[quote=cosmo]"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands.. may justly be pronounced the very same definition of tyranny."

James Madison, The Federalist Papers [/quote]

No shit. As I look forward to four years of a republican-held presidency, a republican-controlled congress, and the possibility of 3 or maybe even 4 Supreme Court justices being filled by fresh republicans, Mr. Madison's observation seems spot on -- particularly since the folks in control of the party right now are the hard liners as opposed the moderate conservatives with whom I used to align myself.

[quote=cosmo]"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which [i]would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...[/i] The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal... knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, it's members would become despots."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Jarvis 1820[/quote]

Can we agree on one thing? [b]Someone[/b] has to serve as the arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation, right? It wouldn't make a lot of sense to have the same folks that are drafting and signing laws also declaring that there is no problem with them, right?

Don't forget that the other branches of government, and ultimately the people, have a check on the judicial branch. If the Court rules something unconstitutional and the masses disagree, a constitutional amendment can bring the text of the constitution in line with the will of the people.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote]No shit. As I look forward to four years of a republican-held presidency, a republican-controlled congress, and the possibility of 3 or maybe even 4 Supreme Court justices being filled by fresh republicans, Mr. Madison's observation seems spot on -- particularly since the folks in control of the party right now are the hard liners as opposed the moderate conservatives with whom I used to align myself.[/quote]

Which judges do you consider to be hardliners? And why? Scalia and Thomas are obstructionists who uphold the law without imposing their own personal views while making decisions.

[quote]Can we agree on one thing? Someone has to serve as the arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation, right? It wouldn't make a lot of sense to have the same folks that are drafting and signing laws also declaring that there is no problem with them, right?

Don't forget that the other branches of government, and ultimately the people, have a check on the judicial branch. If the Court rules something unconstitutional and the masses disagree, a constitutional amendment can bring the text of the constitution in line with the will of the people. [/quote]

Do you know how hard it is to pass an amendment? It takes a several years. Judges passed roe v wade and it still hasn't been overturned by the will of the people.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote=cosmo]Which judges do you consider to be hardliners? And why? Scalia and Thomas are obstructionists who uphold the law without imposing their own personal views while making decisions. [/quote]

I'm speaking more of hardliners in the other branches of government, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Delay, and Bush. Amongst the judges, though, I would consider Rehnquist, Thomas & Scalia to be reliably conservative, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think they fall into the "hardliner" category (although I'd be hard-pressed to think of Scalia as anything but). I do find it ironic that you would refer to Scalia and Thomas as "obstructionists" -- if it was a Fruedian slip, it was a great one. :lol: If you find value in someone being obstructionist, it's pretty clear to me why we are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on this point.

[quote=cosmo]Do you know how hard it is to pass an amendment? It takes a several years. Judges passed roe v wade and it still hasn't been overturned by the will of the people.[/quote]

Roe v Wade hasn't been overturned by the will of YOUR people. The will of THE people, i.e., the majority view of the public, still leans slightly in favor of upholding roe v wade as far as I'm aware. Constitutional amendments are hard to pass by design, and I'm OK with that. If we as a country feel so passionately about something that we're willing to write it into the constitution itself, we all ought to be pretty damn sure about it.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote] I'm speaking more of hardliners in the other branches of government, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Delay, and Bush. Amongst the judges, though, I would consider Rehnquist, Thomas & Scalia to be reliably conservative, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think they fall into the "hardliner" category (although I'd be hard-pressed to think of Scalia as anything but). I do find it ironic that you would refer to Scalia and Thomas as "obstructionists" -- if it was a Fruedian slip, it was a great one. :lol: If you find value in someone being obstructionist, it's pretty clear to me why we are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on this point.[/quote]

Ooops, They're constructionists, sorry for the mistake. :wink:

[quote] Roe v Wade hasn't been overturned by the will of YOUR people. The will of THE people, i.e., the majority view of the public, still leans slightly in favor of upholding roe v wade as far as I'm aware. Constitutional amendments are hard to pass by design, and I'm OK with that. If we as a country feel so passionately about something that we're willing to write it into the constitution itself, we all ought to be pretty damn sure about it.[/quote]

Will of my people? No, the will of THE people. Being that the majority of the people here in America are against abortion. That's why the advocates for abortion have to spice up the 'vocabulary' regarding the topic because it's a hard topic to talk about.

For example. Instead of killing an unborn child, it's called the right to choose. The right to choose? I love the cliche's that are used for this subject.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote=cosmo] Will of my people? No, the will of THE people. Being that the majority of the people here in America are against abortion. [/quote]

Whether people are against abortion is a different question than whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. A great number of people are personally against abortion and would not do it themselves, but nevertheless support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.

A recent AP poll showed 59% of people wanted to see appointees to the USSC that would uphold Roe v. Wade:

[quote]Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Nov. 19-21, 2004. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.

"As you may know, President Bush may have the opportunity to appoint several new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court during his second term. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision, or nominate justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?"

Uphold 59% Overturn 31% Unsure 10% [/quote]

[url]http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm[/url]

AP Poll misleads respondents:

[url]http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/041203/5/[/url]

Somehow I knew you would track down that poll.

It's all about how you load the poll question. I wonder what the net result would be if the question was:

Are you in favor of doctors making an incision inside a 6-9 month old baby's head, sucking the brains out, collapsing the skull, and pulling the dead baby out of the mothers womb?

Yes No

And, of course, I knew you would find one of the numerous "news stories" from pro-life sites attempting to discredit the poll results.

[quote=cosmo]It's all about how you load the poll question. [/quote]

No question poll results can be skewed by the way a question is asked. The article you cited, however, is critical of the poll because the question does not explain the holding of Roe v Wade to the writer's satisfaction, not because it doesn't describe the abortion process in grisly detail. The article (and the others like it) do not understand the ruling in Roe v. Wade, asserting that it gives women [i]carte blanche[/i] to have an abortion whenever the mood should so strike them.

When ruling on a statute, a court has two choices: it can uphold it, or it can strike it down. Either way, the entire package has to stay or go. A court cannot invalidate part of a statute and leave the rest, nor can it change the language of the statute to suit its taste. In this respect, the power of judicial review is quite limited.

In the context of Roe v Wade, there existed statutes at the time that barred abortion outright. To the extent that those statutes are inconsistent with the Court's holding that a woman has an absolute right to have an abortion in the first three months, they were struck down [b]in their entirety[/b], including any provisions that addressed abortions after that time. The court left it up to the states to determine what limits they wanted to place on abortion in the second and third trimester, and provided guidance as to what types of limits would be acceptable and when. States wanting to regulate abortion post-Roe then had the option of reenacting an abortion statute that was consistent with the Court's ruling. Most have done just that.

That was the first result that was found when I did a search, but was cited in several news outlets that it was indeed misleading.

So yes, just about every outfit that wants a certain result loads their poll a specific way in order to acheive their goal.

The poll is indeed flawed because it states that it is during the first three months, when it is actually legalized during all 9 months of gestation, was my point.

[quote=cosmo]The poll is indeed flawed because it states that it is during the first three months, when it is actually legalized during all 9 months of gestation, was my point.[/quote]

To say that it legalized it during all 9 months, while technically correct at the time the decision was handed down, is not accurate from a real world standpoint and is misleading -- many states have gone ahead and put limitations upon abortion, including outlawing it outright during the third trimester (with caveats), as specifically authorized by the Court in Roe v Wade. The poll question is an accurate reflection of the law as it stands right now, meshing the Roe decision and the various statutes that have been promulgated in its wake.

That was my point.

I defy you to find many people on the street that can actually explain to you in any detail whatsoever what Roe v. Wade says. In fact, if you ask most people, they will probably tell you that Roe v Wade authorizes abortion, and are not aware that it gives states safe harbors for restrictions upon the practice that they can legally enact.

Regardless, do you really think that most people would pay attention to or even grasp that type of hair-splitting legal minutiae in a poll question? If you were to phrase the question as you did above, I'm sure you would get a different response; if you were to change the question from the AP poll to indicate that it reflected not just the Roe decision, but also other statutes since that decision, I'm not sure that people would change their answer. The heart of the poll question is whether people think the government ought to tell someone they cannot have an abortion within the first three months -- the source of that right is probably irrelevant.

[thread hijack alert] :wink:

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote]To say that it legalized it during all 9 months, while technically correct at the time the decision was handed down, is not accurate from a real world standpoint and is misleading -- many states have gone ahead and put limitations upon abortion, including outlawing it outright during the third trimester (with caveats), as specifically authorized by the Court in Roe v Wade. The poll question is an accurate reflection of the law as it stands right now, meshing the Roe decision and the various statutes that have been promulgated in its wake.[/quote]

The poll is misleading for the fact that they intentionally mislead you to believe that the procedure, as it stands now, is up to [i]3 months[/i]. Of course you can say that the procedure varies from state to state, but there are states that take part in partial birth abortion. The poll hides all of the facts, and throws in the '3 months' assertion to minimize what happens in reality.

[quote]I defy you to find many people on the street that can actually explain to you in any detail whatsoever what Roe v. Wade says. In fact, if you ask most people, they will probably tell you that Roe v Wade authorizes abortion, and are not aware that it gives states safe harbors for restrictions upon the practice that they can legally enact.[/quote]

Roe v Wade, is a perfect example of the twisting of words when it comes to the 14th amendment, and the act 'abortion', itself, extends out of the boundries of what the 14th amendment 'meant' when it was actually passed, versus the judges 'intent' when they passed Roe v Wade over 30 years ago. It's all poppy-cock if you ask me.

[quote] Regardless, do you really think that most people would pay attention to or even grasp that type of hair-splitting legal minutiae in a poll question? If you were to phrase the question as you did above, I'm sure you would get a different response; if you were to change the question from the AP poll to indicate that it reflected not just the Roe decision, but also other statutes since that decision, I'm not sure that people would change their answer. The heart of the poll question is whether people think the government ought to tell someone they cannot have an abortion within the first three months -- the source of that right is probably irrelevant. [/quote]

So, are you disregarding your claim then, that 60 percent of Americans want abortion? Because I guarantee you if everyone knew what happened during the procedure, the numbers would completely reverse in direction. Especially in regards to partial birth abortion.

Toasty, I refer you to these books:

[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300092725/qid=1103131051/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-2073454-2895905?v=glance&s=books&n=507846[/url]

[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0844741620/ref=pd_sim_b_3/104-2073454-2895905?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance[/url]

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote=cosmo]Roe v Wade, is a perfect example of the twisting of words when it comes to the 14th amendment, and the act 'abortion', itself, extends out of the boundries of what the 14th amendment 'meant' when it was actually passed, versus the judges 'intent' when they passed Roe v Wade over 30 years ago. It's all poppy-cock if you ask me.
[/quote]

I'm not following you here. Could you explain what you mean?

[quote=cosmo] So, are you disregarding your claim then, that 60 percent of Americans want abortion? Because I guarantee you if everyone knew what happened during the procedure, the numbers would completely reverse in direction. Especially in regards to partial birth abortion.[/quote]

I'm not real sure what you mean here, either, because your comment doesn't really seem responsive to mine. Oh well. First, 60% of Americans wanting Roe v Wade to stand is not equivalent to 60% of Americans wanting abortion. It is possible to respect someone's right to do something without being an advocate for the act itself. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think abortions are great and that everyone ought to abort a child or two because it's such a hoot. I find the fact that some people use abortion as a form of birth control to be deplorable, and I don't see the procedure being a part of any stage of my life plan. I do not think, however, that it is the government's right to make that decision for me or anyone else.

Regarding the books, I make my living as a litigator and spend every moment of my work day (that isn't spent on [ms]) either in court, preparing for court or doing something that is geared toward a court-related proceeding. I don't read John Grisham, nor do I watch legal movies or TV because, well, that's what I do. Suffice it to say that reading these aren't at the top of my list, any more than you would enjoy sitting down and reading someone else purporting to speak on your work experience. Thanks anyway, though -- no disrespect intended.

I would note, though, that one of the authors of the first book wrote a couple of books that were critical of congress as well. Seems like someone disenchanted with government in general.

[img]http://picture.funnyjunk.com/pics/wtfcat.jpg[/img]

[quote]I'm not real sure what you mean here, either, because your comment doesn't really seem responsive to mine. Oh well. First, 60% of Americans wanting Roe v Wade to stand is not equivalent to 60% of Americans wanting abortion. It is possible to respect someone's right to do something without being an advocate for the act itself. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think abortions are great and that everyone ought to abort a child or two because it's such a hoot. I find the fact that some people use abortion as a form of birth control to be deplorable, and I don't see the procedure being a part of any stage of my life plan. I do not think, however, that it is the government's right to make that decision for me or anyone else. [/quote]

Let's skip the semantics for a second, and recognize that when someone says they don't want the government to intrude within the decisions of an individual, in the end, it's not the mothers body. There is another individual inside the mothers body. When you approach an individual who's pregnant, you don't ask them how their body is. You ask them, how is the 'baby'? It's feminist humanism if you want to get into specifics.

In regards to the amendment comment, I was stating and backing up my earlier claim that activist judges and lawyers take things completely out of context in order to give certain individuals more rights. The 14th amendment was 'intended' to grant citizenship to recently freed slaves(at the time) to deal with post-civil war matters. It has nothing to do with abortion. Again, if you want to get specific about rights and individualism, there is another individual inside the body. As a matter of fact, there were 36 laws that restricted abortion, yet no questions were raised about those laws.

Seeking cosmic justice as it is tied to judicial activism is the new tyranny we face today. That's my point.

[quote] Regarding the books, I make my living as a litigator and spend every moment of my work day (that isn't spent on [ms]) either in court, preparing for court or doing something that is geared toward a court-related proceeding. I don't read John Grisham, nor do I watch legal movies or TV because, well, that's what I do. Suffice it to say that reading these aren't at the top of my list, any more than you would enjoy sitting down and reading someone else purporting to speak on your work experience. Thanks anyway, though -- no disrespect intended.

I would note, though, that one of the authors of the first book wrote a couple of books that were critical of congress as well. Seems like someone disenchanted with government in general. [/quote]

Fair enough. The author though, had a reason to publish the book about Congress stretching their powers into other territories, where they should'nt be stretching them. The book is relevant in todays political atmosphere, and holds high credibility as well.

[quote=cosmo]Let's skip the semantics for a second[/quote]

Although I am not a fan of hypertechnical semantic arguments, I don't think this falls into that category. If we skip the semantics, as you say, there is no assurance that we are talking about the same thing, because we obviously have different interpretations of what terms mean in this context. I'd prefer to not talk in vague terms under those circumstances.

[quote=cosmo] The 14th amendment was 'intended' to grant citizenship to recently freed slaves(at the time) to deal with post-civil war matters. It has nothing to do with abortion. [/quote]

The 14th Amendment is silent on damn near everything it has subsequently been intepreted to cover. Whether you realize it or not, the body of law encompassing the 14th Amendment is positively massive and extends far beyond matters of civil rights that you consider controversial. My suspicion is that whether an application of the 14th Amendment constitutes "judicial activism/tyranny" or a correct and thoughtful application of the law depends upon whether it meets with your worldview. For example, there's a large body of 14th Amendment law regarding taxation that you, as a conservative, would obviously embrace despite the fact that there is no mention of taxation anywhere in the text of the amendment.

If that's the case, then so be it. You obviously disagree with the right to an abortion, gay marriage, and probably some other things we haven't discussed. My point is that you ought to just say so as opposed to blaming the legal system. When you say that you disagree with a decision and explain why, even if the reason is that it is inconsistent with your moral code, you sound like a thoughtful and rational individual. When you make claims about judicial tyranny that are very clearly based upon the fact that you disagree with the result, you just sound overly egocentric.

Roe v Wade is not the product of a handful of radical judges that decided to buck the system -- the initial decision, and the fact that it has withstood repeated challenges over the years, is a sign o' the times and the people that live in them. You may think that if people knew more about the procedure, they would think differently and you may be right, but the fact of the matter is that a majority of the country wants Roe upheld. I frankly think the 59% number from the AP poll seemed a little high, but the fact that it was over 50% conforms to everything I've understood about public opinion on the topic over the last few decades.

[quote]The 14th Amendment is silent on damn near everything it has subsequently been intepreted to cover. Whether you realize it or not, the body of law encompassing the 14th Amendment is positively massive and extends far beyond matters of civil rights that you consider controversial. My suspicion is that whether an application of the 14th Amendment constitutes "judicial activism/tyranny" or a correct and thoughtful application of the law depends upon whether it meets with your worldview. For example, there's a large body of 14th Amendment law regarding taxation that you, as a conservative, would obviously embrace despite the fact that there is no mention of taxation anywhere in the text of the amendment.

If that's the case, then so be it. You obviously disagree with the right to an abortion, gay marriage, and probably some other things we haven't discussed. My point is that you ought to just say so as opposed to blaming the legal system. When you say that you disagree with a decision and explain why, even if the reason is that it is inconsistent with your moral code, you sound like a thoughtful and rational individual. When you make claims about judicial tyranny that are very clearly based upon the fact that you disagree with the result, you just sound overly egocentric.

Roe v Wade is not the product of a handful of radical judges that decided to buck the system -- the initial decision, and the fact that it has withstood repeated challenges over the years, is a sign o' the times and the people that live in them. You may think that if people knew more about the procedure, they would think differently and you may be right, but the fact of the matter is that a majority of the country wants [/quote]

A sign of the times? Having judges(yes, radical judges) create policy outside of the legislative body?

Hogwash. I wonder if tax legislation was written by judges, or through the legislature. There IS a difference. My claims on judicial tyrrany aren't based solely on the fact that I disagree with the outcome, it's that I'm opposed to judges going outside of their boundries as a body in order to write new law. If judges where to strike down new law regarding the proposal to raise taxes as unconstitutional, I would be pissed as well. Especially if it passed overwhelmingly through the legislature. Of course, my view has something to do with it, but judges have made radical decisions throughout the country that affect how parents can or cannot treat their children. It's out of control, period.

[quote]Roe upheld. I frankly think the 59% number from the AP poll seemed a little high, but the fact that it was over 50% conforms to everything I've understood about public opinion on the topic over the last few decades.[/quote]

Yea, the decision of 1,000 people in the result of one poll [i]confirms[/i] what the rest of the 299,999,000. I wonder what the whole country would think if the facts about this topic were out in the open. Politicians are using words and phrases in order to soften up the reality of it all.

:lol:

The horse is dead.

[quote=cosmo]My claims on judicial tyrrany aren't based solely on the fact that I disagree with the outcome, it's that I'm opposed to judges going outside of their boundries as a body in order to write new law. [/quote]

What then when the legislature goes outside of their boundries as a body to write new law which is unconstitutional? Checks and balances, checks and balances...

[quote=cosmo] [quote]I frankly think the 59% number from the AP poll seemed a little high, but the fact that it was over 50% conforms to everything I've understood about public opinion on the topic over the last few decades.[/quote]

Yea, the decision of 1,000 people in the result of one poll [i]confirms[/i] what the rest of the 299,999,000. [/quote]

I said "conforms to" as in "is consistent with" -- not "confirms" as in "affirms," "validates," or "demonstrates the correctness of." If you're gonna harp on my word choice, you really need to make sure you're harping on the right word. :roll:

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

This means the US will become more red as Gay refugees seek asylum from redneck persecution.

So much for balance in politics

[quote] What then when the legislature goes outside of their boundries as a body to write new law which is unconstitutional? Checks and balances, checks and balances...[/quote]

Well, isn't that a given? The court can strike it down, of course. But again, the court can't write new law to add new rights to individuals. How many times am I going to have to say this?

[quote] I said "conforms to" as in "is consistent with" -- not "confirms" as in "affirms," "validates," or "demonstrates the correctness of." If you're gonna harp on my word choice, you really need to make sure you're harping on the right word. :roll:[/quote]

Yea, so? I decided to use 'confirm' in italics in order to express sarcasm, because one poll does NOT prove/confirm anything.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote=elove]This means the US will become more red as Gay refugees seek asylum from redneck persecution.

So much for balance in politics[/quote]

I love the use of the broad brush to paint the opposing side as 'redneck'.

:roll:

^^^^ Or all muslims as extremists... :lol:

[quote=brakada]^^^^ Or all muslims as extremists... :lol:[/quote]

I didn't call all muslims extremists. Did elove?

[quote=cosmo][quote=brakada]^^^^ Or all muslims as extremists... :lol:[/quote]

I didn't call all muslims extremists. Did elove?[/quote]

No, I think none of you called them that way, but the broad brush is being (ab)used by both "sides" far too much. :wink:

i believe gays should be allowed to marry if they want too... you can't tell me anything about the sanctatiy (sp?) of marriage when you can see who wants to marry a miget on fox...

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

True Democracy manifests itself not only in the rule of the majority-it also is shown in the protection of the rights of minorities. Gays and Lesbians (andI'm not one of either class) should be given the same rights that all other people have. This would include the right to get married (and all associated rights), the rights to have children, etc. It easy to discriminate against people who are different from you, especially when you are the majority. But that doesn't make it right. Gays and Lesbians can't help that God made them that way.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

Boy, this post is back from the dead. For my thoughts on the matter, see the previous seven pages of posts. With that said...

[quote=DJkeithrace]Gays and Lesbians can't help that God made them that way.[/quote]

This raises an interesting question, I think. The ultra-religious often discuss homosexuality as if it were an affront to God himself. Although I am a far cry from a religious scholar, doesn't the religious right believe that God is essentially the creator of all people and things? How then do they reconcile this? Did God create homosexuals, but screw up? The idea of God botching something probably wouldn't wash well with the religious set.

Anyone have any idea how these ideas mesh?

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote=toasty]How then do they reconcile this? Did God create homosexuals, but screw up? The idea of God botching something probably wouldn't wash well with the religious set.

Anyone have any idea how these ideas mesh?[/quote] Living in the podunk part of the country that I do, I am fortunate ( :roll: ) to have access to a plethora of religious fundamentalists. Their majority belief is that homosexuals are deviant and have been led astray by the devil. The religious right feels that god created them, but by their own choice (with the help of 'ol Lucifer) became homosexual.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

^^^^ And the same people choose to ignore the many animal species that have members which are "gay", they must have been led astray by the devil too.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

Damn that is a bold stance by canada but I know someone was going to eventually do it. I don't agree with but to each is own.Religion and Politics will never go together. So as soon as the gov't and the church can realize this. The better off thing will be in the long run.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

does the law apply to all of canada?

so mounties can do mounties now if they so desire?

crazy. :twisted:

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote=sheryar]so mounties can do mounties now if they so desire?

[/quote]

Isn't that why they're called "mounties?"

:NotMe:

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

What really gets me is that the argument being used against gay marriage is that marriage was a term defined by religion. Is this defined by 1 religion only? And what is preventing a new religion from starting up which allows for gay marriage? If someone started such a religion, would the state then be preventing said religion from practicing their beliefs?

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[quote=neoee]What really gets me is that the argument being used against gay marriage is that marriage was a term defined by religion. Is this defined by 1 religion only? And what is preventing a new religion from starting up which allows for gay marriage? If someone started such a religion, would the state then be preventing said religion from practicing their beliefs?[/quote]

That's a damn good point. My dad is a minister, and come to think of it, he has done services for homosexual couples in the past -- they weren't legally recognized, of course, but it did at least allow the couples the ceremonial aspect of it, in church and everything. That highlights, I think, your point that "religion" is not an absolute term, and that there is certainly room for disagreement amongst those that consider themselves "religious" as to what is and is not acceptable.

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

Oh, and by the way, I think I will set up my own religion right now: The Church of Toasty. I believe that homosexuals ought to be able to get married if they want to. I also believe that telemarketing is a sin against my God, and I'd like to see a constitutional amendment outlawing it. The Church of Toasty also believes that dunking an overcooked piece of meat in BBQ sauce does not qualify as real barbeque, and that doing so ought to be criminal.

All are welcome in the Church of Toasty.

Donations accepted and encouraged, and can be made via PayPal to [email]churchoftoasty@yahoo.com[/email].

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

I just donated, am I a member now? Best church ever! Hail toasty!

I take it services are held in your backyard and accompanied by a good BBQ?

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

Absolutely!! We'll sacrifice some ever-so-tasty creature every Sunday!

Welcome aboard!!

:D

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

hope mexico dont do the same

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

Some of the people in this thread need to read some Derrida imo... it's just a word!

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

Why on earth shouldn't this be legal - people's sexual preferences has NOTHING to do with the church or other religious belief . If two people loves each other then why not show it by getting married? I really cannot see the harm done and my view of Canada as an open and admirable society now only stands stronger... much stronger than US for example!

I wonder if the majority of replies here are signals of homophobia or just narrowmindedness.