McGill Professor promotes civil disobedience against same sex marriage

[Ani_Ibi]

---

***Why and How Canadians Should Refuse to Recognize C-38

Douglas Farrow, Associate Professor McGill University

When I gave testimony before the Legislative Committee on C-38 on June 7th (the brief is available at www.enshrinemarriage.ca/english/news.aspx) I told the committee that, were C-38 to be passed, I for one would not recognize it as a valid law. That is a position I now urge on my fellow-Canadians and, in particular, on the representatives of religious and ethnic communities, from whom courageous leadership is required.

This position is not the result of resentment, though it would be easy enough to allow resentment to prevail: resentment of the shameless machinations of lobbyists, lawyers, courts, political parties, media lords, and government officials high and low, who (with praiseworthy exceptions) made every effort to see that Canadians never really understood what is at stake in same-sex marriage, and who in the end simply ignored the great many Canadians who do. And, yes, resentment too of the placing of personal and party interests ahead of the public good even by supposed stalwarts of the promarriage movement in the Commons, who must bear their share of responsibility for the passage of C-38. But I will not dwell on these things. One day someone will document them and the sorry tale of the manipulators and the manipulated will be told, to our collective shame.

The present moment, however, cries out for a constructive response to C-38. That response should begin with a refusal to recognize C-38 as a valid law and a refusal to cooperate with the impending C-38 regime. This, I submit, is the most constructive response available, and though it entails a form of civil disobedience it must not be confused with rebellion or anarchy or even with libertarianism. I will try to give some account of it, offering an *apologia *in two parts before making particular recommendations about its implementation. In conclusion I will allude to positive steps towards the rebuilding of our social and political culture, but the task of rebuilding requires first of all a clear “No” to C-38.

Read more here.

 

[ega]

Basically he’s having a massive sulk and wants to throw the toys out of the cot.

He is arguing from a legalistic PoV that the courts and the legislation have no right to change the law which enshrines ‘natural law’, of course that means his natural law. His natual law, of course, is based of procreation, yet one could argue that even more basic than reproduction is the couple, mutuality, because pairs form that cannot reproduce, naturallt and spontaneously.

But he is mistaken anyway, the state has both the right and the power to create or change any legal relationship and to ascribe any reward or punishment for legally recognised relationships by the power given to the state by the legitimate power delivered by democracy, and the courts have the right to interpret laws according to knowledge that has been aquired.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

ega:

Basically he’s having a massive sulk and wants to throw the toys out of the cot.

He is arguing from a legalistic PoV that the courts and the legislation have no right to change the law which enshrines ‘natural law’, of course that means his natural law. His natual law, of course, is based of procreation, yet one could argue that even more basic than reproduction is the couple, mutuality, because pairs form that cannot reproduce, naturallt and spontaneously.

But he is mistaken anyway, the state has both the right and the power to create or change any legal relationship and to ascribe any reward or punishment for legally recognised relationships by the power given to the state by the legitimate power delivered by democracy, and the courts have the right to interpret laws according to knowledge that has been aquired.

Wrong. government has no right to go against natural law and it is our right to stand up to the government. Todays laws are being based on Moral Relativism and must be opposed.

PF

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ega:

Basically he’s having a massive sulk and wants to throw the toys out of the cot.

He is arguing from a legalistic PoV that the courts and the legislation have no right to change the law which enshrines ‘natural law’, of course that means his natural law. His natual law, of course, is based of procreation, yet one could argue that even more basic than reproduction is the couple, mutuality, because pairs form that cannot reproduce, naturallt and spontaneously.

But he is mistaken anyway, the state has both the right and the power to create or change any legal relationship and to ascribe any reward or punishment for legally recognised relationships by the power given to the state by the legitimate power delivered by democracy, and the courts have the right to interpret laws according to knowledge that has been aquired.

Just
plain
wrong

He is basing his arguments on the nature of man as created by God. Oh it would help your case ever so much if you were to read before you spout. Here we go.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

C-38 relies on a complete detachment of civil from religious marriage. Religious marriage there may be, but it has naught to do with marriage for civil purposes. This is not, as some pretend, an ordinary application of the doctrine of the separation of church and state – which is not a Canadian doctrine, in any case – but a doctrine of the *divorce *of church and state. It stands in direct contradiction to the Charter assertion that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

**Translation: **
C-38 contradicts the Charter.

 

[ega]

WanderAimlessly:

Wrong. government has no right to go against natural law and it is our right to stand up to the government. Todays laws are being based on Moral Relativism and must be opposed.PF

Two things:

Government power is not derived from natural law arguments, but from recognised authority, such as the divine right of kings, the mandate of the people, or Right by Might. All governments operate by some level of coercion as virtually every citizen has objections to some laws (such as speeding, drugs, divorce, abortion, etc). The governments rights reach exactly as far as fear of the government and the complicity of the citizens.

This is the truth of the social contract.

Natural law is a flawed argument. It does not stand up to detailed and logical examination. It is supposed to be based on examination of the natural (that is whole) world. Those who evoke it to support thier view always exclude natural events and behavious, most amusingly with the words ‘we are not animals’.

Apart from the fact we are animals, it puts us outside natural law itself, so all logical derivations of natural law fail because we claim extra-natural status (due to the soul).

Natural law arguments are broken, you need new ones.

 

[ega]

Ani Ibi:

He is basing his arguments on the nature of man as created by God. Oh it would help your case ever so much if you were to read before you spout. Here we go.

He is basing it on a subjective belief in the limits of state power.

The limits of state power are defined by their representatives who are willing to act.

He doesnt understand states are always coercive.

He has absolute moral authority to engage in civil disobedience, and I completely agree that he should if he feels strongly enough. But he has no idea of the real relationship between him and the state.

 

[fix]

ega:

Two things:

Government power is not derived from natural law arguments, but from recognised authority, such as the divine right of kings, the mandate of the people, or Right by Might. All governments operate by some level of coercion as virtually every citizen has objections to some laws (such as speeding, drugs, divorce, abortion, etc). The governments rights reach exactly as far as fear of the government and the complicity of the citizens.

This is the truth of the social contract.

Natural law is a flawed argument. It does not stand up to detailed and logical examination. It is supposed to be based on examination of the natural (that is whole) world. Those who evoke it to support thier view always exclude natural events and behavious, most amusingly with the words ‘we are not animals’.

Apart from the fact we are animals, it puts us outside natural law itself, so all logical derivations of natural law fail because we claim extra-natural status (due to the soul).

Natural law arguments are broken, you need new ones.

The authority of government comes from the creator.