Kennedy, LIBERAL REPUBLICANS, Urge Protection for Homosexuals

Cybercast News Service. ^ | May 05, 2003 | Lawrence Morahan

[Polycarp]

LEAKED GOV'T DOC SAYS CANADA SET TO LEGALIZE HOMOSEXUAL 'MARRIAGE'
Elected Liberal government once again set to allow activist judges to determine law

OTTAWA, May 6, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A confidential document on Liberal government letterhead was sent Friday to Liberal members of the Justice Committee considering the question of same-sex 'marriage'. The document, a copy of which was acquired by LifeSite, says that the government has no choice but to legalize homosexual 'marriage.'

The paper, written by the Liberals' research branch, rejects all the compromise suggestions being considered by the government and suggests recent court rulings have excluded the possibility of retaining the status quo. The paper notes that "Three provincial courts (British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec) have ruled that the federal common-law definition of marriage - "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" - violates the constitutional right to equality of same-sex couples under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All three decisions are now under appeal. In all likelihood, the highest court in the country will agree that this definition based on heterosexuality is unconstitutional."

Ruling out a compromise measure the paper asks: "Should the federal government follow Quebec's example and set up a civil registry?". It responds: "No. The creation of such a registry wouldn't settle the basic problems of equality and justice, which are at the heart of the matter." And further that: "Given the jurisdiction of provinces and territories in the
matter, some would argue that the creation of such a registry does not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government."

The paper also dismisses unloading the marriage issue to provinces and churches saying that churches require cooperation of the government regarding marriage registry.

The paper also reveals the clearly biased pro-homosexual 'marriage' stance of the drafters as it says: "The recognition in law of same-sex marriage is about fair play, equality, inclusiveness, and justice, values that are consistent with our government's commitments."

Once again, the federal Liberals are using activist judges and exploiting the Charter of Rights to by-pass the democratic process and impose controversial law on the Canadian public and the country's institutions.

The recent BC Appeals Court ruling which gave the federal government until July 12 to legalize homosexual 'marriage' is online at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/../../../../jdb-txt/ca/03/02/2003BCCA0251.htm

The text of the memo is reproduced on LifeSite at:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/may/030506a.html

[lurky]

Rational? Hardly.

Really? Please point out my irrationality. I'll wait.

So what do you think of F.J. Mitchell's proposal that the best protection for homos is to keep them separated? He/she posted it in all seriousness. Now, in all seriousness, what you think of it?

[Polycarp]

Care to answer my questions I posed to you a little while back?

Right after td answers for his calumny against me and my data.

Refresh my memory in the meantime...what questions?

[Polycarp]

I'm not concerned with his proposal. You care to debate it with him, that's OK. I'm indifferent.

[lurky]

I'm not concerned with his proposal. You care to debate it with him, that's OK. I'm indifferent.

Nice dodge. Of course you aren't. You think his proposal is just as insane, delusional, in short "unrealistic" as I do. Well, if ur any rational thinker worth half his salt, you do.

[Polycarp]

Nice dodge.

Thank you! I learned that fine art from our libertarian friends on this thread.

[lurky]

Right after td answers for his calumny against me and my data.

Your not gonna answer me until another debater answers you. Doctor, you seriously can't be this petulant, can you?

Refresh my memory in the meantime...what questions?

You claim you are qualified to evaluate peer-reviewed studies, so you must fully be aware that studies based on ads in newspapers are not scientific, right?

You are familiar with Paul Cameron, yes?

[lurky]

Thank you! I learned that fine art from our libertarian friends on this thread.

The only thing I dodge is personal info. Never a rational, intellectual evaluation. Come on, doc! Your disappointing me!

[tdadams]

If one reads this thread carefully, one can only conclude that his stance evolved to the current stance when his arguments about nebulous conclusions were thoroughly refuted.

I've answered this charge Poly and you know it. You haven't refuted me at all. You're merely here saying that to convince yourself and others that you did and to claim a false victory.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Reminds me of the Abbott and Costello "Who's on first?" routine.

Interesting tactics they employ, it looks like the democrat 'muddy the waters' trick, then run around in circles till everybody throws up their hands and says 'what's the use?'

[Cap'n Crunch]

lurky,

In 373, who are you referring to as 'rigid religious conservatives?'

[Cap'n Crunch]

And what exactly is a 'rigid religious conservative?'

[Cap'n Crunch]

And, how about a definition of 'regular peeps?'

[lurky]

I was using sweeping generalizations, I confess. By "rigid" I mean religious conservatives who believe that law should be a vehicle to mandate Biblical fundamentalist morality. By "regular peeps" I mean ordinary people within my circle who think the religious right is going crackers over the issue of (male) homosexuality.

[Torie]

Some statistical analyses are reliable and some not. Some have high T stats and some don't. Some have methodological errors, some quite subtle, and some don't. Some have non random or otherwise skewed samples, and some don't. And some studies are simply fraudulent, like a couple on both sides of the issue dealing with the gun issue, which seems to induce unethical academic behavior sort of likes flies to dung. Thus any generalized statement without a careful review of the study, a review of the data base, and knowledge of other studies, and a very high level grasp of statistics, is simply not very helpful. And there you have it.

[jwalsh07]

Its funny how often we agree but yet our statements are so, shall we say, diverse. LOL

Up above you will notice my comment on data and satistics and the validity of same. GIGO covers it rather well and succinctly.