Sunday, December 12, 2004
Supreme is not the word...
Supreme Court approves same-sex marriage (CTV.ca News Staff)
with luminous commentary interspersed in there... read on...!!!
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the government has the right to legalize same-sex marriage, but it didn't say whether the current definition of marriage is unconstitutional. (Nothing like some suspense to hook the crowds, eh?).
The court's ruling, which was unanimous in a vote of 9-0, is in reference to four questions on the federal government's proposed legislation changing the definition of marriage. (Irony - some of my favorite all-time scores have been 9-0 finals. Boston Bruins 9 Buffalo Sabres 0 for one... Lop-sided affairs are never good though in a long-term optic; after that game, the next one always starts at 0-0 y'know...!).
The court said today that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly protects religious freedoms, but that times have changed and that the legal definition of marriage should also change. (Hey - the climate is also changing... so let's all adopt a polar bear and set the creature up real cozy in our backyards... eh?).
"Several centuries ago, it would have been understood that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples." (Duh...)
"The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."
Prime Minister Paul Martin applauded the decision, and said the government would now move forward with the legislation. He said the bill would be tabled in the House of Commons after the holiday break.
"We are proceeding because quite simply we believe in the Charter of Rights and the guarantee it provides to equality," Martin said in a statement read to reporters in Ottawa. (Hmm... equality equates mediocrity... no?).
He said it was a decision he has personally struggled with "but fundamentally it comes down to the equality rights under the Charter."
Three of the questions were put forth by the government under former prime minister Jean Chrétien in July 2003. (Ah... Chrétien - the most popular halloween mask of recent years... AND Robin Williams' favorite Canadian!).
First question: Does Parliament have the exclusive legislative authority to change the legal definition of marriage?
Supreme Court's answer: Yes
Luminous Ruling: Wrong answer... Besides, any legislative authority one can think of has limited scope when one deals with such things... if you know what I mean... now, DO you know what I mean...?
Second question: Is extending the capacity to marry persons of the same sex consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Supreme Court's answer: Yes
Luminous Ruling: Why not also ask if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has any rhyme or reason while you're at it...? What's next - people who want to jump off bridges will be allowed to do so - because we ought to respect their "rights and freedoms" too...?!?
Third question: Are religious leaders protected under the Charter of Rights from having to marry same-sex couples?
Supreme Court's answer: Yes
Luminous Ruling: religious leaders have more common sense anyway...!
They need not to be "protected"...!!! (If some newstyle odd couple
would threaten to sue them for not officiating in such an "union",
a truly capable religious leader would clamor, high and mighty, "hey
you cannot sue me - I work for a Higher Office - above your
pettifogger's reach...!". End of story I say...! Besides... why
do gays want the religious blessing now...? They sneered at all
that the Pope had to say about sex, saying he has NO sex life -duh
really?- and now they want his blessing? Puh-leeze...).
After taking over from the Chrétien government, Prime Minister Paul Martin added a fourth question:
Fourth question: Is the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman constitutional?
Supreme Court's answer: The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question.
Luminous Ruling: I will dare answer this... not a Supreme Coward like those old geezers there... Anything BIBLICAL can damn sure be perceived as CONSTITUTIONAL... only a peabrain like Paulie there is not sure about THAT...!!!
Oh - and the So-called Supreme Court judges as well... of course!
Calling the decision a "huge victory" for the Conservative position, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper said he is encouraged by the court's muted rebuke of how the federal government has handled the issue. (Hmm... if that is being conservative, one can shudder at the thought of what REALLY being liberal can entail...).
"We're encouraged also by the fact that the government was effectively chastised by the court for not appealing lower court decisions." (Ok, but... like... how low can you go with this appeal after appeal crap... hmm? ;).
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler rejected that assessment, saying the court went as far as it could to support the draft bill, and is now handing it over to Parliament.
(Hmm... sounds like shady dealings somehow... eh?).
"They can't direct us as to what we should now do but they've gone as far as they could legitimately go," Cotler said. (Thank Goodness they can't go much further, yeah...!).
He said the court is essentially affirming the decisions handed down by lower courts in seven jurisdictions that ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. (The clouds are gathering on the horizon thus...).
"Now it's up to us to assume the responsibilities as a government, and happily we've got the Supreme court's support to assume that responsibility." (Happily? Oh joy... We are having a gay old time - aren't we? LOL).
Martin will hold a "two-line whip" on the vote, meaning cabinet ministers will have to vote for the bill. However, backbench MPs will be free to vote as they choose. (Nothing like a two-line whip to split up the party in two - welcome extra dose of dissension in the already well-divided ranks! Whip it good now...!!!).
"Individual members of Parliament should be and will be free to vote as they see fit. However, the position of the government is definitive. For that reason, cabinet members will be required to vote in favour of the legislation," Martin said. (The position of the government has to be definitive for it to be able to usurp, in style and mere appearance, the omnipotence and omniscience it does not, cannot and will never have in a million years... or million elections! In other words, government does NOT equal God! Somebody please tell Paulie...).
Political analysts suggest the bill will likely pass, but only by a small margin. (No 9-0 score there... proof that they still have some brain cells left when they are at Parliament... Those that get to preside in the Supreme Court are the only ones who lose them almost completely overnight...).
The move toward legalizing gay marriage began in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. (A recognized triumverate of d.c.a. - debauchery, crime and assorted activities...!). Rulings in those provinces were followed by similar court decisions in Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon. (Three likely sheep-mentality provinces... and one surprising territory to jump on THIS bandwagon. And no - my American "friends" - the Yukon is NOT Canada's Yucca Mountain... ok?).
If the legislation eventually passes in Parliament, Canada would be among the first countries to officially recognize gay and lesbian marriages.
They wish - any dubious "honor" is craved by Canada it seems... first in nothing, practically... The country really suffers from a bad case of trying to measure up to its big great sibling... But really now, who are they kidding here...? Several countries in the world have "officially recognized" this sort of union... If you want to be truly original, Canada, try and be the first to legalize pot! I know some folks who will see their business boom as a result... right Timmy? ;)
LOL ROTFL
Blessings!
with luminous commentary interspersed in there... read on...!!!
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the government has the right to legalize same-sex marriage, but it didn't say whether the current definition of marriage is unconstitutional. (Nothing like some suspense to hook the crowds, eh?).
The court's ruling, which was unanimous in a vote of 9-0, is in reference to four questions on the federal government's proposed legislation changing the definition of marriage. (Irony - some of my favorite all-time scores have been 9-0 finals. Boston Bruins 9 Buffalo Sabres 0 for one... Lop-sided affairs are never good though in a long-term optic; after that game, the next one always starts at 0-0 y'know...!).
The court said today that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly protects religious freedoms, but that times have changed and that the legal definition of marriage should also change. (Hey - the climate is also changing... so let's all adopt a polar bear and set the creature up real cozy in our backyards... eh?).
"Several centuries ago, it would have been understood that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples." (Duh...)
"The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."
Prime Minister Paul Martin applauded the decision, and said the government would now move forward with the legislation. He said the bill would be tabled in the House of Commons after the holiday break.
"We are proceeding because quite simply we believe in the Charter of Rights and the guarantee it provides to equality," Martin said in a statement read to reporters in Ottawa. (Hmm... equality equates mediocrity... no?).
He said it was a decision he has personally struggled with "but fundamentally it comes down to the equality rights under the Charter."
Three of the questions were put forth by the government under former prime minister Jean Chrétien in July 2003. (Ah... Chrétien - the most popular halloween mask of recent years... AND Robin Williams' favorite Canadian!).
First question: Does Parliament have the exclusive legislative authority to change the legal definition of marriage?
Supreme Court's answer: Yes
Luminous Ruling: Wrong answer... Besides, any legislative authority one can think of has limited scope when one deals with such things... if you know what I mean... now, DO you know what I mean...?
Second question: Is extending the capacity to marry persons of the same sex consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Supreme Court's answer: Yes
Luminous Ruling: Why not also ask if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has any rhyme or reason while you're at it...? What's next - people who want to jump off bridges will be allowed to do so - because we ought to respect their "rights and freedoms" too...?!?
Third question: Are religious leaders protected under the Charter of Rights from having to marry same-sex couples?
Supreme Court's answer: Yes
Luminous Ruling: religious leaders have more common sense anyway...!
They need not to be "protected"...!!! (If some newstyle odd couple
would threaten to sue them for not officiating in such an "union",
a truly capable religious leader would clamor, high and mighty, "hey
you cannot sue me - I work for a Higher Office - above your
pettifogger's reach...!". End of story I say...! Besides... why
do gays want the religious blessing now...? They sneered at all
that the Pope had to say about sex, saying he has NO sex life -duh
really?- and now they want his blessing? Puh-leeze...).
After taking over from the Chrétien government, Prime Minister Paul Martin added a fourth question:
Fourth question: Is the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman constitutional?
Supreme Court's answer: The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question.
Luminous Ruling: I will dare answer this... not a Supreme Coward like those old geezers there... Anything BIBLICAL can damn sure be perceived as CONSTITUTIONAL... only a peabrain like Paulie there is not sure about THAT...!!!
Oh - and the So-called Supreme Court judges as well... of course!
Calling the decision a "huge victory" for the Conservative position, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper said he is encouraged by the court's muted rebuke of how the federal government has handled the issue. (Hmm... if that is being conservative, one can shudder at the thought of what REALLY being liberal can entail...).
"We're encouraged also by the fact that the government was effectively chastised by the court for not appealing lower court decisions." (Ok, but... like... how low can you go with this appeal after appeal crap... hmm? ;).
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler rejected that assessment, saying the court went as far as it could to support the draft bill, and is now handing it over to Parliament.
(Hmm... sounds like shady dealings somehow... eh?).
"They can't direct us as to what we should now do but they've gone as far as they could legitimately go," Cotler said. (Thank Goodness they can't go much further, yeah...!).
He said the court is essentially affirming the decisions handed down by lower courts in seven jurisdictions that ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. (The clouds are gathering on the horizon thus...).
"Now it's up to us to assume the responsibilities as a government, and happily we've got the Supreme court's support to assume that responsibility." (Happily? Oh joy... We are having a gay old time - aren't we? LOL).
Martin will hold a "two-line whip" on the vote, meaning cabinet ministers will have to vote for the bill. However, backbench MPs will be free to vote as they choose. (Nothing like a two-line whip to split up the party in two - welcome extra dose of dissension in the already well-divided ranks! Whip it good now...!!!).
"Individual members of Parliament should be and will be free to vote as they see fit. However, the position of the government is definitive. For that reason, cabinet members will be required to vote in favour of the legislation," Martin said. (The position of the government has to be definitive for it to be able to usurp, in style and mere appearance, the omnipotence and omniscience it does not, cannot and will never have in a million years... or million elections! In other words, government does NOT equal God! Somebody please tell Paulie...).
Political analysts suggest the bill will likely pass, but only by a small margin. (No 9-0 score there... proof that they still have some brain cells left when they are at Parliament... Those that get to preside in the Supreme Court are the only ones who lose them almost completely overnight...).
The move toward legalizing gay marriage began in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. (A recognized triumverate of d.c.a. - debauchery, crime and assorted activities...!). Rulings in those provinces were followed by similar court decisions in Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon. (Three likely sheep-mentality provinces... and one surprising territory to jump on THIS bandwagon. And no - my American "friends" - the Yukon is NOT Canada's Yucca Mountain... ok?).
If the legislation eventually passes in Parliament, Canada would be among the first countries to officially recognize gay and lesbian marriages.
They wish - any dubious "honor" is craved by Canada it seems... first in nothing, practically... The country really suffers from a bad case of trying to measure up to its big great sibling... But really now, who are they kidding here...? Several countries in the world have "officially recognized" this sort of union... If you want to be truly original, Canada, try and be the first to legalize pot! I know some folks who will see their business boom as a result... right Timmy? ;)
LOL ROTFL
Blessings!
