ground until the mid-90s! It sure sounds insane, but there are still states in the US where you're free to fire somebody for being gay. In Canada, equal protection under the law extends to every aspect of the law. The reason you have more complaints to the tribunals is because discrimination which was previously legal (if immoral, IMO) is now no longer legal. The percentage of cases argued on freedom of expression grounds before the tribunals is TINY. Most of these cases encompass things like landlord/tenant issues, workplace harassment and other workplace issues like constructive dismissal, educational/bullying issues in schools, sexual harassment.

It is by no means that our tribunals sit and exist for the purpose of curtailing free speech. The fact that you can find articles that point to some seemingly harsh findings (without context and without the benefit of reading the judgment) doesn't tell us anything other than some journalist took the time to find them. If you gave any one of us a day to comb through US judicial or quasi-judicial findings, do you think that we wouldn't be able to find absurd, out-of-context quotes or seemingly absurd findings to prove that the US is anti-free speech or is anti-women or is anti-vegetarians? Legal judgments are just like statistics - you can always find ones to support any position. That does not mean that the spirit of the law is interpreted thusly in the nation on the whole.

But perhaps the most operative section of our Charter is section 1, which actually permits the government to curtail the rights of individuals which are set out in the Charter. In short, it allows the government to, in very limited circumstances curtail your freedom of speech. The test is very onerous and very steep, and without going into the many prongs of it and turning this into a first year constitutional law exam, essentially the onus is on the government to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the curtailment of your rights is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are may requirements, but basically for your freedom of speech to be restricted, there must be a pressing and substantial objective and the means must be proportional: they must be rationally connected to the objective, the impairment of rights must be minimal and there must be proportionality between the infringement and the objective. If this test is met, then you may not have absolute freedom of speech like you do in the US. I really should emphasize that it is only in extreme circumstances that such tests are actually met.

So you can take the position that we have less freedom of speech in Canada and are thus less free. I think when this position is taken it is usually taken by uninformed people who don't really understand the context and can't be bothered to find out. But again, our countries are not a good comparison for freedom of speech cases because we prioritize different things in different ways. A mere look at your "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" as contrasted with our analogous language of "peace, order and good government" should be a relatively simplistic, yet useful tool in informing the difference.

Do I prefer the Canadian model? Yes, because as somebody who has lived (as a practicing lawyer) and worked in both countries, I prefer the flexibility of one over the rigid constitutional analysis of the other which treats the founding fathers as if they had the foresight of God and penned a document that was equally as relevant in 50, 200, or 650 years. But that is simply my own preference. The difference between you, INDY, and most people outside of the US is that we are able to recognize that our countries have some very good aspects and some things that need to be improved, but we don't need to go screaming from the rooftops that we are humanity's last great hope (to be honest, the only way I can react to such a statement is with laughter).

 

[PhilsFan]

There are very few political issues that are right-and-wrong. Two, by my count: same-sex marriage and capital punishment. Everything else is shades of gray.

 

[INDY500]

oooooh, I see. Your point is that we should try and nib it in the bud before it becomes a problem! Honestly man, what are you trying to get across? Because it would really seem that you have a problem with children either knowing about homosexuality or knowing from an early age that they might be homosexual themselves.

Are you implying that gay men typically wear girl's clothes as boys? Seems sorta like stereotyping. No, I don't mind "tom girls" or boys that don't care for girls, it's the move towards gender-neutral child-rearing I think is crap. It will cause just as much harm, ill-prepare children for the real world, as the self-esteem movement has. IMO

 

[INDY500]

I am not sure how you saying that you are "torn" one time demonstrates that you have been as strong of a supporter of legislated gay marriage as you have been a supporter of anti-SSM marriage. I respect that you recognize the difference in the process but even in that post I sensed that you still had issues with the outcome.



There are lots of issues to take with that article. It is very clearly written by somebody who has read a lot about our legal system but isn't actually familiar with how it operates or the context.

We should begin by recognizing that Canada is not the best country to compare the US to with respect to free speech because our constitutional documents do not place the emphasis on the same things and your free speech clause reads differently than our section on freedom of expression under the Charter.

Now for the boring law lesson. Section 15 of the Charter states that every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection under, and equal benefit of, the law. It also enumerates grounds for discrimination, which include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. These grounds are an example, and you have section 15 protection so long as you can demonstrate that you have been discriminated against on an analogous ground. Back in the mid-90s, our Supreme Court found that sexual orientation was implicitly read into section 15 and thus, is an analogous ground. From that point on, legalization of SSM was the obvious conclusion. All these articles that you post suggest that suddenly there is a rash of cases being brought before the federal and provincial human rights tribunals (which you should be aware of are not courts and therefore have very limited powers, particularly when it comes to enforcement - constitutional litigation, that is to say Charter litigation is extremely expensive and therefore it is almost never undertaken except in some landmark case where you have big firms willing to go pro bono). Well the reason that these cases are popping up isn't that there is a concerted effort to stifle free speech, it's because sexual orientation was not considered a discriminatory ground until the mid-90s! It sure sounds insane, but there are still states in the US where you're free to fire somebody for being gay. In Canada, equal protection under the law extends to every aspect of the law. The reason you have more complaints to the tribunals is because discrimination which was previously legal (if immoral, IMO) is now no longer legal. The percentage of cases argued on freedom of expression grounds before the tribunals is TINY. Most of these cases encompass things like landlord/tenant issues, workplace harassment and other workplace issues like constructive dismissal, educational/bullying issues in schools, sexual harassment.

It is by no means that our tribunals sit and exist for the purpose of curtailing free speech. The fact that you can find articles that point to some seemingly harsh findings (without context and without the benefit of reading the judgment) doesn't tell us anything other than some journalist took the time to find them. If you gave any one of us a day to comb through US judicial or quasi-judicial findings, do you think that we wouldn't be able to find absurd, out-of-context quotes or seemingly absurd findings to prove that the US is anti-free speech or is anti-women or is anti-vegetarians? Legal judgments are just like statistics - you can always find ones to support any position. That does not mean that the spirit of the law is interpreted thusly in the nation on the whole.

But perhaps the most operative section of our Charter is section 1, which actually permits the government to curtail the rights of individuals which are set out in the Charter. In short, it allows the government to, in very limited circumstances curtail your freedom of speech. The test is very onerous and very steep, and without going into the many prongs of it and turning this into a first year constitutional law exam, essentially the onus is on the government to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the curtailment of your rights is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are may requirements, but basically for your freedom of speech to be restricted, there must be a pressing and substantial objective and the means must be proportional: they must be rationally connected to the objective, the impairment of rights must be minimal and there must be proportionality between the infringement and the objective. If this test is met, then you may not have absolute freedom of speech like you do in the US. I really should emphasize that it is only in extreme circumstances that such tests are actually met.

So you can take the position that we have less freedom of speech in Canada and are thus less free. I think when this position is taken it is usually taken by uninformed people who don't really understand the context and can't be bothered to find out. But again, our countries are not a good comparison for freedom of speech cases because we prioritize different things in different ways. A mere look at your "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" as contrasted with our analogous language of "peace, order and good government" should be a relatively simplistic, yet useful tool in informing the difference.

Do I prefer the Canadian model? Yes, because as somebody who has lived (as a practicing lawyer) and worked in both countries, I prefer the flexibility of one over the rigid constitutional analysis of the other which treats the founding fathers as if they had the foresight of God and penned a document that was equally as relevant in 50, 200, or 650 years. But that is simply my own preference. The difference between you, INDY, and most people outside of the US is that we are able to recognize that our countries have some very good aspects and some things that need to be improved, but we don't need to go screaming from the rooftops that we are humanity's last great hope (to be honest, the only way I can react to such a statement is with laughter).

Thanks for your answer, if its ok I'll paste your answer in a new thread dealing with freedom of speech which I'll start after the election. I think the subject is not only interesting but of great importance.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Are you implying that gay men typically wear girl's clothes as boys? Seems sorta like stereotyping. No, I don't mind "tom girls" or boys that don't care for girls, it's the move towards gender-neutral child-rearing I think is crap. It will cause just as much harm, ill-prepare children for the real world, as the self-esteem movement has. IMO

Not all, but I'm sure some might That poster just seems to be saying "if a boy wants to wear a wig for fun, it's not a big deal". I think you're just taking it the wrong way. We probably have similar thoughts on 'gender neutral' child rearing. Nothing wrong with painting a boy's room blue and a girl's pink. But if the boy decides at some point that he wants to play with My Little Pony, I don't think that's a problem either. I've said in other threads that gender roles aren't always bad, but you have to let people stray from them if they choose

 

[INDY500]

This is something I have asked a zillion times in this thread, and what I, above anything else I've asked, want an answer to: Why do you and others who think along the same lines as you on this issue think it's your place, your right, to tell others what to do with their love lives, to decide who can and can't get married?

As I've pointed out, all societies have and do define, limit and "decide who can and can't get married" based on numerous criteria. You seem to have a more libertarian (and consistent in my opinion) view of marriage but unless you're an anarchist you would discriminate against someone's "love" as well.