Be content with his wrongness. If he was right more often he might actually become prime minister and you wouldn't want that, would you?

Quite right - but wasn't it nice when Tories were actually a plausible alternative? There was actually tension as to the prospect of a Tory government coming into power and doing things. Now they end up like this - doofusses.

There's an 'expert' writing an opinion in the Globe today who thinks Harper is making sense. I've posted the url as my web page. I just wondered what you would say about his position.

I did the Jimmy Carter test and I too am 90 percent Carter. The test said that only 1.6 percent shared my views which made me wonder at the coincidence at meeting so many other Jimmy Carters here on this blog. I guess it isn't really a coincidence what with this being the Canadian chapter of the Jimmy Carter fan club and all.

Jimmie, baybee!

I think that the test was written by the Carter Foundation!<p>On the Harper test, I think that the author is making a point which misses the point. Harper is saying that if he were PM, which will happen after the Federal law on marriage comes in, then he will use the notwithstanding clause to override it. The author of the article presumes that Harper is acting on the absense of a statute, is he not. Here is the key content of the article:<blockquote class="smalltext">...in R. v. Swain, the Supreme Court of Canada said that, where a common-law rule is challenged, the court will not show the same deference to the policy of the rule as it will when legislation is at issue, since no question of respect for the democratic will arises. For all we know, therefore, courts may uphold heterosexual-only marriage as a reasonable limit on the right against discrimination when the restriction comes from a democratic body.<p>Of course, the betting odds lie heavily against such an eventuality, but the legal experts claimed to be stating the law, not predicting judicial behaviour. It is true, as professor Sujit Choudhry says, that the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down a legislated restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples, but it goes without saying that the Quebec court cannot decide for the whole country. Accordingly, the constitutionality of federal legislation reaffirming the common-law definition of marriage is still an open question.</blockquote> I am in a rush answering that so I may see it differently after the whistle blows a la Freddie Flintstone.

The <i>Swain</i> ruling is not a section 33 ruling, it is a ruling about section 52(1) of the constitution. That section states:<blockquote class="smalltext">52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.</blockquote><p>Lamer for a thin majority of the <i>Swain</i>-era Supreme Court wrote:<blockquote class="smalltext">In cases where legislative provisions have been challenged under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 this Court has been cognizant of the fact that such provisions are enacted by an elected body which must respond to the competing interests of different groups in society and which must always consider the polycentric aspects of any given course of action. For this reason, this Court has indicated that Parliament need not always choose the absolutely least intrusive means to attain its objectives, but must come within a range of means which impair Charter rights as little as is reasonably possible. However, as was indicated above, in cases where a common law, judge-made rule is challenged under the Charter, there is no room for judicial deference. In my view, the existing common law rule which allows the Crown, in certain circumstances, to raise evidence of insanity over and above the accused's wishes and which thereby interferes with the principle of fundamental justice that an accused must have control over the conduct of his or her defence, must be subjected to a rigorous examination under s. 1. In other words, the least intrusive common law rule which will attain the objectives without disproportionately affecting rights must be adopted by the Court.</blockquote>So while it is true that the same deference will not apply, it is still true that some important deference is given. Alan Brudner, a law professor at the University of Toronto and the author of that article did not speak about that. The <i>Swain</i> ruling states <i>"the least intrusive common law rule which will attain the objectives without disproportionately affecting rights must be adopted by the Court"</i>. <p>So the question is not wide open, it is still requires Court to make a principled inquiry and determine an outcome.

Harper's possible amendments:

1. Marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
2. Nothing in this Act shall prohibit the Legislature of any Province from encacting provincial legislation which allows for registration of civil unions of two persons, to the exclusion of all others, and the Divorce Act and all other Federal legislation dealing with marriage, shall apply to such civil unions in the same manner as such legislation applies to those relationships which fall within the meaning of section 1 above.

Would this accomplish Harper's goals and pass the Charter test (even though the Supremes haven't actually been given the priviledge of ruling on this issue)?

# 1 is fine as it is not exclusive in that it would not stop the common law marriage definition to continue which allows same-sex. It only bars heterosexuals from being polygamous. The first half of #2 is not possible as it is a nullity. The Feds cannot say what a province may or may not do. Because #1 does not achieve the bar on the commonlaw same sex marriage, the effect on #2 is not excluding either. What you really have to do for Harper is to say that "marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman only to the exclusion of all others" and that would not pass the Charter test as the court has already said a civil union is not the equivalent of marriage. <p>The real problem faced is there is no detrimental effect which has ever been shown on opposite sex civil marriage by allowing same sex civil marriage. If there were it would be also possible to say that white males have suffered by letting visible minorities and women have an equal place in education and the workplace. The economic disadvantage of losing privilege is not a reason to undue to unequal treatment which causes the privilege. The real break-through for religious is the affirmation on the separateness and importance of the religious experience. If a person wants a religious ceremony, he or she will have to actually participate as opposed to treating a church or other religious congregation as some kind of civic official, demanding the right to a church marriage.

Alan sez:
"If there were it would be also possible to say that white males have suffered by letting visible minorities and women have an equal place in education and the workplace."

Actually, I'm not sure if this works as an analogy because you could say that marriage is an infinite resource or something like that, and in any case, it's not a material resource it's a symbolic one, whereas the number of jobs is, by most people's reckoning, limited. If a job is given to one person, it can't be given to another.

In fact those who are opposed to this thing (and I am not among them) may feel that by including same sex relationships we are doing harm to their symbol.

Anyway, thanks for that. I think it will take me some time to decipher it, but thanks.

The Charter is about the dignity of humans over the dignity of symbols.

You are probably right. I'm kind of pro-people, anti-taking-symbols-too-seriously (or at least literally) myself. I guess that's why the Charter and I are old friends.

Please go read Chris Taylor on why same sex marriage is none of the state's business - from a socially conservative (prot?) Christian point of view. As a liberal Christian I may not agree with issues within the faith but do agree that the faith has no place in the civic realm other than as one point of view advocated freely by a component of the community. It should not govern, only the democractic princples should.

Let me ask this: when it is proposed that "marriage" for same-sex couples is a "basic, fundamental human right" (as stated by Justice Minister Colter et al), are not those who adhere to religious faiths which will always believe that "marriage" can only be the union of one man, one woman, to the exclusion of all other relationships, now to be branded (in this "rights" based society) as people who belong to organizations which would continue to deny human rights to others?

You cannot deny a human right when you have no power to enforce it. You can advocate that denial in a free society but you cannot use the society's power to enforce it. But, yes, they are advocating an anti-democratic anti-egalitarian principle which is defeated by the power of the civic democratic state. Is there any doubt that social conservative christians who would use the power of the civic state to enforce their sectarian religious views are seeking to change the lives of people who have no interest in those sectarian views? They are denying that freedom of religion includes the freedom to choose to be free from religion. That is a tad ironic.

Is it appropriate, therefore, in this society, that any devout practising Catholic, a religious organization that would deny others entitlement to this "right", be appointed as a Judge, where she or her would perhaps adjudicate on these rights, or, as another example, as Justice Minister whose duty it is to protect these rights?

Only if they were an autobot that parrotted whatever others told them. A Family Court judge by name of Bartlet in my old hometown 15 years ago lost his position because it turned out he have been administering his version of the Old Testament rather than the statute law. Anyone who would break an oath to God to administer the law impartially, as a judge would have to, would have some issues. One can be sacredly devout and pluralistic in the secular world. It is called not judging, the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

There are lots of Catholics who understand the separation between church and state as a necessary and desirable aspect of living in the material world. A lot of devout Catholics wouldn't presume to force others to do what they personally would consider to be the will of God. This is not a contradiction if you belive that human beings must of their own free will choose the right path.

On the other hand, there will always be literalists of every faith. Even secular faiths have their zealots. It's usually best not to let people like that have power.

Quite right. That is why I recommend it all be granted to me.

Now you're supposed to say: Mwahahahahaha!
How can I take you seriously if you don't say Mwahahahaha!

No - I am just coming to realize my powers. I am a litle shy of the mwahahahaha moment just yet.

With respect to Al's comment "One can be sacredly devout and pluralistic in the secular world" and Lisa's comment "There are lots of Catholics who understand the separation between church and state as a necessary and desirable aspect of living in the material world", let me add the following:

Is it not a realistic fear by these "sacredly devout", that they will be further marganalized in this society? Are we not moving to a position in this society where it will be no longer "good enough" for Martin or other devout Catholics (as an example) who aspire to public office, to say "while I am devout believer in my Church's teachings on this issue, I would never allow such to interfere with my public duties"?

No more marginalized that the de-frocked Judge Bartlet if they refuse to recognize that there is a civic democratic aspect to society and their own personal beliefs. One's personal beliefs do not trump the common good - a failure to grasp that and respect it is what marginalizes, not one's faith.

Al responded, in part: "if they refuse to recognize that there is a civic democratic aspect to society and their own personal beliefs...one's personal beliefs do not trump the common good - a failure to grasp that and respect it is what marginalizes..."

Is there not a concern that we are becoming a State where membership alone in a religious organization that refuses to solemnize, recognize or value same-sex marriages, with no more evidence of any "discriminatory" behaviour on one's part, will exclude that person from public office?

Take this example: In Canada, Paul Martin attends Sunday Mass at Notre Dame Basillica in Ottawa, where Archbishop Gervais in a special homily on the sanctity of traditional marriage, states that that gay marriage is unnatural, immoral and against God's law in the eyes of the Church.

Would it be fair now in Canada for the gay lobby to compare this to finding out that the US President regularly attends Klan rallies, but he states that this will not effect his public duties on civil rights issues?

SayNay sayeth:
"Would it be fair now in Canada for the gay lobby to compare this to finding out that the US President regularly attends Klan rallies, but he states that this will not effect his public duties on civil rights issues?"

Is the fellow popular? Not sure how popular those speeches are these days. Does he have any parishioners under seventy?

No one can guarantee that a political appointment will meet the approval of the people. If the official keeps shooting his mouth off about gays he won't last very long in Canada, but that's just the way the cooky crumbles. Another clergyman might have better luck.

From the Canadian Charter of Rights:

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Note that freedom of religion is number one. We should also be aware that in Canada Catholicism is the dominant religion. I think for that reason alone there is little danger that people are going to start equating it with the KKK. Too many of us belong. However, I think that there is a small and often underestimated danger when we're balancing the respective interests of groups that one group's rights will be trod upon in our rush to accommodate others. But I think Canada can handle it as long as it sees religious and cultural claims as having their own legitimacy and as long as we have strong commitments to free speech. This does not mean that the state should fund religions or start a little branch of sharia law in Canada. Canada stands for justice, and that means that human beings have inalienable rights that would preclude this kind of thing.

SN: No. You are not giving equal status to what you call "the gay lobby" which is really only the individuals who are gay with what would have to be called "the religious lobby" which is really the individuals who are faithful. Neither gets to require their agenda becomes law except to the extent that the law stops them from being free from discrimination. Gay marriage does not affect religious marriage anymore than equal education of the French or equal employment of the disabled does. It is just the continued deconstruction of privilege you are noticing.

Uh cookie.

Damn.

I guess I was thinking about Kooky. I wonder why?

What about these points (sort of what was referred to above):

1. Do we agree that a public official should not consistently engage in discriminatory speech etc. and if he or she does so, he or she is not fit to hold office?

2. If we agree on 1 above, what if a public official has never engaged in discriminatory speech, but he or she regularly attends, participates in, and supports (financially or otherwise) religious services of his or her faith (ie. his or her Church etc.)where speakers (ie. pastors, priests etc.) engage in what is described, by those who are now "Charter-protected" on this issue, as discriminatory speech?

3. Is 1 different than 2?

How about writing this out on paper and putting it on your fridge.

"Your mama!" or maybe now it should be "Your two mamas!"<p>[Ed.: <i>This and the two previous comments were reinstated due to the quality of this retort.</i>]

Do you believe Queen Elizabeth II, "Defender of the Faith", will enact legislation that is contrary to the Christian faith?

According to the Christian faith, marriage is honourable in all (Hebrews 13:4) whereas homosexual relationships (Romans 1:26-27) are not honourable.

Also, "he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife" and "she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband" (1 Corinthians 7:33-34).

The Lawful Definition of Marriage in Canada
http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/marriage.htm

"The continued deconstruction of privilege", has a nice Marxist-Leninist feel to it - you should add "petty bourgeois" just before "privilege".

What are those to do who do not see the judicial "interpretation" of the Charter - as our new State religion - as our new supreme belief system?

I guess we can just remember, to paraprhase Pasternak, "The personal is dead, the Charter has killed it."

BTW, I don't know this David guy!

Just to be clear, yes of course the Queen's representative will sign it - do you actually think anything else would happen? - and deconstruction of privilege is a democratic notion. Is there anything, Peterborough man, you can write that does not hug facile extremity? It just isn't that dramatic. Just consider you do not understand and leave it at that.

SayNay says:

"1. Do we agree that a public official should not consistently engage in discriminatory speech etc. and if he or she does so, he or she is not fit to hold office?

2. If we agree on 1 above, what if a public official has never engaged in discriminatory speech, but he or she regularly attends, participates in, and supports (financially or otherwise) religious services of his or her faith (ie. his or her Church etc.)where speakers (ie. pastors, priests etc.) engage in what is described, by those who are now "Charter-protected" on this issue, as discriminatory speech?

3. Is 1 different than 2?"

Is saying something different than acting on it?

Is watching someone else say something, different than saying something yourself?

These are rhetorical questions. Because if you think they are the same and this is the foundation of your case, then it's not really a case so much as a collection of words.

The allusions to sovietism don't make it stronger.

Here's the thing about zealotry, SayNay. Anything can be anything if you're paranoid enough. The separation of church and state can be creeping sovietism. And even freedom to do things, well it's really not freedom at all, it's just the opposite... That way lies madness.

I suppose if this issue involved in any way the advancement of "democratic notions", we wouldn't be having this debate.

The whole advancement of this "right" to same-sex marriage has been decidedly "anti-democratic" - which, apparently, is a problem that about 67% of the population. Maybe this majority actually believes, contrary to Colter, Martin et al, that they are indeed caring, sensitive, intelligent generous, "rights minded" people, as they, after all, form the foundation of this society which made the Charter possible in the first place. And maybe they just don't like being pushed around by their "betters" - these "elites" who dispense these new "rights", and who believe you can't leave such important decisions to the "masses".

No actual "free" vote, or referendum on this issue. Ah yes, the irony again: so "anti-democractic" in this advancement of "democracy".

Look - you lack some basic understanding about the processes of constitutional law and also how a Parliamentary democracy works. Can't we just leave it at that? You can cite any amount of figures which have no backing and blah, blah, blah all you want but the actual process of what is occuring is passing you by. Knee-jerk ascription of what is bad in anyone's mind to "elites" is a first warning sign.

Go learn some more if you are that interested but you have obviously no interest in the opinions of any one else who posts here. I think that means you are not really interested in us or discussion. I think that is a form of rudeness. Please feel free to tell me why I am wrong but everytime you post it is "my way or the highway" and nothing anyone else says makes a dent at all. Why bother?

"Look" yourself - do you read any newspapers? I not making this up: "Conrad Winn of COMPAS said (its recent survey shows) of those polled, 66% said they would strongly or somewhat support keeping the existing definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman exclusively. Another 34% said they would oppose preserving the status quo. The support for a referendum on the issue is unusual and much higher than the company generally finds, perhaps because it is a subject many people feel they understand and can offer a reasonable opinion about...when given more choices, 29% said the marriage law should not be changed at all, 36% favoured maintaining marriage as a heterosexual institution but creating a "civil union" category for gay couples, while 35% said gays should get full marriage rights."

Looks pretty reasonable to me, why not you?

Please read the rest of what I wrote. Why do you bother? Go start your own blog to push discussions around to your one note.

Just to be clear, look at my post on manners. In this thread, you do not identify yourself (against #1), you go one and on (against #2 and #3) you are not having a dialogue but playing bad-dea-chess (against #5) and you go off point (against #6) - the present one being the grasp the Tory leader has on the fundamentals of the constitution <i>and not</i> the unrelated polls on whether folks like gay marriage. On top of that you cite without linking to authority and then, as you do, make personal comment on people who disagree with you. <p>Usually I only hide your comments when they are primarily personal attacks on someone but if you do not get on board with the civility I will just hie everything you post.

I guess only because your thoughts on these issues offer some insight, perhaps, into where your like-minded confreres would direct this country. This, more often than not, suggests there is no one driving the car, or certainly, no concern about where we've been, or where we end up. And to further the analogy, not one of you seems too concerned about any lessons (eg. the denigrated "traditions" - the "stuff of wispey dreams" etc.) learned on the journey as providing any guideposts for the future.

Ok, I'll make a deal with you. In the future if I post at all, it'll be maximum 5 lines a comment.
( and, BTW, on the "personal comment" thing, I don't think I started it!)

SayNay, some of us live elsewhere and we don't always have time to sort through the heavily filtered news you bozos get back home through Canada's two conservative rags. I consider it my duty to read the Globe, though I think Radio Netherlands, RFI and the BBC give me more reliable in depth world news. But point us to a reliable source and we will discuss your stats, in the meantime I'd just like to say that your arguments always read like a bot could have written them. They always sound like you're talking to somebody else, like your opponent could be anybody. That is, your real opponents are aparently irrelevant to you. You barely touch on what we say. It's like you're debating 'Joe Liberal.'

e.g. Insert generic 'Joe Liberal' comment here. SayNay responds with halfbaked stats. Quoting Czeslaw Milosz SayNay draws a relationship between having health care and Siberian Work Camps. Quoting Evgeny Zamyatin SayNay shows that gay marriage is just like totalitarianism. Quoting Ayn Rand SayNay shows that Joe Liberal is just another slimy weasel begging for a handout.

Fair enough but there is a difference between law and what individuals decide are "tradition." The second is maleable, arbitrary and does not directly influence the question at hand. It is a political and emotional call which could as easily be used to take away inter-racial marriage and votes for women, neither of which are "traditional" either. That is the real "stuff of whispy dreams". <p>There is no "not one of you" either. You have self-certified as some sort of monitor here and you don't need to and can stop. If you are able to participate without trying to drift topics to those you have pre-arranged statements on that it fine. But it is simply boring. You may have a great cause but you are a bad advocate for it. I don't think you have a very good cause, which is obvious, but that is not the point. You are being rude and abusive of the access to the blog. <p>These is no great majesty in the blog but it is my blog and not yours. Surely it should be acceptable to ask you to keep on point, stay away from rote argument repetition and identify yourself in some way. I don't care what others say on their blogs - these are the rules of civility I like.

D'accord: It's your ball, your backyard, you make the rules.

"I guess only because your thoughts on these issues offer some insight, perhaps, into where your like-minded confreres would direct this country. This, more often than not, suggests there is no one driving the car, or certainly, no concern about where we've been, or where we end up. And to further the analogy, not one of you seems too concerned about any lessons (eg. the denigrated "traditions" - the "stuff of wispey dreams" etc.) learned on the journey as providing any guideposts for the future."

Of all of SayNay's comments, I find this one the most depressing. To SayNay, we are statistics. She he or it, whatever she may say, does not want to know or understand us. She thinks we are representative. To her, I am generic politically correct automaton number 2 (or number thirty). She sees herself doing research. The problem is, she doesn't read.

We're not interested in lessons. We're not interested in seeing how 'soviet' our world view is. We want to wipe the slate clean etc. Right. That's why I blathered on about how I thought we needed more historically based ritual in Canada and the US. Why I defended the Governor General.

We don't want to learn from the past. That's why we think fascism is so unimportant we devoted a day to debating old Harry Princeling's failings and his poor clothes sense.

Of course, we are the ones who must say where the country has been and where it must go. And she is the one, being superior, who must judge us and find us wanting because we don't share her views. The problem is, if anything good happened here, she would not read it. We are by definition automata, we couldn't possibly come up with anything.

You can bet that if I came up with anything myself, I wouldn't publish it here for that reason.

But I have hope and I think these rules are valuable and not just a stick. They should have the effect of improving discourse and not limiting. Let us all go and have a think.