It still exists!!!!!!!!! Protection of rights!!!! Stirring political speech!!!!! Who woulda thunk it?!?!?!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=421

Was never a big fan of the PM (Prime Minister Paul Martin), but brownie points awarded without hestitation! Alright, Home of the Free, Inc., time to follow if you're not gonna lead!

― peepee (peepee), Friday, 18 February 2005 02:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Is it going to pass at this point? I heard it would be close...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 February 2005 02:34 (twenty-one years ago)

pffa .. it's in Canada. No points awarded for progressive thought coming out of Canada.

― dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 18 February 2005 03:17 (twenty-one years ago)

No points awarded for progressive thought coming out of Canada

Its pretty inspiring, even for Canada. Progressive thought has been packed away in the truck for a while.

xpost
I think it will be close. It might be a great political gamble, but it IS the right thing to do. Imagine that!

― peepee (peepee), Friday, 18 February 2005 03:36 (twenty-one years ago)

The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this – not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

(man, I love the italics!!!)

― peepee (peepee), Friday, 18 February 2005 03:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry for my overt excitement. Its so prepostmodern of me.

― peepee (peepee), Friday, 18 February 2005 03:49 (twenty-one years ago)

he actually mentioned my rather radical, rather obscure objection (or at least one of them) which made me kind of feel like he was listening...im not signing on, and if i was an mp i would vote no, but i am on the verge of changing my mind.

― anthony, Friday, 18 February 2005 04:06 (twenty-one years ago)

And what is that objection?

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 18 February 2005 05:48 (twenty-one years ago)

i dont think that marriage should be a civil/governmental issue at all. i think that it should be at most an agreement between two parties and their respective tradtions.

i think it also pressures queer folks into batling for something that is both heteronormative and dangerous, that will make queers just like straights, that will make us lose our differences.

― anthony, Friday, 18 February 2005 06:03 (twenty-one years ago)

What are those "differences", besides the who-you're-sexually-attracted-to one?

― peepee (peepee), Friday, 18 February 2005 13:11 (twenty-one years ago)

i dont think that marriage should be a civil/governmental issue at all. i think that it should be at most an agreement between two parties and their respective tradtions.

What about legal issues, such as inheritance, parental rights, hospital visits, etc.? In Finland at least that was perhaps the main argument for gay marriage when the law was passed.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 18 February 2005 13:25 (twenty-one years ago)

The idea of marital rights by private contract is, as Tuomas points out, so fraught with practical problems that it is unworkable. The general practical problem with libertarian social proposals is that they're an all-or-nothing proposition; you either have to have instant radical change of the entire social and govermental structure, or they fail. Interestingly, the only way such instant radical change seems to happen is when a totalitarian government take power -- seeing as how that's diametrically opposed to libertarianism, seems to me that social libertarianism is essentially utopianism.

― J (Jay), Friday, 18 February 2005 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

i dont think that marriage should be a civil/governmental issue at all.

I disagree. I think the state does have a compelling interest given the importance of couples/families in society.

i think it also pressures queer folks into batling for something that is both heteronormative and dangerous, that will make queers just like straights, that will make us lose our differences.

Several queer friends have said something along these lines to me. Apart from it striking me as self-important and slightly snooty, no legislation will force people to marry and those homosexuals who wish to marry should be able to fight for that right even if you feel that's a 'heteronormative' desire on their part.

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 18 February 2005 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I understand what you're sating Anthony but I don't really agree. If you don't like the "heteronormative" aspect of allowing gay marriage - that's your business - other gay couples, obviously, do like the idea and this is about giving them that option.

I think the idea, protected in our charter, of equal rights for everybody trumps whatever concerns you have about protecting hetro/homo differences. Segregating the right of marriage is an injustice, imho, and it needs to be fixed.

xpost redundancy!

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 18 February 2005 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

i think it also pressures queer folks into batling for something that is both heteronormative and dangerous, that will make queers just like straights, that will make us lose our differences.

There's a lot of "Quebec: we want to be equal but distinct" implications in this line.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 18 February 2005 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I see it as being similar to the feeling of many of the straight types have for opposing it aswell. The "protection of differences" - argument does seem "snooty" in a way to me as well - like the implication is that of superiority over others. No matter what laws etc you pass there are going to be some very fundamental differences between gays and hetros. You can be as different or similar as you please but that should never allow for a different set of right and freedoms to apply.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 18 February 2005 19:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I posted this elsewhere recently but I still think it applies.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 18 February 2005 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

i think it also pressures queer folks into batling for something that is both heteronormative and dangerous, that will make queers just like straights, that will make us lose our differences.

Rockist!

Anyway, if I wasn't ready to move before...

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 18 February 2005 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

This is one motherfucker of a speech.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 20 February 2005 20:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I did this thread an injustice by giving it such a lame title.

― peepee (peepee), Sunday, 20 February 2005 22:41 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.