North Western Winds

Contemplating it all from the great Pacific Northwest

This is it?

leave a comment »

This is the best they can do?

I read Lydia Lorvic’s pro SSM bit in the Vancouver Province while I was at work yesterday and I was astonished at the majority of her arguments. This is what passes as editorial comment in the MSM in Canada today? No wonder I don’t pay to read any of the papers anymore.

Now I’ve found her editorial on line and will attempt my first fisking. Lydia is in blue, and my comments are in black.

Mon, December 20, 2004
Let them eat (wedding) cake
By Lydia Lovric — Winnipeg Sun

As a staunch conservative on many issues, this may come as a bit of a shock to my friends on the right. Rarely do I agree with the Liberals. For the most part, I think they’re merely well-paid fence-sitters who couldn’t take a stand if their hefty pensions depended upon it.

But when it comes to same-sex marriage, I think the Liberals (most of them, anyway) and NDP are on the right track. Gay people should have the right to be just as happy or miserable as the rest of us.

While the religious right in this country may be appalled at the thought of same-sex marriage, last time I checked, Canada was a secular nation. Although many of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles, we must recognize and uphold the separation of church and state.

Lydia doesn’t know what the word secular means. Maybe she pronounces it like George Bush pronounces nu-clear. Secular does not mean Canadians cannot vote in line with their religion, and that holds for voters and public officials. What it does mean is that Canada does not have an official religion. In practice, it means we don’t bar people who are not a member of that religion from office. It also means no specific religion is barred from public office. It says nothing about ‘check your religion at the door to power.’ In practice, only someone appealing to a broad majority could get elected anyway. Unless we adopt some type of proportional representation. I’ll laugh until it hurts when that system brings hard core social conservatives to power ahead of the Greens. It pays to be careful what you wish for…

The strength of a secular nation is that people of differing religions can hold office and run as best as they see fit, subject to existing law and how rapid and deep a level of change the public will tolerate. The line between church and state is notoriously fuzzy and it is wisely left to voters to decide if someone has crossed that line.

Lydia has inverted the meaning of the word ‘secular.’ What she describes is a national church called Secularism, which she holds to be the official church of Canada. I have no idea why she thinks we all ought to be forced to bow at her little altar. It strikes me as rather bigoted and intolerant. No one’s ever voted for that in this country and I doubt if they ever will.

I’m no lawyer but check out some of the Canadian Law Lydia is up against:

The Canada Act of 1982 begins thusly:

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

It’s her title and she is our Queen. We are a constitutional Monarchy after all.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so dear to our Liberal party begins like this:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…”

So, Lydia dear, God is in da Canadian house. The question is and has always been, how do we interpret that? What does God want of us? In Canada the answer to that question is to be defined by the interaction of the public and their elected members. It is not a question for you alone or any other person who thinks they know better because of something they saw on Friends. Your made up definition would require a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

Oh, and how often does the word ‘Secular’ appear in those documents? Zero. None. Nothing. Zilch. Here’s a hanky. There isn’t anything about the separation of church and state either. What is does say is that there will be ‘religious toleration,’ which is quite a different thing.

Keep in mind that priests or rabbis will not be forced to marry same-sex couples. Gays or lesbians wishing to marry would be united in a civil marriage through a justice of the peace or by a minister who is not opposed to same-sex unions.

So what’s the big deal?

Why would anyone believe that? Why do you believe that? What you describe would last only until a gay marriage zealot got a case before the supreme court. I doubt it would take very long. The Supreme Court, in its recent reference to Parliament, refused to speculate about how the traditional definition of marriage would fare if it came before the court. That’s a huge, gaping hole. How nice for them.

Many religions preach that sex before marriage is wrong, but I have yet to hear religious groups demand that pre-marital sex be deemed a criminal offence. Infidelity is likewise immoral, but do we really want to throw adulterers in jail? Taking the Lord’s name in vain is considered sinful, but should we start handing out fines? If someone eats meat on a Friday or works on the Sabbath, how great should their penalty be?

The point is, just because something may be regarded as morally wrong doesn’t automatically mean it should be illegal.

This is all quite true. As far as I know, no mainstream group is advocating any of those things. I suspect Lydia is simply beating the drum of religious bigotry here, stereotyping there, and fear mongering all over the dancefloor.

Let me ask her: If something is regarded as morally wrong, does that mean it must automatically be legal? Isn’t that what her cock eyed definition of secular would do? “Let’s see, this here concept of ‘murder’ is religious and we in Canada hold to a firm separation of church and state…”

So religious thinkers can be opposed to same-sex marriage and claim that it goes against divine law, even though state law allows it.

They can be against it except in all of the places where it counts. They can’t discuss the issue under the stupid rules our never ending Liberal rule has created. At least, not during an election, not without the threat of losing their charitable status. Hey Lydia! Get your rotten hands off my church! Mind your own F-ing beeswax! What about freedom of speech?

Despite all the grumblings on this issue, I have yet to hear one compelling argument against same-sex marriage.

This might be a good place to mention that the burden of proof is on those seeking change, not on those upholding the law as it stands. Question two is, how hard have you looked, and with what kind of bias?

Same-sex unions don’t result in children. Well, neither do some heterosexual unions. If a husband and wife are unable to unwilling have children, does that nullify their relationship? Besides, there are many gay people who already have children of their own and wish to raise their kids in a two-parent home.

Fertility is not a switch that can be turned off and on at will. You can’t use chemical birth control until you are thirty seven, stop, and hope to get pregnant right away. This might be a shock, but yes, the culture lies. Does Lydia not know anyone who has ever had fertility problems? Does she live under a rock? Has she never looked at a fertility discussion board on the internet? Even couples that fully intend to have children can find themselves infertile. Should we mock and scorn them in their pain, and rip their marriage away too? Do we want the state further meddling and recording people’s deepest biological secrets? Even a couple who does not intend to have children can change their minds. The attempt to create life is rightly a deeply private matter. Biology counts and only someone transfixed by the ideology of “equality” would suggest it doesn’t.

A more difficult problem arises when we allow the elderly to marry. I look at it like this. Imagine a long married woman who has never lived alone. Her husband dies and her world comes apart. In time she finds someone to fill some of that gap. She has never been with anyone outside of the bonds of marriage and believes doing so would be a terrible breach in her relationship with God. Allowing her to keep her dignity seems like the charitable thing to do.

People in same sex relationships are not barred from living out those unions. There is no need to give them the word marriage because some of them (yes, there are gays who think the whole thing is a terrible idea) think it will give them respect. What a terrible reason to get married! So people will respect you. Not to give or to share, but to aggrandize myself and my sexual choices. If it is a two parent home gays want, they have the same right to them that anyone does. That home could even be same sex. It just would not be a married home.

Same-sex unions will eventually lead to our extinction. Nonsense. There are billions of people who are more than willing to do their part to propagate the human race. Allowing same-sex marriage will not spell disaster when it comes to Earth’s population.

Agreed. What we’ll see are weaker family ties, and the result of that will be more poor families. I doubt very much there will be fewer children. The cause of that is birth control and a culture that sees children as a burden instead of a blessing.

Same-sex unions will diminish traditional marriage. Please! With a divorce rate approaching 50%, we’d be more than a little hypocritical to blame homosexuals for ruining the institution of marriage. We’ve done a fine job of that all by ourselves. The commitment I share with my husband will not suddenly change just because same-sex couples are granted the right to marry.

SSM will diminish traditional marriage. We are already very confused about what a marriage is. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this debate. It’s true that there are traditional marriages in which people fail to live up their vows. I fail to see how allowing gays, many of whom the think very concept of monogamy is something to be mocked and derided, to “marry” will encourage straights to do better. I can see this scenario: “Bill and Bob have an open marriage, Betty, and they have been together for ten years. Why can’t I do it with Brenda? Why can’t we both do it with Brenda?” The fact that you’re too dim to see that scenario is too bad. It won’t happen overnight but you’d better bet it will happen.

Certain conservatives are now clamouring for a referendum on this issue. How ridiculous. You can’t hold referendums on something like this. When it comes to something as fundamental as basic human rights, it doesn’t really matter what the majority thinks because sometimes the majority is just plain wrong.

What a referendum would do is decide if it is a human rights issue. You’re just assuming that it is. You’ve overlooked the first step.

If the majority of people want the option of keeping slaves, would that make it right? If the majority believe women have no business casting ballots, should our right to vote be rescinded? Don’t forget that when Adolf Hitler held a referendum, 90% voted in favour of the Fuehrer.

Obviously the questions above are not about majority rule. Women are different from men, and there are differences in some racial features, but these differences have no impact on the ability to vote, or to be free. The ability to have a monogamous union, and the ability to present healthy male – female domestic relations are the factors that make a marriage. Straights might fail to live up to their obligations, but the opportunity is always there. I have no idea what Nazi referendum she’s talking about. How about a name, a subject or a year? If she’s talking about the Nazi party gaining power, they did that in a coalition. They never won an outright majority. Yet another example of why our first past the post system is a good thing. Frankly, I think Lydia is fairly foaming at the mouth right about now. That’s usually what it means when someone drags Hitler into a debate.

The majority can’t always be trusted to do what is good and right.

Lydia thinks this rule does not apply to Supreme Court justices. It only applies to you and me.

There hardly a good argument in this, and The Sun chain splashes her across the country? What there is, is plenty of is bile and slander.


Written by Curt

December 21, 2004 at 9:09 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: