Eric writes what gores me?
What gores me is judicial activism and the consequences of such activism for society of which I happen to be a tax paying member. Justices should not be making law but only interpreting it. Law should only be made by elected Members of Parliament. MP’s are directly accountable to the people who voted for them. Justices are political appointments and are not accountable to the people.
There was a time when marriage was strictly in the sphere of religious institutions and not regulated by the state. State licensing became a way of exercising a tax on the populace. The State justified entering into the bedrooms of the nation with the rationale that it needed to protect the rights of women and children, hence the tax was needed to raise revenue so that it could afford to protect women and children.
The whole same-sex marriage debate seems to revolve on the premise that marriage is a human right and that you can legislate morality or ethics. Certainly during the last 30 years in Canada it has become a national past-time to try to legislate morality and ethics with disastrous consequences. But marriage is not a human “right” and because it is not a right, it can be exclusive and discriminatory. Otherwise all the unmarried in our society are being denied their right to marry. So in the interest of equality shall the state regulate and arrange marriages so that the single people can exercise their right to marry?
I truly feel the answer is not to extend marriage to gay/lesbian couples per say but rather to turn the licensing and issuing of marriage licenses back to the religious institutions whence it came from. If you’re a gay, lesbian or a heterosexual you have two choices; either go to a lawyer and draw up a partnership agreement or go find a church to marry you.
Furthermore, I don’t believe that eventually “gay/lesbian” marriages will ever number proportionally the same as heterosexual couples whether regulated by the churches or the state. That has not been the case where gay/lesbian marriage has already been implemented. Nor has the divorce ratio been proportionally compatible. But I do worry that the additional burden on our already overburdened family court system will require a huge infusion of cash to deal with the increases in demand for court services. There is only way one for government to raise revenue and that is to raise taxes…
4 comments:
Hi Kate - Eric here. Sorry to raise your hackles so much. I perceive you are not a big fan of gay marriage but I think you are letting your emotions run away with you. Allow me to address your last.
"What gores me is judicial activism and the consequences of such activism for society of which I happen to be a tax paying member. Justices should not be making law but only interpreting it. Law should only be made by elected Members of Parliament. MP’s are directly accountable to the people who voted for them."
I too am uncomfortable with some aspects of judicial behaviour. (recent decisions in Ontario spring to mind) The culprit here though, is the Liberal government which, lacking the balls to make a decision, allowed or indeed maneuvered the courts into doing what they were paid to handle. That being said, however, we just had an election and we lost. Same sex marriage is not going to go away. If we try to fight another election on this question we will lose again
"There was a time when marriage was strictly in the sphere of religious institutions and not regulated by the state. State licensing became a way of exercising a tax on the populace."
I agree with you that marriage should never have become a matter for government at all. But that's not going to go away either. Can you picture the CPC running on a platform of noninvolvement of government in marriage?
I can't follow your next two paragraphs. Unmarried being denied the right? Two choices? Isn't that what we have now?
"Furthermore, I don’t believe that eventually “gay/lesbian” marriages will ever number proportionally the same as heterosexual couples"
I don't follow you on 'proportionality of marriages'. My point was only that, given time and the existence of both gay and hetero marriages, the divorce rate for both groups will probably be similar.
" But I do worry that the additional burden on our already overburdened family court system will require a huge infusion of cash to deal with the increases in demand for court services."
Some money will be spent on this for sure. I do not think it will be a huge infusion of cash though.
Hope you take my comments on this question in the light they are offered, that of friendly discussion. On all other matters we seem to see very much eye to eye.
Cheers. Eric. PS- does anyone know how we post with the name we are forced to choose. I hate to post as anonymous.
Re: Proportionality
I think she meant that the ratio of unmarried homosexuals to married will remain much higher than the corresponding heterosexual ratio. Am I wrong?
I don't agree that the Conservatives wouldn't consider getting out of the marriage taxation racket altogether. I think it would suit Harper just fine.
Re: Proportionality
I think she meant that the ratio of unmarried homosexuals to married will remain much higher than the corresponding heterosexual ratio. Am I wrong?
I don't agree that the Conservatives wouldn't consider getting out of the marriage taxation racket altogether. I think it would suit Harper just fine as an end run around the SCC.
Consider Haloscan.
Post a Comment