...the Charter is about equality of treatment under the law. This can be achieved by amending legislation and regulations to permit homosexuals to enjoy all of the legal rights and privileges enjoyed by married couples, without either making marriage a Charter right, thereby threatening religious organizations and attacking the preferences of the majority. It would be easy to guarantee substantive equality under the law vis-a-vis marriage for homosexuals, without calling it “marriage” and without making it a Charter matter and subjecting churches to lawsuits, harassment and intimidation.
My question: Why isn’t the Government taking this route?Good points.
Update: More good points from The Politic on SSM
5 comments:
There is one gigantic flaw in this. Marriage does not belong to the church, it belongs to the people.
Marriage doesn't belong to the government either. It's a social tradition. If the government got out of the marriage regulation business altogether it would solve all this mess. Let case law define the current definition of marriage and not the populist support of political causes. Judges are more apt to weigh the consequences fairly than our mealy-mouthed politicians.
Marcel;
I threw down the gauntlet months ago for you to respond to the problem facing the Conservative cause. I asked for fresh ideas on how Conservatives could get their message across and be relevant - that's when you called me a Liberal hack. So again, I issue the challenge, if the Conservative party is worthy of leading the country, then what are they prepared to do so the centre of the country (i.e. the majority) would be willing to accept them?
The Federal Fiberals are known for their fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) tactics which are nothing more than a smoke screen for their lack of morals and ideas. But what is the Conservative response to this?
As an aside, it occurs to me that one of the most liked conservative figures, Ronald Reagan, was known as a positive and polite man who treated everyone with respect. This is the kind of image that a Conservative politician could win with. Where are the Conservatives going to find someone to fill that role?
Bill
The way to solve all our problems in very simple:
Appoint me as Supreme Leader of Everything, or "God" if you will. This will allow everything to be run my way, otherwise known as properly.
But seriously, whose blog is this? If you want to throw down the gauntlet and have people answer your challenges, perhaps you should start up "Bill's Gauntlet Throwing Down Blog".
I do not feel any requirement to answer your challenge. In addition, I do not work for the CPC, in fact, I am not a member of any political party. I have no requirement to solve any of their problems.
The reason some might think you a Liberal hack is that your solution to CPC problems seem to be more liberal-like (i.e. Liberal lite). This is not the type of Conservative party I would vote for and, in fact, I think people who suggest that are traitors to the conservative cause. By suggesting that Conservatives be "Liberals, but less corrupt" simply plays into the hands of the Liberals. Why vote for a pretend Liberal party when you can have the real thing?
Conservatives should take a stand and try to convince Canadians that their ideas are the best for Canada, not tell the electorate whatever they want to hear to get elected.
As for what message to send, I would adopt a more libertarian platform (i.e. less government, gov't out of everything unless absolutely necessary, less taxes, etc). I think this is a perfect time to put forward this platform, due to Adscam. Government is not perfect and some corruption will always happen. One of the ways to limit that corruption is to keep gov't out of our lives as much as possible. I think Canadians are the most receptive to this message they have ever been.
These are just my humble opinions. Will the CPC adopt this message and whom would they get to sell it? I don't know. I am not the CPC head political strategist, so I don't have to worry about it. Good luck to that guy. It is an uphill battle getting the CPC message out, whatever that may be.
Robert said,"There is one gigantic flaw in this. Marriage does not belong to the church, it belongs to the people." You are entirely right, marriage belongs not only to the church, but to Muslims, Hindus, Budhists, and every other religion, major and minor on this globe. There is hardly a culture which does not support hetrosexual marriage to the exclusion of SSM. So, yes, marriage belongs to the people, and SSM does not.
Post a Comment