BC Court rules FOR same sex marriage!!! YEAH!/CBC
Chris Ambidge
Columbia, where this decision was just announced. Stay tuned for
further developments.
Three cases, in BC, Ontario and Quebec, have been proceding against
the federal definition of marriage (one man, one woman). The BC case
ruled against us at the trial level, the Ontario and Quebec cases
ruled in favour of same-sex marriage. All have been appealed, the
Ontario case was being heard earlier this week.
The BC case has just been ruled on at the Appellate level, and it is
in favour of same-sex marriage, saying the rules must be re-written.
Next stop, Supreme Court of Canada
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ begin CBC text /\/\/\/\/\
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/01/samesex_bc030501
B.C. court backs same-sex marriages
Last Updated Thu, 01 May 2003 15:00:01
VANCOUVER - Preventing gay couples from marrying is discriminatory and
Ottawa must relax its rules, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled Thursday.
It gave the federal government a deadline of July 12, 2004, to change
laws preventing same-sex marriages.
Similar decisions have been made by judges in Quebec and Ontario.
Ottawa is appealing those cases.
Two years ago, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield ruled that the
legal definition of "marriage" should be restricted to heterosexual
couples. He said the limit was justified under the Constitution.
But the province's top judges overturned his decision Thursday, siding
with eight couples who had challenged the ruling. The gay men and
women insist that same-sex couples have the right to get marriage
licences.
The three-member panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal suggested the
definition of marriage read "the lawful union of two persons to the
exclusion of all others."
According to common law, marriage is considered "the union of one man
and one woman" – a definition Ottawa is reviewing.
The federal Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is holding
public meetings across the country, asking Canadians if they think
Parliament should lift the ban on registering same-sex marriages.
Gay rights have steadily expanded since homosexuality was made legal
in Canada in 1969, and "these developments have substantial public
support, although the matter remains controversial," the B.C. Court of
Appeal wrote.
"This evolution cannot be ignored. Civil marriage should adapt to
contemporary notions of marriage as an institution in a society which
recognizes the rights of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory
treatment."
Groups opposed to same-sex marriages expressed disappointment over
Thursday's ruling, and called on MPs to do whatever they can to
preserve existing legislation.
/\/\/\/\/ end CBC text /\/\/\/\/
happy happy joy joy. Or, as a BC gay friend of mine just wrote,
"won't THIS put the conservatives' ass in a tizzy".
chris
--
chris....@utoronto.ca =|= chemist by day =|= panda by night
Ann Burlingham
> The BC case has just been ruled on at the Appellate level, and it is
> in favour of same-sex marriage, saying the rules must be re-written.
[]
oh, fabu!
those marriages wouldn't be recognised in the US any more than other
countries', though, would they?
-ann, wondering if a certain relative will indeed emigrate if things
keep going this way in canada
dpwozney
> Hot off the press, er, just reported on CBC. It's noon in British
> Columbia, where this decision was just announced. Stay tuned for
> further developments.
>
> Three cases, in BC, Ontario and Quebec, have been proceding against
> the federal definition of marriage (one man, one woman). The BC case
> ruled against us at the trial level, the Ontario and Quebec cases
> ruled in favour of same-sex marriage. All have been appealed, the
> Ontario case was being heard earlier this week.
>
> The BC case has just been ruled on at the Appellate level, and it is
> in favour of same-sex marriage, saying the rules must be re-written.
>
> Next stop, Supreme Court of Canada
Bible-believing Christians cannot recognize a homosexual
relationship as being a marriage. Marriage is honourable
in all (Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)). Homosexual relationships are
not honourable (Romans 1:24-27, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13,
1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ begin CBC text /\/\/\/\/\
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/01/samesex_bc030501
>
> B.C. court backs same-sex marriages
> Last Updated Thu, 01 May 2003 15:00:01
>
> VANCOUVER - Preventing gay couples from marrying is discriminatory and
> Ottawa must relax its rules, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled Thursday.
The King James Bible states that homosexuality is immoral
(Romans 1:24-27, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13,
1 Corinthians 6:9-10). What is wrong with discriminating
against something which is immoral?
> It gave the federal government a deadline of July 12, 2004, to change
> laws preventing same-sex marriages.
>
> Similar decisions have been made by judges in Quebec and Ontario.
> Ottawa is appealing those cases.
>
> Two years ago, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield ruled that the
> legal definition of "marriage" should be restricted to heterosexual
> couples. He said the limit was justified under the Constitution.
>
> But the province's top judges overturned his decision Thursday, siding
> with eight couples who had challenged the ruling. The gay men and
> women insist that same-sex couples have the right to get marriage
> licences.
>
> The three-member panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal suggested the
> definition of marriage read "the lawful union of two persons to the
> exclusion of all others."
> According to common law, marriage is considered "the union of one man
> and one woman" ? a definition Ottawa is reviewing.
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology at
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T464
defines marriage as a "...union between a man and a woman..."
...
"God's design for marital relationship is heterosexual, not
homosexual, and monogamous, not polygamous."
...
"The procreative injunction obviously precludes homosexual
'marriages.'"
...
"God's ideal exclusiveness of the 'one flesh' relationship
disallows any other relationship: homosexuality, polygamy,..."
> The federal Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is holding
> public meetings across the country, asking Canadians if they think
> Parliament should lift the ban on registering same-sex marriages.
>
> Gay rights have steadily expanded since homosexuality was made legal
> in Canada in 1969, and "these developments have substantial public
> support, although the matter remains controversial," the B.C. Court of
> Appeal wrote.
>
> "This evolution cannot be ignored. Civil marriage should adapt to
> contemporary notions of marriage as an institution in a society which
> recognizes the rights of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory
> treatment."
What should rather occur is for "sexual orientation" to be removed
as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian
Human Rights Act. Acccording to
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/action-issues/bill-C415/why-bill-c-415.htm
"It is reported that an Ontario Member of Parliament has stated that
sexual orientation includes all forms of sexual behaviour: sodomy,
bestiality, paedophilia, homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality,
polygamy and even sado-masochism".
Controversial Trousers
>Bible-believing Christians
are as relevant as crinoline skirts. Next.
--
Bess.
Stephanie Smith
news:5dddc6fb.03050...@posting.google.com:
> Bible-believing Christians cannot recognize a homosexual
> relationship as being a marriage.
Guess it sucks that your opinion means diddly-squat in Canada.
Neener neener neener.
--
You've got your future at stake. Face front! Take it!
Clay Colwell
> Bible-believing Christians cannot recognize a homosexual
> relationship as being a marriage.
Well, gee. When it comes to legal matters, the recognition
by "Bible-believing Christians" will be as irrelevant as
the recognition by Zeus-worshipping badgers.
Controversial Trousers
wrote this:
Badgers in crinolines, to boot.
--
Bess.
Present listening: Behead The Prophet NLSL, 'I Am That Great & Fiery
Force'. Ace!
Ann Burlingham
> The King James Bible states that homosexuality is immoral
> (Romans 1:24-27, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13,
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). What is wrong with discriminating
> against something which is immoral?
betty bowers is posting to our newsgroups! we are truly blessed!
Michael Palmer
Zeus-worshipping badgers were among the first--along with mammoths,
pandas, penguins, and bovines--to embrace same-sex marriages.
--
Michael Palmer
Claremont, California
mpa...@panix.com
http://www.librarianavengers.com
Ellen Evans
dpwozney <dpwo...@ocii.com> wrote:
[]
>The King James Bible
You probably ought to think about that King James thing a bit.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Ann Burlingham
> In article <5dddc6fb.03050...@posting.google.com>,
> dpwozney <dpwo...@ocii.com> wrote:
> []
>
> >The King James Bible
>
> You probably ought to think about that King James thing a bit.
i want to see the king james brown bible.
-ann, i feel good
drifter
>
> chris....@utoronto.ca (Chris Ambidge) wrote in message news:<ff7bec88.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> > Hot off the press, er, just reported on CBC. It's noon in British
> > Columbia, where this decision was just announced. Stay tuned for
> > further developments.
> >
> > Three cases, in BC, Ontario and Quebec, have been proceding against
> > the federal definition of marriage (one man, one woman). The BC case
> > ruled against us at the trial level, the Ontario and Quebec cases
> > ruled in favour of same-sex marriage. All have been appealed, the
> > Ontario case was being heard earlier this week.
> >
> > The BC case has just been ruled on at the Appellate level, and it is
> > in favour of same-sex marriage, saying the rules must be re-written.
> >
> > Next stop, Supreme Court of Canada
>
> Bible-believing Christians cannot recognize a homosexual
> relationship as being a marriage. Marriage is honourable
> in all (Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)). Homosexual relationships are
> not honourable (Romans 1:24-27, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13,
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
>
The right to marry has nothing to do with Bible believing Christians.
Marriage is a legal status
with inherent legal rights whether you are religious, believe in the
bible or not. Not all Canadians
require the blessing of God, as defined by the church, to live a
meaningful and honourable life.
> > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ begin CBC text /\/\/\/\/\
> >
> >
> > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/01/samesex_bc030501
> >
> > B.C. court backs same-sex marriages
> > Last Updated Thu, 01 May 2003 15:00:01
> >
> > VANCOUVER - Preventing gay couples from marrying is discriminatory and
> > Ottawa must relax its rules, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled Thursday.
>
> The King James Bible states that homosexuality is immoral
> (Romans 1:24-27, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13,
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). What is wrong with discriminating
> against something which is immoral?
You are correct, that in spite of God saying love the enemy, some
christians discriminate
against those that don't do as they say and believe what they are told.
Is it immoral for christians to spend a life-time worrying about a few
mature same-sex couples who want to get married at expense of the tens
of thousands of young people who have a potentially productive life
ahead of themselves sleeping in the alcoves and doorways of our
country? Every morning as I cycle to work, I see these young men and
women waking up in sleeping bags, sometimes alone and sometimes in the
presence of authorities. Where are God's disciples with, food, help and
direction? In seven years I have never seen a disciples! Spend your
time and money on people who really need direction.
>
> > It gave the federal government a deadline of July 12, 2004, to change
> > laws preventing same-sex marriages.
> >
> > Similar decisions have been made by judges in Quebec and Ontario.
> > Ottawa is appealing those cases.
> >
> > Two years ago, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield ruled that the
> > legal definition of "marriage" should be restricted to heterosexual
> > couples. He said the limit was justified under the Constitution.
> >
> > But the province's top judges overturned his decision Thursday, siding
> > with eight couples who had challenged the ruling. The gay men and
> > women insist that same-sex couples have the right to get marriage
> > licences.
> >
> > The three-member panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal suggested the
> > definition of marriage read "the lawful union of two persons to the
> > exclusion of all others."
> > According to common law, marriage is considered "the union of one man
> > and one woman" ? a definition Ottawa is reviewing.
>
> Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology at
> http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T464
> defines marriage as a "...union between a man and a woman..."
> ...
Every human being has the capacity to define "marriage" narrowly or
broadly. With a divorce rate at 45 percent many men and women would be
troubled with words like fidelity, honest, commitment, financial
responsibility. The busiest section of any courthouse is the divorce
section. Go to any courthouse in Canada, look at the line ups and then
read the signs for that section.
> "God's design for marital relationship is heterosexual, not
> homosexual, and monogamous, not polygamous."
Says who, of course! Of the three words, "homosexual" monogamous" and
"polygamous" my favourite is monogamous. Ask most women of 50 about
their husband's life-long commitment of monogamy! Justice is blind,
but is God!
> ...
> "The procreative injunction obviously precludes homosexual
> 'marriages.'"
> ...
> "God's ideal exclusiveness of the 'one flesh' relationship
> disallows any other relationship: homosexuality, polygamy,..."
>
> > The federal Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is holding
> > public meetings across the country, asking Canadians if they think
> > Parliament should lift the ban on registering same-sex marriages.
> >
> > Gay rights have steadily expanded since homosexuality was made legal
> > in Canada in 1969, and "these developments have substantial public
> > support, although the matter remains controversial," the B.C. Court of
> > Appeal wrote.
> >
> > "This evolution cannot be ignored. Civil marriage should adapt to
> > contemporary notions of marriage as an institution in a society which
> > recognizes the rights of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory
> > treatment."
>
> What should rather occur is for "sexual orientation" to be removed
> as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian
> Human Rights Act.
Your opinion!
According to
> http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/action-issues/bill-C415/why-bill-c-415.htm
> "It is reported that ->> an Ontario Member of Parliament -->> not all members of Parliament
are quoted correctly or are necessarily well informed -->>> has stated
that
> sexual orientation includes all forms of sexual behaviour: sodomy,
> bestiality, paedophilia, homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality,
> polygamy and even sado-masochism".
>
> > Groups opposed to same-sex marriages expressed disappointment over
> > Thursday's ruling, and called on MPs to do whatever they can to
> > preserve existing legislation.
I would hope that the members of parliament would represent all their
constituents equally.
I would hope that the members of parliament would spend their efforts
preserving health care for families
of all descriptions - particularly in view of West Nile, SARS and what
next?
us...@127.0.0.1
>God's design for marital relationship is heterosexual, not
>homosexual, and monogamous, not polygamous."
then how did so many people in the world come from only 2 people 'Adam
& Eve? Did their kids have sex with each other?
Chris Ambidge
> > The BC case has just been ruled on at the Appellate level, and it is
> > in favour of same-sex marriage, saying the rules must be re-written.
[AnnB, in scenic upstate NewYork]
> oh, fabu!
>
> those marriages wouldn't be recognised in the US any more than other
> countries', though, would they?
>
> -ann, wondering if a certain relative will indeed emigrate if things
> keep going this way in canada
prolly not, but that something YOU need to talk to YOUR legislators
about.
as to coming to live up here, you'd always be welcome by THIS panda.
Anyway in today's news:
I've appended to this the news stories from the Mop&Pail and the
Trawna Star.
On the radio this morning, Jack Layton (leader of the
[left-wing-socialist-pro-homo-among-other-things party, for our
'murrican readers] NDP) was quoted saying "well we could wait for the
courts to do the work, but really parliament should change things
NOW". The federal justice minister, Martin Cauchon, wants to hear
back from the standing parliamentary committee on Justice, who are
studying this very question, before deciding whether to appeal the BC
decision. This is the same committee that has been holding 15
hearings across the country to hear from various people - the Manitoba
one was in a tiny mennonite town, and stuff was posted in this group
about that. On that committee, the governing Liberal party has the
majority of seats on that committee. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois
members will vote for change, the Alliance would vote against it even
if you held their feet to the fire, so the key is what the liberal
members do.
If they do vote to change, who knows, the feds may roll over at this
point. That's how our armed forces got integrated - Michelle Douglas
won a human rights tribunal case and the then minister of defence (Kim
Campbell) decided not to appeal. It would, however, be neater if the
legislation was explicit.
Mme Justice Jo-Ann Prowse, who wrote the decision (which was
unanimous), said that one of the appellant's arguments (that there is
no impediment in common law to same-sex marriage) was wrong. There
clearly IS an impediment, AND that impediment is in conflict with
section 15 (equality rights) of the Charter, AND that a section 1
defence (some rights can be restricted in the interests of a fair and
democratic society) does not hold. She nailed it: the common-law
impediment to same sex marriage is a violation of the charter rights
of homos, and the impediment must be removed. [hooray hooray!]
for those who are into these things, the text of the ruling is online
at:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/../../../../jdb-txt/ca/03/02/2003BCCA0251.htm
The ruling also references the two other cases: Ontario (Halpern vs
Canada) and Quebec (Hendricks vs Quebec), and her arguments build also
on the material presented there. Hendricks addresses the only place
opposite-sex definition of marriage appears in Canadian federal law:
the preamble to the *Modernisation of Benefits and Obligations Act*
and *Federal - Civil Law Harmonisation act*. The former was the act
that gave same-sex couples all sorts of tax benefits etc, and was
inserted at the howls of the rednecks in the Alliance etc. The other
is an omnibus bill bringing Quebec and federal law into alignment, and
references that preamble. The ruling indicates that those texts have
no weight as law in terms of same-sex couples and marriage. Its a
thorough piece of work, and Mme Justice Prowse has gone to the top of
my popularity list, along with Mme Justice Louise Arbour and Mme
Justice Rosalie Abella ["growing old and retiring is not unique to
heterosexuals".
I'm quite pleased still, and enjoying the pigeons flap and squawk as
the cat is among them.
Chris
Here are the two news stories, Globe&Mail first, then the Star
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
SAME-SEX MARRIAGES TO BE ALLOWED IN BC
By Rod Mickleburgh / Toronto *Globe&Mail* Friday 2003 05 02
Vancouver — Society's notion of marriage has changed and governments
need to recognize that, the B.C. Court of Appeal declared yesterday as
it strongly endorsed the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.
The appeal court gave the provincial and federal governments until
July 12, 2004, to change existing marriage laws. But on that date,
regardless of whether governments comply, same-sex marriages must be
allowed, the court indicated.
The unanimous ruling was the highest court verdict so far on the
emotional issue that has caused deep divisions at all levels of church
and state in Canada.
Advocates hailed the decision. "We won. We're very happy, and there
should be no more debate," said lawyer Joseph Arvay, who fought the
case on behalf of eight same-sex couples denied marriage licences in
the province.
"Until now, gays and lesbians have been treated as second-class
citizens. Now they will have the right to choose to get married if
they want to, a right that so-called straight couples have always
had," he said.
Earlier lower-court rulings in Ontario and Quebec also upheld the
right of gays and lesbians to marry, but were less firm than the B.C.
Court of Appeal on when and how existing restrictions should be
changed.
Tanya Chambers, 29, who took part in the appeal, said she can hardly
wait for the chance to marry her long-time partner, Melinda Roy, 34.
"July 12, 2004. That will be the day. The second it's legal, we're
going to do it."
The B.C. Court of Appeal decision overturned a 2001 ruling by Mr.
Justice Ian Pitfield of the B.C. Supreme Court, who said the
long-standing common law definition of marriage as the union between a
man and a woman "to the exclusion of others" should remain.
Judge Pitfield found that the main principle of marriage is
procreation, which same-sex partners are unable to fulfill with each
other. "The biological reality is that the two relationships
[heterosexual and non-heterosexual] can never be the same."
Thus, governments are justified in discriminating against same-sex
couples by denying them the right to be legally married, he concluded.
But Madam Justice Jo-Ann Prowse, who wrote the unanimous appeal court
decision, said the idea of procreation being at the core of marriage
has evolved over the years.
"I find that procreation (including the rearing of children) resulting
from sexual intercourse between a husband and wife can no longer be
regarded as a sufficiently pressing and substantial objective [to
justify discriminating against same-sex couples]," she said.
Judge Prowse said she did not understand why the original judge played
down "the very real fact that same-sex couples can 'have' and raise
children, given technological developments and changes in the law
permitting adoption."
In a concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Kenneth Mackenzie went even
further.
"Since the decriminalization of homosexual relationships in 1969,
there has been a steady expansion of the rights of gay, lesbian and
bisexual persons reflected in human rights legislation and Charter
jurisprudence," Judge Mackenzie said.
"These developments have substantial public support, although the
matter remains controversial. In my view, this evolution cannot be
ignored.
"Civil marriage should adapt to contemporary notions of marriage as an
institution in a society which recognizes the rights of homosexual
persons to non-discriminatory treatment," he wrote.
As other courts have done, the Court of Appeal found that refusing to
allow gay and lesbian couples to marry violates antidiscrimination
measures in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
And such discrimination may not be permitted under Section 1 of the
Charter, which does allow some rights and freedoms to be limited if
they can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,"
the appeal court said.
The court said the definition of marriage should be changed to "the
lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
Michael Martens of the Focus on the Family Association, a
non-denominational Christian organization that took part in the case,
said he hoped yesterday's ruling would be appealed to the Supreme
Court of Canada.
"Many Canadians will be concerned about this decision. This isn't a
rights issue. Marriage is a public institution that has served Canada
very well," Mr. Martens said. "And marriage is the union between one
man and one woman. That should not be changed."
/\/\/\/ end Globe&Mail text, begin Toronto Star text /\/\/\/\
B.C. APPEAL COURT LIFTS BAN ON GAY UNIONS
Third province to make ruling
`Substantial public support' cited
ANDREW CHUNG
OTTAWA BUREAU / Toronto Star Friday 2003 05 02
OTTAWA—Echoing similar rulings in Ontario and Quebec, a third Canadian
court has affirmed the right of gays and lesbians to marry, placing
further pressure on the federal government to change the country's
marriage laws.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal yesterday struck down a lower
court ruling that said marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals.
The appeal judges wrote "that the common law definition of marriage
contravenes the Charter and it cannot be justified in contemporary
Canadian society," and gave the government until July 12, 2004, to
rewrite the federal law denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.
The other courts also gave the government until 2004 to rewrite the
laws.
Calling it an "important judgment," Justice Minister Martin Cauchon
said, "The three decisions are all going in the same direction. So I
have to take that into consideration."
Still, Cauchon said it would not sway his government's push to appeal
the court decisions. "It's an important social issue for Canada," he
said. "When you look at the situation in Canada, people are divided."
The federal government is appealing an Ontario Divisional Court ruling
last July that struck down the prohibition against same-sex marriages
and found that the ban violated the equality guarantees in the Charter
of Rights. Cauchon has said the appeal is necessary because courts
across the country are divided.
The appeal is happening as the House of Commons' justice committee has
just wrapped up cross-country hearings on gay marriage.
"I just hope they will table their report pretty soon and when I will
receive the report I will have to come forward with a government
position on that side," Cauchon said.
The couples who challenged the law are Murray Warren and Peter Cook,
Melinda Roy and Tanya Chambers, Robin Roberts and Diana Denny, Jane
Hamilton and Joy Masuhara, Tess Healy and Wendy Young, Shane McCloskey
and David Shortt, Bob Peacock and Lloyd Thornhill, and Elizabeth and
Dawn Barbeau. Some of the couples have been together for 30 years and
have children.
The Barbeaus live in the riding of B.C. MP Libby Davies.
"I think it's another great victory and I really applaud the couples
who have stayed the course," Davies said. "It's a fundamental equality
provision. I cannot for the life of me understand why two people, just
because they happen to be of the same sex, would be denied the right
to marry if they want to."
Michael Martens, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a group opposed
to same-sex marriage, said he was disappointed with the decision, and
believed the judges hadn't taken into consideration the benefits for
society marriage provides.
"Marriage is a social institution, institutions are not about rights,
they're about serving society, and marriage does a very good job of
that," Martens said outside the court.
The rights of gays and lesbians have expanded substantially over the
years and been included in human rights legislations, the B.C. appeal
court noted.
"These developments have substantial public support, although the
matter remains controversial," the judges wrote. "This evolution
cannot be ignored. Civil marriage should adapt to contemporary notions
of marriage as an institution in a society which recognizes the rights
of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory treatment."
/\/\/\/\ end Toronto Star text /\/\//\
Chris
dpwozney
> On 1 May 2003 18:15:59 -0700, dpwo...@ocii.com (dpwozney) wrote this:
>
> >Bible-believing Christians
>
> are as relevant as crinoline skirts. Next.
Unlike the U.S.A., Canada is a Christian nation and does not have
separation of the Christian church and state.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which begins with the
phrase "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the
supremacy of God and the rule of law", was signed by the Canadian head
of state, Queen Elizabeth II. The God of Queen Elizabeth II is the
God of Christians, Jesus Christ. At her coronation, the text of which
may be read at http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html ,
she promised to the utmost of her power to maintain the Laws of God
and the true profession of the Gospel. Queen Elizabeth II has the
title of "Defender of the Faith", which faith is the Christian faith.
Queen Elizabeth II is referred to as a servant of the King eternal
Jesus Christ. On record at
http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/acools/cools99/11feb99.htm ,
Canadian Senator Anne Cools stated:
"Honourable Senators, I rise to honour the 47th Anniversary of Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the throne. My theme for
this speech will be 'The Leader as Servant, Public Service, the Queen
and Christ the King.'"
....
"Queen Elizabeth II has lived, to the best of her ability, the high
concepts of public service in Christ the King. She is a great woman,
a great Queen and a great servant. God Bless the Queen!"
The legal definition of marriage in Canada, "the lawful union of one
man and one woman to the exclusion of all others", is consistent with
the definition of marriage by Bible-believing Christians.
Queen of the Damned
> chris....@utoronto.ca (Chris Ambidge) writes:
>
> > The BC case has just been ruled on at the Appellate level, and it is
> > in favour of same-sex marriage, saying the rules must be re-written.
>
> []
>
> oh, fabu!
>
> those marriages wouldn't be recognised in the US any more than other
> countries', though, would they?
There are no other countries, only marketing opportunities for Bechtel
and Halliburton.
*X*
(it's a jump to the left, group sex, group sex, group sex)
Cornelia Wyngaarden
chris....@utoronto.ca wrote on 5/2/03 7:11 AM:
>
> On the radio this morning, Jack Layton (leader of the
> [left-wing-socialist-pro-homo-among-other-things party, for our
> 'murrican readers] NDP) was quoted saying "well we could wait for the
> courts to do the work, but really parliament should change things
> NOW".
If neither parliament nor the supreme court does anything about this, it
becomes legal to marry (or illegal to refuse the right to) same sex couples
July 1st, 2004. I believe Ontario has already filed papers for the appeal
to the Supremes but they can refuse to hear the case.
Michael Martin has been nothing but creepy as a finance minister. He is a
cold blooded right wing liberal and it distresses me that everyone is taking
it for granted that he will be the next Prime Minister of Canada. At least
Sheila Copps shows heart.
corry
Cornelia Wyngaarden
Damned at mel...@yahoo.com wrote on 5/2/03 9:06 AM:
> Ann Burlingham <an...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:<wk3cjy1...@concentric.net>...
>> chris....@utoronto.ca (Chris Ambidge) writes:
>>
>>> The BC case has just been ruled on at the Appellate level, and it is
>>> in favour of same-sex marriage, saying the rules must be re-written.
>>
>> []
>>
>> oh, fabu!
>>
>> those marriages wouldn't be recognised in the US any more than other
>> countries', though, would they?
>
> There are no other countries, only marketing opportunities for Bechtel
> and Halliburton.
>
Ah the Bin Laden/Republican group.
corry
Clay Colwell
> Controversial Trousers <blac...@incandessa.SPAMYENOT.org.ORELSE.uk> wrote in message news:<63l3bvs01p6df2jhc...@4ax.com>...
> > On 1 May 2003 18:15:59 -0700, dpwo...@ocii.com (dpwozney) wrote this:
> >
> > >Bible-believing Christians
> >
> > are as relevant as crinoline skirts. Next.
>
> Unlike the U.S.A., Canada is a Christian nation and does not have
> separation of the Christian church and state.
But nor is it beholden to Christians only; it is to respect the
rights and freedoms of *all* its members.
Indeed, you'll have to define what "Christian nation" means to you.
Does that mean that it holds a majority of Christians as its subjects?
That it was founded by Christians? That it must hold only to what
Christians say, ignoring Jews, Muslims, non-deists, pandeists, and
all other non-Christians? Once you can honestly answer that question,
you will see what is required of the Canadian government.
> The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which begins with the
> phrase "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the
> supremacy of God and the rule of law", was signed by the Canadian head
> of state, Queen Elizabeth II.
Ah, yes, the one that says, under Section 15, "Every individual is
equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal
protection AND EQUAL BENEFIT OF THE LAW [emphasis mine] without
discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based
on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age
or mental or physical disability."
You would do well to remember that.
> The legal definition of marriage in Canada, "the lawful union of one
> man and one woman to the exclusion of all others", is consistent with
> the definition of marriage by Bible-believing Christians.
You really need to read the article Chris Ambidge quoted, again.
This time, read all of it.
Steve Carter
We have the St. John Coltrane Church here in SF...formerly a neighbor
of the infamous Metro Hotel in the even more infamous violent,
crime-infested Western Addition.
Steve, poking his head above the cube wall
hgybear at bang hyphen splat dot com
Robert Feiertag
whom was a murderer.
dpwozney
> dpwo...@ocii.com (dpwozney) wrote in message news:<5dddc6fb.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> > Controversial Trousers <blac...@incandessa.SPAMYENOT.org.ORELSE.uk> wrote in message news:<63l3bvs01p6df2jhc...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 1 May 2003 18:15:59 -0700, dpwo...@ocii.com (dpwozney) wrote this:
> > >
> > > >Bible-believing Christians
> > >
> > > are as relevant as crinoline skirts. Next.
> >
> > Unlike the U.S.A., Canada is a Christian nation and does not have
> > separation of the Christian church and state.
>
> But nor is it beholden to Christians only; it is to respect the
> rights and freedoms of *all* its members.
Yes, and freedom of religion is consistent with Christianity
since free will to reject Christ is a Biblical doctrine.
> Indeed, you'll have to define what "Christian nation" means to you.
A Christian nation is a nation whose government recognizes
Jesus Christ as King for its ultimate head of state.
> Does that mean that it holds a majority of Christians as its subjects?
No, for example, although a majority of people in the United States
claim to be Christian, the U.S.A. is not a Christian nation but
rather is a deistic nation.
According to Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship,
signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, passed by the United States
Congress, and which may be read at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm ,
"...the government of the United States of America is not in any
sense founded on the Christian Religion...".
Rather, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of
Independence (which provides doctrine of the U.S.A. state religion),
was a deist. See http://www.deism.com/DeistAmerica.htm
> That it was founded by Christians?
No, not necessarily.
> That it must hold only to what Christians say, ignoring Jews, Muslims,
> non-deists, pandeists, and all other non-Christians?
Non-Christians in a Christian nation merit special attention.
> Once you can honestly answer that question,
> you will see what is required of the Canadian government.
[trimmed]
Cornelia Wyngaarden
rfei...@columbus.rr.com wrote on 5/2/03 12:54 PM:
After that there were two. I think bestiality was the original sin.
corry
Clay Colwell
> er...@io.com (Clay Colwell) wrote in message news:<f415da82.03050...@posting.google.com>...
[re a "Christian nation"]
> > That it must hold only to what Christians say, ignoring Jews, Muslims,
> > non-deists, pandeists, and all other non-Christians?
>
> Non-Christians in a Christian nation merit special attention.
The Inquisition II: coming to a country near *you*!
DRS
news:5dddc6fb.03050...@posting.google.com...
[..]
> A Christian nation is a nation whose government recognizes
> Jesus Christ as King for its ultimate head of state.
Earlier you identified Queen Elizabeth II as Canada's head of state. Do
make up your mind. Canada does not have an infinite chain of heads of
state.
--
"When you're right, you can never be too radical."
Martin Luther King
Michael Palmer
(Chris Ambidge) wrote:
>... Mme Justice Prowse has gone to the top of
>my popularity list, along with Mme Justice Louise Arbour and Mme
>Justice Rosalie Abella ["growing old and retiring is not unique to
>heterosexuals".
Note that all three are women.
M put them all on the Canadian Supreme Court P, having a Diana, Mary,
and Florence moment
dpwozney
> "dpwozney" <dpwo...@ocii.com> wrote in message
> news:5dddc6fb.03050...@posting.google.com...
>
> [..]
>
> > A Christian nation is a nation whose government recognizes
> > Jesus Christ as King for its ultimate head of state.
>
> Earlier you identified Queen Elizabeth II as Canada's head of state. Do
> make up your mind. Canada does not have an infinite chain of heads of
> state.
Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's visible head of state on earth.
She is a servant of the King eternal Jesus Christ.
So Jesus Christ is Canada's ultimate head of state in heaven.
Chris Ambidge
>>... Mme Justice Prowse has gone to the top of
>>my popularity list, along with Mme Justice Louise Arbour and Mme
>>Justice Rosalie Abella ["growing old and retiring is not unique to
>>heterosexuals".
>
>Note that all three are women.
indeed they are. they got into my happy-list for rendering
pro-homo judgements.
>M put them all on the Canadian Supreme Court P, having a Diana, Mary,
>and Florence moment
Mme Justice Louise Arbour already is on the Supreme Court of Canada.
not that I would object to either Proulx or Abella being appointed
to Ottawa, but they seem to be doing a dandy job on their current
benches.
We already have three women sitting on the bench of the Supreme
Court of Canada, and have since Mme Justice Arbour was appointed in
1999. When Mme Justice Claire L'Hereux-Dube retired in 2002, she was
replaced by Mme Justice Marie Deschamps. And of course, there's
the Right Honourable Mme Justice Beverly McLachlin, who has
been on the court since 1989, and has been Chief Justice since
2000.
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/AboutCourt/judges/curjustices_e.asp
there were also three women on the supreme court serving concurrently
earlier: Mme Justice Bertha Wilson was the first woman appointed, in
1982 and served until 1991. She and L'Hereux-Dube and McLachlin were
on the bench at the same time 89-91.
Chris
not sure how any of the five are at singing, Motown or anything else, though
--
if the planets are misaligned, I may have been logged in under an assumed name.
no matter WHAT/WHO the headers of this post claim , I am
Chris Ambidge =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca =|= chris....@utoronto.ca
chemist by day=|=panda by night=|=www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
Chris J
>
> She is a servant of the King eternal Jesus Christ.
>
> So Jesus Christ is Canada's ultimate head of state in heaven.
Oh puhleeze. Your logic here sucks big time.
Your interpretation of what Jesus wants is very different than what others
much more scholarly would adhere to.
I suggest a read through the Magna Carta would be in order to help you
understand the role of the Sovereign , as well as a read through the
Canadian constitution.
_____________________________________________________________________
The other, less "panda-like", Chris with an M.Div. in Canada,
And one who is greatful for the separation of Church and State
"Lord, save me from your followers!"
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> Robert Feiertag wrote:
> >>> homosexual, and monogamous, not polygamous."
> >> then how did so many people in the world come from only 2 people 'Adam
> >> & Eve? Did their kids have sex with each other?
> > If they did, it's really interesting, since they had three boys -- one of
> > whom was a murderer.
> After that there were two. I think bestiality was the original sin.
And then murder, and then having sex with your mother?
Gwendoly
Chris Ambidge
> > After that there were two. I think bestiality was the original sin.
[gwendolyn]
> And then murder, and then having sex with your mother?
the first time I read this, I assumed you were talking about Oedipus,
and then read the context and saw it was a different tale.
I feel a double dactylic coming on - this was posted earlier to
soc.motss by Clay (url all one line of course):
Higgledy Piggledy is almost always appropriate - like basic black and
pearls