There is a difference Frank....
Well, as I have already gotten the obligatory SSM post out of the way, I thought I would take a little poke at a fellow Maritimer, our illustrious ambassador to the United States of America, Frank McKenna.
Today, speaking about SSM, he made these bright comments: (hat tip, Nealenews.com)
"In the United States ... one of the arguments as to why guns aren't controlled is that Americans will often say, 'Well, the right to bear arms was enshrined in our constitution,'" the Canadian envoy said on National Public Radio in the U.S. "Well, in Canada, our Charter of Rights confers rights interpreted by the courts that would lead towards same-sex marriages."
You see Frank, in the US Constitution is it actually written down that Americans have the right to bear arms. Hardly a fair comparison with the arguement that we have a rights that are "intererpreted by the courts"...I mean, I hate to break it to dyed in the wool Liberals and the NDP, marriage is not a right, its a term that used to describe (at the moment) that a regionised state of two persons's relationship to one another.
Oddly enough, in light of last nights vote, Alberta may be on the best path -- getting the state out of the marriage business.
Today, speaking about SSM, he made these bright comments: (hat tip, Nealenews.com)
"In the United States ... one of the arguments as to why guns aren't controlled is that Americans will often say, 'Well, the right to bear arms was enshrined in our constitution,'" the Canadian envoy said on National Public Radio in the U.S. "Well, in Canada, our Charter of Rights confers rights interpreted by the courts that would lead towards same-sex marriages."
You see Frank, in the US Constitution is it actually written down that Americans have the right to bear arms. Hardly a fair comparison with the arguement that we have a rights that are "intererpreted by the courts"...I mean, I hate to break it to dyed in the wool Liberals and the NDP, marriage is not a right, its a term that used to describe (at the moment) that a regionised state of two persons's relationship to one another.
Oddly enough, in light of last nights vote, Alberta may be on the best path -- getting the state out of the marriage business.
posted by eastern capitalist at
17:22
6 Comments:
It can't happen soon enough. Good for Klein for bringing this up, though a) nothing will come of it (cf. his plans, ongoing for years, to adopt two-tier health care) and b) this is motivated by an opposition to SSM rather than for the right reasons (ie. that the state shouldn't interfere in an inherently private institution).
-Patronus
By
ROC, at 29/6/05 20:20
well, I agree with you...this subject isn't so simple, but can be argued ....
bye.....
By
Lay, at 29/6/05 21:00
Judging from the quote you've provided, the Ambassador was reffering to an equality right, not a right to marriage.
Likewise, I would remind you that the US Bill of Rights protects more rights than a strict reading would suggest. Courts have adjusted the scope of the first amendment, and privacy rights (stemming from a number of ammendments) for example.
I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business (though people moving from a future marriageless Alberta to other jurisdictions might encounter problems), but I do have a problem if the only motivation is based on opposition to SSM.
By
Manatee, at 30/6/05 16:55
Yes, but Manatee, the point is the comparison of the right to bear arms, which is written, is weak argument to be made in favour of using the courts to suggest that some rights should be read into a document.
Its not a strong case for Frank to have made.
On the other point, I think that Alberta is moving towards "civil unions", not a marriageless state.
By
eastern capitalist, at 2/7/05 21:27
But both the Charter and the Bill of Rights must be interpreted by courts. The Charter was in fact created with this in mind, and the US constitution has been subject to judicial review for over two-hundred years. Obviously the second ammendment has been subject to interpretation from the courts, just as the equality rights of the Charter have been, and will continue to be.
I do feel that any move made by the Alberta government to prevent SSM will be wrong and go against what I feel is a fundamental equality right. I hate to throw out this over-used analogy, but civil unions for same-sex couples are analagous to the past existance of seperate drinking fountains for black people, to prevent them from using those intended for white people. Yes, they can still drink water, but the inequality remains.
By
Manatee, at 4/7/05 01:48
The problem is that for the longest time, the state was removed from the whole notion of marriage (I think around 1600 or so you see state involvement).
Some western nations require a civil service for a "marriage" to be recognised "before the law".
That is sort of why I disagree with you. Marriage "before the law" can be seen as a service by the state, and thus should be granted to all citizens. Of course this begins to beg the question as to why have restrictions on exogamy (which is part of the reason why family members cannot marry) or restrictions on the number (why two, why not three, four, etc...).
I tend to think of marriage "before God" as different from marriage "before the law. In Canada, pro-SSM groups and anti-SSM groups blurred this line.
If Alberta wants to make that line clear, I say go for it.
By
eastern capitalist, at 9/7/05 16:11
Post a Comment
<< Home