Oh Canada, what have you done?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joanne_ca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Strider:
Probably never, but can you not see that if the Canadians, or us for that matter, passed this law, it’s inevitable.
I don’t understand your attitude. “Everybody else will yawn,” doesn’t quite get it, because there are many, many more Americans who care about values than just the ones on this board.
My fingers aren’t chubby, but they are busy. Legalizing gay marriage - institutioinalzing it - is just another step in the direction of a secular humanistic, post-modern, relativistic culture. If that’s what you want, you can have it right now. Move to The Netherlands or, I’m sorry to say, Canada. They’re almost there. When I was growing up in the antidiluvian era of the '50’s, their government was almost like ours. We spent a lot of time there.
Stuff happened, and now, those good people are under the rule of a European-style social democracy.
I don’t particularly want to see us head in that direction. Neither do the peopole red counties.
Yawn if you will. You may wake up in a very different place; a place you don’t like.
In the interests of precision and accuracy in language, I’d have to say that some priest will probably be sued. A basic principle of our legal system states, “Any jackass can sue anyone he chooses.”

A more important notion is whether they prevail in court. If I choose, I can sue you for having long, agile fingers. But I will be laughed out of court. It’s the same with clergy being sued because they don’t perform a particular marriage. I can support an award against a wedding singer, but not a priest.

As for the yawners, most of the people in Massachusetts are yawning over gay marriage. They see no difference in the state of the state now as compared to May 16. I recommend a good yawn; it’s therapeutic.

I prefer to stay in the US to drum in the dawn of the age of secular humanistic, post-modern, relativistic culture.
 
Another basic principle of our legal system states that if you find the right judge, you can win any case, no matter how insipid it is.
The majority of those who live in Massachussetts are from another planet. Evidence? How many times has Ted Kennedy been reelected to the senate.
You’ll have to carry your drum over my dead body.
 
40.png
Zoot:
As for the yawners, most of the people in Massachusetts are yawning over gay marriage. They see no difference in the state of the state now as compared to May 16. I recommend a good yawn; it’s therapeutic.

I prefer to stay in the US to drum in the dawn of the age of secular humanistic, post-modern, relativistic culture.
Wouldn’t it be better to actively fight against this sort of thing so as to prevent the “age of secular humanistic, post-modern, relativistic culture” you are talking about? “Yawning” and not doing anything about it is almost as bad as actively supporting these immoral ideas.
 
40.png
Strider:
Another basic principle of our legal system states that if you find the right judge, you can win any case, no matter how insipid it is.
The majority of those who live in Massachussetts are from another planet. Evidence? How many times has Ted Kennedy been reelected to the senate.
You’ll have to carry your drum over my dead body.
Please put some traffic cones around your body before passing on. It makes the marching so much easier.
 
40.png
Aureole:
Wouldn’t it be better to actively fight against this sort of thing so as to prevent the “age of secular humanistic, post-modern, relativistic culture” you are talking about? “Yawning” and not doing anything about it is almost as bad as actively supporting these immoral ideas.
Last time I looked, there was room for the religious as well as the secular, humanistic, post-modern, relativist.
 
40.png
Joanne_ca:
I have always been proud to be Canadian, but now I have my doubts. The Supreme Court of Canada has just unanimously okayed same sex marriages and it’s only a matter of time before it goes to Legislature and I’m sure it will be approved. Right now they are saying churches will not be forced to perform same sex marriages but I don’t believe that. I am feeling very frustrated this morining but we just have to keep fighting and hopefully through the grace of God we can at least keep this out of our churches. You Americans should be very proud of yourselves and your President for your efforts to retain your family values. I admire you, and I pray that you will be successful in keeping these laws out of your country. I feel that the United States is our only hope left to turn this around.
I wonder what the church would do if they were forced to perform these ceremonies. Would we stand together and face persecution because of our beliefs or give into the pressure? Right now, most of my friends and family do not agree with me or are of the opinion that it doesn’t matter, there’s nothing we can do. I will fight this to the end of my life. I’m curious how others feel at this forum.

:banghead:
You should be proud of being Canadian

We are a peacful nation with an accepting culture.

But they do make a mockery of the sacred right of marriage.
 
40.png
TheQuestioner:
You should be proud of being Canadian

We are a peacful nation with an accepting culture.

But they do make a mockery of the sacred right of marriage.
Can the culture accept people who do not want a sacred marriage?
 
Canada Court’s OK of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Has Conservatives Concerned

By Chad Groening and Jenni Parker
December 10, 2004

(AgapePress) - The ruling by Canada’s Supreme Court that same-sex marriage is constitutional is reverberating across North America, as liberals and conservatives across the continent react with celebration or alarm. One Canadian pro-family leader says it may take the election of a conservative government to prevent Parliament from extending marriage rights to homosexuals.

The Canadian Supreme Court’s controversial opinion, issued yesterday (December 9), gives Parliament authority to approve legislation allowing same-sex marriage. Pro-family forces in the U.S. have reacted with concern, feeling the Canadian court’s action is another sign of what America may be confronting in the future.

Steve Crampton, chief counsel at the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, says the Canadian high court’s opinion is exactly the kind of judicial activism U.S. liberals would love to see happen in their own country. So even though U.S. conservatives have had “a really good year at the polls,” he says, now is no time for the pro-family crowd to relax its vigilance.

“The federal courts have taken a black eye, I think, in the last year,” Crampton says, “but by no means have they or the other side that pushes for these kinds of radical social-engineering measures totally given up on the idea of rewriting the American way of life. So we certainly can’t go to sleep at the wheel at a time like this.”

The AFA Law Center attorney says just like in the U.S., justices in Canada are not supposed to be policy makers, but instead are supposed to be neutral arbitrators of the laws that the legislature initiates. Crampton contends that the opinion issued by the Canadian Supreme Court is an egregious case of “the tail wagging the dog” and also, “a remarkable picture of really what the liberals in America want to see happen in our own court system.”

Mixed Canadian Reaction
Canadian reactions to the decision have been mixed. According to *Associated Press *reports, while some churches in Canada are condemning the high court’s decision, others are celebrating it. One attorney whose church solemnizes same-sex marriages expressed his approval, pointing out that the ruling does not violate religious rights because the court said clergy cannot be forced to perform marriages if their beliefs oppose doing so.
 
And the United Church of Canada, meanwhile, is endorsing the Supreme Court’s move as a positive step towards justice. In a submission presented to the court by the UCC last October, the church spoke in favor of the right of religious officials and congregations to decide for themselves whether to allow same-sex marriage services for homosexual couples. A *Worldwide Faith News *report quotes the UCC’s program officer for human rights, Choice Okoro, as saying that the church “believes that equality and religious freedom can live side by side, supporting each other and building a stronger society.”

However, Rev. Gordon Young, a Newfoundland pastor, told AP that redefining marriage would undermine “the divine institution that God put in place for the order of our society.” He says the government has no right to redefine marriage and doing so will lead to breakdown. Although Canada’s Prime Minister Paul Martin calls homosexual marriage an equal rights issue, Rev. Young encourages members of Parliament to reject the plan to legalize it nationwide.

**Candian Conservatives – Any Recourse?
**Brian Rushfeldt, president and co-founder of the Canada Family Action Coalition, says he was not surprised at Thursday’s unanimous opinion by the Canadian Supreme Court, stating that homosexual marriage would be constitutional in Canada. He says there appears to be only one remedy to the situation.

“If they do pass this law,” Rushfeldt says, “the only recourse after that is to elect a conservative government with a good majority so that we can get something passed through our Parliament again to correct the problem.”

The pro-family leader feels conservatives’ options are limited at this point, and it may be that the only way to reverse the liberal government’s direction would be to put a new government in place. “That’s the only recourse that we have,” he says. “If they do introduce a piece of legislation in Parliament, then that’s where we have to defeat it because, if it gets introduced and passed, then we’ll definitely see the definition of marriage changed.”

Rushfeldt is convinced that most of Canada’s citizens would support a Canadian Defense of Marriage Amendment. “If we were to put this to a vote, I am very, very sure that the majority of Canadians, by about 70 percent, probably will oppose homosexual marriage,” he says.

The head of the Canada Family Action Coalition says the organization will be working to mobilize citizens across Canada in an attempt to head off the liberal government’s efforts to extend marriage rights to homosexuals. “We’ve got to rally the troops across Canada,” he says, urging citizens to contact members of Parliament and tell them, “If you do not support marriage as [being between] a man and a woman, we’re coming after you next election and you will be out.”

However, Rushfeldt says once Canada’s lawmakers have been warned, the conservative and pro-family grassroots need “to follow that up with action” and really make sure they work hard at electing a conservative majority of government leaders who will defend traditional marriage.

headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/afa/102004a.asp
 
The court enacted nothing, and ordered nothing. This is left to the democratically elected legislature.
 
Well, let me add some perspectives from French Canada. I think the best hope for Canada is to revive the Catholic culture in Quebec. Like it or not, Quebec is the one province which carries the most political weight in Canada. 80% of Quebecois are Catholics, yet well over 60% in the province are pro gay-marriage, so we end up with things like these. It’s been only 40 years that our province was taken over by the atheists Liberal-PQ, but many Francophones are still Catholics at heart.

The problem is, in our schools, with the curriculum set by the anti-Catholic bureaucrats at the Quebec Ministry of Education, our students are taught that the Catholic Church was basically the worst enemy to Quebec nationalism. Therefore, Quebecois generally distance themselves from the Catholic church and its teachings.

There has been a revival of conservatism in our province recently, but it’s mostly fiscal conservativism rather than social conservatism. (Personally, I’m the other way around, so it’s been quite irritating for me). I’m not sure if our politicians would have the guts to move towards social conservatism, but it’s not that impossible. After all, 80% of us are Catholics. So please pray for us that we can once again return to the Catholic Church as a nation (yes, both Quebec and Canada:))

Peace,
Mike.
 
Straight and to the point…I would not attend a Church that performed/use/or condoned same sex marriage.
40.png
Joanne_ca:
I have always been proud to be Canadian, but now I have my doubts. The Supreme Court of Canada has just unanimously okayed same sex marriages and it’s only a matter of time before it goes to Legislature and I’m sure it will be approved. Right now they are saying churches will not be forced to perform same sex marriages but I don’t believe that. I am feeling very frustrated this morining but we just have to keep fighting and hopefully through the grace of God we can at least keep this out of our churches. You Americans should be very proud of yourselves and your President for your efforts to retain your family values. I admire you, and I pray that you will be successful in keeping these laws out of your country. I feel that the United States is our only hope left to turn this around.
I wonder what the church would do if they were forced to perform these ceremonies. Would we stand together and face persecution because of our beliefs or give into the pressure? Right now, most of my friends and family do not agree with me or are of the opinion that it doesn’t matter, there’s nothing we can do. I will fight this to the end of my life. I’m curious how others feel at this forum.

:banghead:
 
Although several have pooh poohed the idea that a minister would be sued for refusing to perform a same sex marriage, isn’t it Canada (or one of the provinces) that designated if a minister speaks out against homosexuality from the pulpit it is deemed hate speech?

Thus it’s not that far fetched, if indeed speaking against homosexuals is a hate crime, then refusing to accommodate their demand to be “married” could also be deemed a hate crime. Doesn’t seem that unlikely to me given the trend in Canada. I thought it was bad living in Oregon but Canada really seems to have gone off the left coast

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
Although several have pooh poohed the idea that a minister would be sued for refusing to perform a same sex marriage, isn’t it Canada (or one of the provinces) that designated if a minister speaks out against homosexuality from the pulpit it is deemed hate speech?
Yes, it is. For your reading pleasure: “Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism”.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
Shoshana:
Code:
I am supposing that ‘this place’ you are referring to is Canada, eh?
Yes Shoshana…the place im referring to is Canada. These issues including oppressive gun control bring to mind the saying ‘Soviet Canuckistan’. This PLACE is a constant vexation on the soul.

If this gay bill goes through, i feel like just dumping the girl i love and moving to the states…I wonder if i could claim refugee status…

To me, why even bother trying to start a family and life?? It’s so depressing…at least for me. I suppose the only upside is that i KNOW if there were referendums on this gay thing or gun control, both bills would be defeated. Problem is, Canadians couldn’t be bothered to get off their rear.

Ahhh whats the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top