I read Shawn's comments from Thursday, December 16, 2004. I disagree with him. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Once the definition of marriage is changed lawmakers will be very reluctant to change it back. But I do have this question; If we found every instance of the word marriage in Canadian law and changed it to another word, say "duck", would the gay community be satisfied if the definition of "duck" was to include the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. If the answer to this question is "no" than I would suggest that this is not a rights issue.

What got me thinking about this is a comment made by a gay rights activist during the CBC radio program, Cross Country Checkup. The person (I did not catch his name) referred to gay marriage as a wedge issue. A wedge issue for what? To the best of my knowledge gays already enjoy the same rights and protections under the law as all other citizens. They partake in all the same benefits as other Canadians, including spousal benefits. And this is before gay marriage legislation has been enacted. What other injustices are they faced with? I'll leave the answer to your speculation as I have no answer for you.

Since I'm on the marriage rant here are some other questions/speculations for you:

1. Can two brothers or two sisters get married?
2. Can a father marry his son? Can a mother marry her daughter? If the answer is no then why not?
3. If a mother can marry her daughter is it discrimination to prevent her from marrying her son?

Yes, these are some of the icky questions Canadian lawmakers must consider if they are going to do a half-decent job on the new marriage bill. Hope you're not one of them.

Big news in Britain. The Lords of Law have decided that its not nice to lock people up forever without at least telling them why. While I am against evil, nasty terrorists roaming the streets I do not believe that any authority should have the right to lock people up without telling them why. I'm wondering if a Geneva convention on terrorists may be in order. Here are some of the questions that could be answered by such conventions:

• On what grounds can individuals be classified as terrorists?
• What are the ground rules on methods of interrogation?
• On what grounds can an organization be classified as a terrorist organization?
• What are the legal rights of terrorists?
• What are the rules for acting premtively on terrorist threats?
• How long can terrorists be held and when and how can they be released?

There are probably lots of other good points to be addressed but I am to tired to worry about it right now.

Big news up in Canada. The supreme court ruled that the Federal Government could legally change the definition of marriage from the 'Union of a man and a women' to the 'Union of two people'. This opens the door to same sex marriage in Canada. I found a copy of the ruling at http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc079.wpd.html (good site, check it out). I have only scanned through it but here is a summary of what I have read to date:

1. The supreme court was asked to answer the following questions:
1. Can the government redefine marriage in Canada?
2. If yes, can government redefine marriage to include same sex marriage?
3. Can religious officials be compelled to marry same sex couples against their (the officials) beliefs?
4. Will the redefinition of marriage apply to Quebec civil law.
2. The supreme court gave the following answers:
1. For civil purposes, the government can redefine marriage in Canada.
2. For civil purposes, the government can redefine marriage to include same sex marriage.
3. Barring unique circumstances, religious officials can not be compelled to perform a same sex marriage.
4. The court declined to address this question.

So, I have the following questions of my own:

1. Can religious officials be compelled to recognize a marriage that does not conform to their beliefs?
2. Can written works or oral presentations speaking against the legal definition of marriage be considered Inflammatory or discriminatory?
3. If yes, can such works be banned or ordered altered to conform to the legal definition of marriage?
4. Can the legal definition of marriage be further expanded to include more than two persons?
5. Can the legal definition of marriage be further expanded to include beings other than persons?
   

As you can tell I am not in favour of changing the definition of marriage. In fact, I am not in favour of governments being in the marriage business. I would rather that governments embrace the concept of secularism and remove the last vestiges of church that are still part of the state. France did this years ago. They have the concept of a civil union which is separate and distinct from marriage. The laws defining the creation and dissolution of a civil union can change without protest from religious organizations because it is understood as being separate and distinct from marriage.

In the US, religious groups are trying to get the definition of marriage enshrined in the constitution. This effort will for the same reason it failed in Canada. Courts will look at the definition of marriage as a legal definition, not as a religious one. From a legal point of view marriage is a right, not a sacrament. Denying a right to one or more persons based on sexual orientation is wrong, therefore same sex marriage will be legal sooner or later.

I'll talk about this later when I have actually finished reading the ruling.

Okay,

Its finally time to actually try to fill this space. Let's start by talking about President George Bush's visit to Canada. First, it was nice to see the protesters more or less behave themselves. There was a small incident in Ottawa but that was it. President Bush more or less behaved himself as well. There was an appeal for Star Wars which put the Canadian Prime Minister on the defensives but that about it. All in all it was a good visit. The guests seemed to enjoy themselves, the kids were fairly well behaved and the weather was nice.