# Judges Make Law Again - Three Parent Families



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And so it begins. Now three parents. Will three be allowed to marry now? Or four? or five? Where will it end?

"TORONTO (CP) - Gay rights organizations applauded Wednesday while an evangelical group questioned just how many parents one child can have following a landmark Appeal Court decision that allows an Ontario boy to have three parents."

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/070103/n010337A.html


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

my. If this keeps up, next thing you know they'll be marrying their dogs.

edit: oops, forgot this...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The majority of people on this continent are in non traditional extended families with a variety of parenting situations

Get over it. Your whining about gays and judges is awful.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

why just 2? why not 1? it already happens. despite tradition, Christian, etc. teachings. why not 4? takes a village to raise a child.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> my. If this keeps up, next thing you know they'll be marrying their dogs.


Exactly.Nicely put.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Your whining about gays and judges is awful.


I am not whining. I am protesting loudly. Get used to it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

priceless.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

SINC, go stick your head back in the sand and shutup.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"SINC, go stick your head back in the sand and shutup." While I don't agree with Sinc's view on this issue, I see no need why he cannot have the freedom of expression and thought that all of us expect here in ehMacLand.

My current wife has been more of a mother to my son than his biological mom, my ex-wife. So, he has had two mothers for the past 12 years. 

I am more concerned if the courts suddenly agreed with John Clay and forced the people like Sinc to be silent. I am even more concerned about a court ruling that forced upon us groovetube's views of "If this keeps up, next thing you know they'll be marrying their dogs." I draw the line at marrying my doxies.

Thus, I think that this needs to be an open forum with a free and fair expression of views, be they liked/disliked representing a majority/minority view.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> SINC, go stick your head back in the sand and shutup.


Considering the source, I'll ignore the ignorance.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

for the love of all things sacred.

I was kidding. Or making fun. Or making a point.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

SINC said:


> Considering the source, I'll ignore the ignorance.



You promote the restriction of civil rights for those that differ from the norm, and you call ME ignorant? Please.

I hear that Mr. Phelps is looking for new supporters...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube, there is nothing "sacred" about marrying one's doxie. However, I did see the point you were trying to make. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G do you defend the continual advocating he government restricting the rights of others??

There's a line.

Sinc has continually promoted a viewpoint restricting the rights others and in my view be called on it each and every time for what it is. Bigotry.

Here's a guy that wants religion protected.....which IS a choice, but doesn't want sexual orientation protected which is NOT a choice.

Would you be so sanguine if it were other minorities being attacked continually and the government being called upon to restrict those rights??.

This is going to be key battle over the next while, world wide.
For one I'm very glad to see people call it what it is and confronting it instead of being polite and looking the other way.

You've marched...you know.

Different decade, same old rights restrictions being promoted.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> my. If this keeps up, next thing you know they'll be marrying their dogs.
> 
> edit: oops, forgot this...


Last time we had this discussion on ehMac, I provided the following link:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.html

I'm sure they had a whale of a time.

In Pakistan and India some people have married their goats.


----------



## CarbonCoop (Sep 21, 2006)

It's easy to oversimplify an opposing viewpoint. I doubt very much that anyone on this board favours restricting civil rights to such an extreme interpretation of the term as suggested above.

That said, irreverent comments like that made by SINC will always result in a battle of mudslinging, so I think posters should exercise some added caution when making light of such polarizing issues.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Dr. G do you defend the continual advocating he government restricting the rights of others??
> 
> There's a line.
> 
> ...


I love it when you get your back up and your fingers kick in ahead of your brain MacDoc.

For the record, I have and continue to protest the definition of marriage as being anything BUT between one man and one woman. That is hardly "continually promoted a viewpoint restricting the rights others", so put a cork in it.

As for your comment, "Here's a guy that wants religion protected", that is a pretty strong statement of accusation to a guy who has been inside a church for nothing more than a funeral or wedding since he left his parents home in 1962.

Wrong again MacDoc. But go ahead and continue letting "your fingers do the talking".


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> groovetube, there is nothing "sacred" about marrying one's doxie. However, I did see the point you were trying to make. Paix, mon ami.



just checking. 
cheers.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, yes, there may be a "line", but I don't see that Sinc stepped over it on this issue. He and I don't agree on the issue, but we are able to express our differences on this, as well as other issues, intelligently and without resorting to "mudslinging". 

Yes, I've "marched", and my views were not popular then either. Still, I stuck with my convictions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The point that is being missed here is that once again a single judge, one person, has made a ruling that will affect Ontario society and ultimately Canadian society if not challenged, thus "making new law".

New laws concerning the makeup or legal definition of a family or a marriage or anything else deserve to be make by our elected representatives in parliament. Certainly not by some appointed off beat judge.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

................
Court documents state that the biological father brings his three other children to the women's home for weekly family dinners.
...............

That's disgusting. Weekly family dinners? Pure torture, based on my personal experiences that, in the end, feed my opinions.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> This is going to be key battle over the next while, world wide.
> .....................
> For one I'm very glad to see people call it what it is and confronting it instead of being polite and looking the other way.


Minor relative to what will have to be faced to truly realise a consistent set of rules.
.....................
Confronting and being polite (well, more not spittle-flinging rude 75% of the time...I have my limits ) is an option. You have created a false choice that ignores full consideration of time and empathy. All in the Family taught more lessons than some realised. 

Still, I understand where you're coming from. I just draw my line elsewhere (e.g. lunatic conspiracy theories). Regardless of those personal choices of line location, this is a public forum and not your living room. An important consideration. I think a lively discussion in your living room would be great fun and fit its context well.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

What's being missed here is that judges are appointed to act independently; it's one of the cornerstones of our legal system. When we criticize them for their "off beat" rulings, it fails to respect this system. If judges merely enforced set rules, they wouldn't be judges, and our system would be a different one, the kind that we have fought against in our wars and rejected in our elections.

What's not being missed is that if the judge said that this was the 1850s, some folk would be cheering from the rooftops. But there's no danger of them falling; this isn't the 1850s and many judges continue to be aware that we live in a pluralistic, multicultural society with people who don't all have their heads buried up--I mean, in the past.

Judges, appointed by all of our political parties, as is our system and has been since the Magna Carta, continue to respect and redefine our social system based on the laws those politicians (who we elect) enact and within the boundaries of the society from which those judges were plucked to be arbiters of our rules. Nothing wrong with being in one of these societies, but for the most part, we aren't Amish, Doukhobors, or the like. For us, times change.

All that said, keep in mind that the so-called "traditional" family is a very modern invention: before the 20th century, but especially before the 19th century, people lived in extended families where whatever relative could manage it picked up the slack when it came to raising children. "Traditional marriage" as we know it may have been a legal entity prior to modern times, but it used to mean that women were the property of their husbands rather than their fathers or elder male relatives, once married. But why stop there? The notions we have of "childhood" are a 19th century invention; there weren't even laws about child labour until the late 19th and early 20th century; children were basically younger adults according to the law.

For that matter, homosexuality as we consider it was a late 19th century invention, as were laws against it. What mattered more (in private) than the sex of your partner was how much money you had; you find very few rich people burned like griddle cakes for homosexual sex before the 19th century.

So if you really want to be traditional, you wouldn't object to homosexuality because you wouldn't even acknowledge it exists; your spouse might be your property, someone you were entitled to either punish at will--or offer yourself to in abject servitude. Your children might be working from the time they could manage it. And you would live in an extended family where responsibilites were shared according to skill and effort, something still acknowledged today.

And judges? They wouldn't be appointed any differently. Traditionally.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

Well put However:clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> *The point that is being missed here is that once again a single judge, one person, has made a ruling that will affect Ontario society and ultimately Canadian society if not challenged, thus "making new law".*
> 
> New laws concerning the makeup or legal definition of a family or a marriage or anything else deserve to be make by our elected representatives in parliament. Certainly not by some appointed off beat judge.


What gets me SINC is that you seem to be spouting ignorant Theo-Con talking points ad nauseaum lately...

It would be nice if you actually understood what garbage you seem to regurgitate lately... Once again, a quick fact check is in order. 


> The ruling is the first step in closing the “legislative gap” in the CLRA, which was originally drafted in the 1970s to protect the rights of illegitimate children, said Ms. Nelson, co-author of the annually annotated act.
> 
> *The three-judge panel*, which included Chief Justice Roy McMurtry (attorney-general when the original legislation was passed in 1978), unanimously agreed that “the CLRA was progressive legislation, but it was a product of its time.”


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070103.wchilddd0103/BNStory/National/home

And how many families will be affected by this decision? About half a dozen... :yawn: 

Nice to see that the Christian Coalition is making a stink - how come that bunch of hypocrites are always trying to restrict the rights of others.... I'm sure they would hang Jesus for being a freak...

SINC, parents are not defined by genitalia - it's the ones who fulfil a child's needs. This is only a recognition of that. 

What this judgement has said is that one of the "appellant" has legal rights vis-a-vis the child. In other words, she had legal guardian rights (day-to-day functions). It points out a gap in the present CLRA - nothing has been rewritten yet. 

As for SSM children: research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

So what other faith-based bigot talking points would you like to discuss?

And for Beej: Some who opposed this were: the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Focus on the Family Canada, REAL Women Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League and Christian Legal Fellowship. - I have respect for religion, too bad these nutjobs don't.

And what did the child involved think:


> I just want both my moms recognized as my moms. Most of my friends have not had to think about things like this - they take for granted that their parents are legally recognized as their parents. I would like my family recognized the same way as any other family, not treated differently because both my parents are women ...
> 
> "It would help if the government and the law recognized that I have two moms. It would help more people to understand. It would make my life easier. I want my family to be accepted and included, just like everybody else's family."
> 
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't have a problem with this judgement. Seems reasonable to me.

I wonder when polygamy will be challenged.


----------



## i<3myiBookg4 (Mar 17, 2006)

Well, look at how DJ, Stephanie and Michelle turned out on Full House with 3 fathers. j/k I love that show though.

So, is this why I can't find a boyfriend? He's out there with 2 other guys being parents?

And back to the topic at hand... I go to an evangelical church but I am not like the crazed Americans we see so often on the news. I don't force my beliefs on others or tell people they're wrong. I'm one person, I am not going to change laws or make a huge difference here on my own. I'll go about my business, and leave others to do the same. If I don't agree with something, I don't take part in whatever it is, I don't go ahead and cause a scene.

The whole part about "Loving my neighbour as myself"... well, if I had some lifestyle choice which my neighbour didn't agree with (I don't even know my neighbours!) I sure wouldn't want them telling me I'm wrong and pushing what they believe at me!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I don't have a problem with this judgement. Seems reasonable to me.
> 
> I wonder when polygamy will be challenged.


i can already see the divorce lawyers salivating at that one


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Once again, we come to the fact that people like SINC have no concern whatsoever for the families or the children, but are rather more interested in protecting their bigoted views.

This child is loved by all three adults - biological mom, mom's partner, and biological dad. If the law didn't change, then if the biological mom died, mom's partner would have had zero legal rights to continue being a mother to her child. If mom's partner adopted the child, biological dad would have had no legal rights to his child, which the mother's didn't want to happen.

Everyone involved in this cased wanted this. There was no argument amongst them. The court realized the law does not reflect what is best for the family. It had to change.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Once again, we come to the fact that people like SINC have no concern whatsoever for the families or the children, but are rather more interested in protecting their bigoted views.


Must you always open with a personal attack? Are you not capable of commenting on the pros or cons of an issue without resorting to calling me something I am not? You sir, a a bigot against anyone who holds different views than your own. The pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Must you always open with a personal attack? Are you not capable of commenting on the pros or cons of an issue without resorting to calling me something I am not? You sir, a a bigot against anyone who holds different views than your own. The pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.


Well give us your con view then... why is this a bad decision?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The ruling says that a certain number of people make up a family. It doesn't say anything about marriage. This post does. That may explain some of the anitipathy.




SINC said:


> And so it begins. Now three parents. Will three be allowed to marry now? Or four? or five? Where will it end?
> 
> "TORONTO (CP) - Gay rights organizations applauded Wednesday while an evangelical group questioned just how many parents one child can have following a landmark Appeal Court decision that allows an Ontario boy to have three parents."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/070103/n010337A.html




*"There is now legal recognition of relationships and families that already exist in Canada, and have existed across Canada for years."*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Well give us your con view then... why is this a bad decision?


Gladly.

It is judicial activism, another attack on traditional values by a court that took it upon itself to redefine the family. Altering the definition of the family is something that should be done by parliament and not at the biased whims of three judges.

It opens the door for more people to apply for legal status as a parent and ultimately could lead to four or even six parents being recognized by the courts as having say over the child's upbringing. 

If it becomes national law, it also opens the door for marriage to again be redefined as being between more than two persons, never mind of what gender.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC, I'm not sure if you are being wilfully ignorant or just regurgitating talking points for the Theo-Cons.
It is far from "judicial activism", but then again any decision you don't like gets labelled that way.
Again, it was not ONE judge it was THREE. (Too hard to read a previous post for you?)
This was not done on a whim, but after careful deliberation.
If you can't even get the basic facts, no wonder you are so bigoted in your views. 
Continue on with half-truths and wayward thinking....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> It opens the door for more people to apply for legal status as a parent and ultimately could lead to four or even six parents being recognized by the courts as having say over the child's upbringing.
> 
> If it becomes national law, it also opens the door for marriage to again be redefined as being between more than two persons, never mind of what gender.


Oh No! Heaven forbid that the legal system may have to start dealing with the complexity of reality.

I think what's upsetting you here, SINC, is that your out-of-date definition of 'marriage' can't cope with the modern realities. It is certainly your right, as an individual, to define 'marriage' any way you like, but the legal system can't discriminate the way an individual can. So the legal system has to have more flexible and realistic definitions.

I know it's hard for you to understand, but the legal definition of marriage has changed, and it no longer means what you think it ought to mean. As we've discussed here before, it would've been better for all concerned to have removed 'marriage' from the legal realm entirely, but it's too late for that. 

The courts did the right thing here. They dealt pragmatically with a void in the legal system, and protected the interests of the child. If that causes the antiquated laws regarding marriage and child custody to topple, so much the better... they obviously need to be rewritten to reflect the reality of the 21st century.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> It is far from "judicial activism", but then again any decision you don't like gets labelled that way.
> Again, it was not ONE judge it was THREE. (Too hard to read a previous post for you?)
> 
> no wonder you are so bigoted in your views.


I edited my post to reflect three judges which does not make it right. Three Canadians, judges or not do not speak for the majority. And yes it was "their" whim, deliberated or not.

Unlike you, please notice I have managed to post this without calling you a bigot for holding a different view.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

The concept and practice of 'traditional values' has always intrigued me. Is it, by definition, fear of change or anything _different_? Change is necessary in all aspects of our society. Without it, we have no progress. I personally think people hide behind traditional values to practice xenophobia and intolerance. Just MHO.



SINC said:


> It opens the door for more people to apply for legal status as a parent and ultimately could lead to four or even six parents being recognized by the courts as having say over the child's upbringing.
> 
> If it becomes national law, it also opens the door for marriage to again be redefined as being between more than two persons, never mind of what gender.


Simply put, so what? Try it, you may like it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Unlike you, please notice I have managed to post this without calling you a bigot for holding a different view.


SINC, you are not a bigot because of your views, it only crosses the line into that when you wish to impose your views on everyone else and ignore reality.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

What if the childs parents divorced, and remarried, the father a woman and the mother a man, and had joint custody, and both new spouces wanted to be concidered legal parents, would that have been any better?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> It is judicial activism, another attack on traditional values by a court that took it upon itself to redefine the family. Altering the definition of the family is something that should be done by parliament and not at the biased whim of a lone judge.


First off define "traditional values". In my wife's family all first cousins are regarded the same as brothers and sisters. Is that "traditional" by your sense of the word? Is it any less relevant because it does not "conform" to your definition? No of course not. Canada is NOW a multi-cultural society hence "traditional" no longer has the meaning that it once had. "Traditional" is a completely relative and subjective term.

As for "judicial activism", that goes both ways doesn't it? I'm sure you have a different view of it because of the way things came about regarding the SSM issue. I'm sure many Americans feel differently regarding how things turned out in the 2000 Florida election.

The issue is that the law is not very specific and thus open to interpretation... But laws can't be specific, can they... the very nature of existence involves change. Laws change over time, precedent is overturned... This is the way that the system works.



SINC said:


> It opens the door for more people to apply for legal status as a parent and ultimately could lead to four or even six parents being recognized by the courts as having say over the child's upbringing.
> 
> If it becomes national law, it also opens the door for marriage to again be redefined as being between more than two persons, never mind of what gender.


Your concerns over gender bias your argument. There is nothing that prevents people of the same gender from equally loving and caring for a child. If you can show evidence which illustrates the harm of having a child raised by two people of the same gender then lets see it.

Here is where I think this rulling becomes dangerous. You almost had the real issue. What happens when a corporation (which has the same legal status as a person under the law... thanks to some pretty stupid legal rulings) wants to adopt a person and become their legal gaurdian. You want to talk about scarry scenarios... that is the one I would fear.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That depends: are they good parents?



JumboJones said:


> What if the childs parents divorced, and remarried, the father a woman and the mother a man, and had joint custody, and both new spouces wanted to be concidered legal parents, would that have been any better?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Ideally yes, be don't have a law/license for the conception of a child, so is it fair to look at that criteria at this point? And really what constitutes a "bad parent"? 

I don't think too many "bad parents" would really want to go the extra mile to have themselves concidered a legal parent of a child.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Solomon disagrees.

And I think while many bad parents abscond, there are many, many court proceedings full of disputes between 1 or 2 awful parents whose interests lie in punishing the spouse, child and often themselves. If parents were acting in their children's best interests, they might find other mechanisms than drawn out and expensive court actions.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

HowEver said:


> For that matter, homosexuality as we consider it was a late 19th century invention, as were laws against it. What mattered more (in private) than the sex of your partner was how much money you had; you find very few rich people burned like griddle cakes for homosexual sex before the 19th century.


Man, great stuff. Great post.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> It is judicial activism, another attack on traditional values by a court that took it upon itself to redefine the family.


Please define family. Please define traditional values.



SINC said:


> Altering the definition of the family is something that should be done by parliament and not at the biased whims of three judges.


They aren't defining family. They are defining a legal parent.



SINC said:


> It opens the door for more people to apply for legal status as a parent and ultimately could lead to four or even six parents being recognized by the courts as having say over the child's upbringing.


If all parties are in agreement, why not? If divorced parents want their new partners to be a child's parent as well, and all parties agree to it, what is the harm?



SINC said:


> If it becomes national law, it also opens the door for marriage to again be redefined as being between more than two persons, never mind of what gender.


Definition of parent and marriage are not the same thing. They are separate issues. Let's deal with the issues one at a time. This has nothing to do with polygamy.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> If it becomes national law, it also opens the door for marriage to again be redefined as being between more than two persons, never mind of what gender.


I'm wondering why this would be a bad thing; I mean, it's not my cup of tea, but if it's someone else's why should it be prevented?


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

I really dislike the phrase "judicial activism" uttered as an epithet. This is what judges do. What we saw in this decision was a prime example of the development of the "common law". The fact is that Parliament can still pass statutes which contradict or supersede court decisions. The judges in this case did _exactly_ what they were supposed to do. The common law is an evolutionary process and has been growing and changing since before the Magna Carta.

As for the number of parents, so what? Three people now have a legal responsibility to care for that child. Lucky kid! :clap: Marriage is nothing more than a contract between people. If we want to see it expanded to more than 2, what affair is it of anyone who is not part of the contract? If you want to read discussions and descriptions of different marriage contracts, read Heinlein, Niven and Spider Robinson from the '60s forward. The concepts of multi-partner marriage arrangements are not new; it's just taken 50 years for some folks to catch up to science fiction!


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

groovetube said:


> my. If this keeps up, next thing you know they'll be marrying their dogs.


i now pronounce you man and fish!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I strongly object to the term "Activist Judges." My experience tells me that Judges are conservative by training. Their decisions are based on the law as written and what has gone before. 

To me the term "Activist Judges" is pure nonsense. What does it mean?

If however, ones opinions and sensibilities are upset by this ruling re. families just state this is the case. 

Please prove the contention that the Judges acted in an "activist manner" by defining what that means. How the Judges are in error in this matter. Please site the errors in statute and common law. 

If the contention "Activist Judges" cannot be proven I would truly appreciate if the remark is withdrawn. That is to edit and remove the offending remark.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I don't have a problem with this judgement. Seems reasonable to me.
> 
> I wonder when polygamy will be challenged.


The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

groovetube said:


> my. If this keeps up, next thing you know they'll be marrying their dogs.





SINC said:


> Exactly.Nicely put.


Marriage is a contract. To have a contract, you need consent from both parties. Since animals cannot give consent, it would not be possible to marry.

Same thing with children. Since people under the age of 18 cannot legally give consent, they cannot marry.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Marriage is nothing more than a contract between people


Hmmm. Some of us give marriage a little more weight and importance.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Pelao said:


> Hmmm. Some of us give marriage a little more weight and importance.


That's entirely your right, but don't expect everyone else, and the legal system in particular, to define it the same way you do.

Personally I think 'marriage' is a functionally meaningless term in modern society, and that it should be expurgated from legal terminology. Modern relationships are far to diverse and festooned with cultural traditions to be handled with a one-size-fits-all legal definition. The legal system should concern itself exclusively with the contractual rights and obligations of adults, and the protection of the interests of children. Such rights and obligations should be determined by simple contracts, not antique, semi-religious 'traditions'.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Byanc, you make it sound so cold.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> That's entirely your right, but don't expect everyone else, and the legal system in particular, to define it the same way you do.
> 
> Personally I think 'marriage' is a functionally meaningless term in modern society, and that it should be expurgated from legal terminology. Modern relationships are far to diverse and festooned with cultural traditions to be handled with a one-size-fits-all legal definition. The legal system should concern itself exclusively with the contractual rights and obligations of adults, and the protection of the interests of children. Such rights and obligations should be determined by simple contracts, not antique, semi-religious 'traditions'.


I don't have any strong issues with your views on how the legal system handles marriage, or whatever it is called. It will still have to have a title, and marriage is fine with me. Regardless of legal issues though, marriage to everyone I have ever known is much more than a legal contract.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Pelao said:


> marriage to everyone I have ever known is much more than a legal contract.


Understandable and a very good reason for government to have no role in defining the term. Contractual obligations and enforcement, yes. Defining terminology with more emotional and historical meaning and varying context, no.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Byanc, you make it sound so cold.


Don't you think legal issues should be handled dispassionately?

I'm legally married, but it is of zero emotional importance to me. My relationship with my wife and family is of infinite emotional importance to me. The marriage was simply something that had to be done to satisfy the U.S. government. I don't remember the date that I got married, and the witnesses were strangers. But I vividly recall the first time I met my partner, and all the complex and wonderful years we've spent together.

The legal system only recognizes the cold, emotionally uninteresting bits of paper, which is as it should be. The human relationships are far outside of the legal realm, and should be neither constrained nor diminished by it.

I don't see why this is an issue.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Don't you think legal issues should be handled dispassionately?
> 
> I'm legally married, but it is of zero emotional importance to me. My relationship with my wife and family is of infinite emotional importance to me. The marriage was simply something that had to be done to satisfy the U.S. government. I don't remember the date that I got married, and the witnesses were strangers. But I vividly recall the first time I met my partner, and all the complex and wonderful years we've spent together.
> 
> ...


Well put. I still reserve the right to call you a lefty-looney.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I'm legally married, but it is of zero emotional importance to me. My relationship with my wife and family is of infinite emotional importance to me. The marriage was simply something that had to be done to satisfy the U.S. government. I don't remember the date that I got married, and the witnesses were strangers. But I vividly recall the first time I met my partner, and all the complex and wonderful years we've spent together.


bryanc, since you are the only one who continually responds to me in a polite and constructive manner, I will attempt to explain to you how I view relationships and marriage.

I too am legally married and have been so coming up 42 years now. Your statement, “My relationship with my wife and family is of infinite emotional importance to me,” is a virtual mirror to my own feelings. 

That being said, I DO remember the date (October 8, 1965) and the witnesses, (Dorothy Bartasek and Terry Turko, may he RIP). I also remember the date we first met, Christmas Eve of 1964. To this very day we celebrate our engagement date of May 1, 1965.

I cannot begin to tell you how much it meant to me to have the privilege of marrying my wife. It was an exchange of our deepest feelings and emotions and a commitment to an ongoing support for each other for the rest of our lives. Our relationship resulted in the birth of three fine children that we remain proud of today.

At that time, marriage meant one thing, and one thing only, that being the joining together of one man and one woman forever. Sadly, that changed when the courts made divorce much easier to obtain, and the institution of marriage began to crumble.

It is obvious to me that while you consider your relationship with the very same emotional commitment and responsibility as do I, you do not hold the term marriage itself in the same light. If you did, you might feel the pressure on the term as myself, my friends, my relatives and a substantial part of Canadian society do.

While I recognize that times are changing, I have to stand up as an individual and protest what I feel is right and in turn take all the verbal abuse and ridicule this board continually throws my way, much of it mean spirited, for doing so. They will never dampen either my spirit, nor my will to continue to support what I believe is right.

But thank you for doing so in a kind and understanding manner, even though we appear to be on opposite sides of the issue.

There is one side we do agree upon, and that is obviously we are both lucky men in that we have found a lifelong partner and a fine family.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Marriage is a contract. To have a contract, you need consent from both parties. Since animals cannot give consent, it would not be possible to marry.
> 
> Same thing with children. Since people under the age of 18 cannot legally give consent, they cannot marry.


my cat asked, but I said no.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Too bad that your story has absolutely nothing to do with the subject you brought up....

What's odd SINC, is that you seem to view divorce and infidelity as being a late day anomaly... 
It seems to me that notion of marriage/divorce is ephemeral at best - looking back at some of the "personalities" of the 50s-60s marriage was not sacred.
For your consideration: Liz Taylor (8 times), Marilyn Monroe (3x), JF Kennedy (a real cocksman), Rudy Giuliani, Martin Luther King... Heck, monogamy seems to be a flawed concept...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> bryanc, since you are the only one who continually responds to me in a polite and constructive manner, I will attempt to explain to you how I view relationships and marriage.
> 
> I too am legally married and have been so coming up 42 years now. Your statement, “My relationship with my wife and family is of infinite emotional importance to me,” is a virtual mirror to my own feelings.
> 
> ...


I am married too. And remember the date, well. And fondly.

The difference here SINC is that, no matter what how the courts 'progress' the term of marriage in a legal definition, they cannot remove what it meant to me and my wife. Regardless of whether they allowed same sex, or not, it doesn't in any way change what getting married meant to us, or our family and friends. If extending that right, or privilege if you will, to two same sex individuals who have the same feelings of love and commitment as we did, I cannot stand up and deny them that right. How could I?

Changing the definition to include same sex marriages in no way threatened, or changed ours in the slightest.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I am married too. And remember the date, well. And fondly.
> 
> The difference here SINC is that, no matter what how the courts 'progress' the term of marriage in a legal definition, they cannot remove what it meant to me and my wife. Regardless of whether they allowed same sex, or not, it doesn't in any way change what getting married meant to us, or our family and friends. If extending that right, or privilege if you will, to two same sex individuals who have the same feelings of love and commitment as we did, I cannot stand up and deny them that right. How could I?
> 
> Changing the definition to include same sex marriages in no way threatened, or changed ours in the slightest.


I am in no way denying anyone a right. I am simply stating that it is not and never will be marriage in the opinions of millions of people word wide. Union yes. Marriage no, and no one will ever change my mind, nor those of all but a half dozen or so countries world wide who have chosen to become leaders of the new lost civilization.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> What if the childs parents divorced, and remarried, the father a woman and the mother a man, and had joint custody, and both new spouces wanted to be concidered legal parents, would that have been any better?



What if the Father WAS a Woman, and the Mother WAS a Man?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I am in no way denying anyone a right. I am simply stating that it is not and never will be marriage in the opinions of millions of people word wide. Union yes. Marriage no, and no one will ever change my mind, nor those of all but a half dozen or so countries world wide who have chosen to become leaders of the new lost civilization.


Yes you are denying a right. Period. It may be your opinion, but it is in fact denying a right.

And millions of people believe it is a marriage. Millions of people also don't believe in marriage at all anymore.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> bryanc, since you are the only one who continually responds to me in a polite and constructive manner, I will attempt to explain to you how I view relationships and marriage.


Wait a sec... How was my response not polite or respectful in post #40? In a way I am also concerned about this rulling, just not the same wau you are.

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=501217&postcount=40


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Yes you are denying a right. Period. It may be your opinion, but it is in fact denying a right.
> 
> And millions of people believe it is a marriage. Millions of people also don't believe in marriage at all anymore.


Since when is the disagreement over the definition of a word (marriage) denying a right? It is merely questioning the term marriage against the term union. The UK got it right. We got it wrong IMO. Simple as that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Wait a sec... How was my response not polite or respectful in post #40? In a way I am also concerned about this rulling, just not the same wau you are.
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=501217&postcount=40





SINC said:


> bryanc, since you are the only one who continually responds to me in a polite and constructive manner, I will attempt to explain to you how I view relationships and marriage.


OK, I'll give you that one, but the key word was continually.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Since when is the disagreement over the definition of a word (marriage) denying a right? It is merely questioning the term marriage against the term union. The UK got it right. We got it wrong IMO. Simple as that.


simple. You don't think same sex couples should be able to 'marry'. You are denying the right. It couldn't get any clearer than that.

You can disagree, and state your opinion, but it's denying a right.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> simple. You don't think same sex couples should be able to 'marry'. You are denying the right. It couldn't get any clearer than that.
> 
> You can disagree, and state your opinion, but it's denying a right.


Wrong. They ARE able to "marry". That is the current law. No denial there at all.

What you don't get is that I disagree with the term used to describe the relationship, not the right of relationship existing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Wrong. They ARE able to "marry". That is the current law. No denial there at all.
> 
> What you don't get is that I object to the term used to describe the relationship, not the right of relationship.


wrong what? I wasn't talking about the fact the law currently allows it.

Is this the way you confuse the issue?

You position, is to deny the right to marry. Period.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> wrong what? I wasn't talking about the fact the law currently allows it.
> 
> Is this the way you confuse the issue?
> 
> You position, is to deny the right to marry. Period.


What part of "they already have the right to marry" don't you understand?

That is a given.

My argument is with the definition of the term marriage, not the right to marriage.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> What part of "they already have the right to marry" don't you understand?
> 
> That is a given.
> 
> My argument is with the definition of the term marriage, not the right to marriage.


don't take this around in circles. There isn't anything worth discussing if you do.

For the second time... I'm talking about your position.

let's not bother if this goes on a merry go round.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> don't take this around in circles. There isn't anything worth discussing if you do.
> 
> For the second time... I'm talking about your position.
> 
> let's not bother if this goes on a merry go round.


What merry go round? The only one exists in your mind. I have conceded that SS marriage is legal and allowed.

I just happen to disagree with the current definition of marriage.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> What merry go round? The only one exists in your mind. I have conceded that SS marriage is legal and allowed.
> 
> I just happen to disagree with the current definition of marriage.


well you know SINC if you aren't prepared to examine your position without running to confusing the issue, then let's just drop it. We all know it's currently legal, but that clearly wasn't what I was getting at.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

And so it came to pass, in all the land where time was fixed, and definitions being immutable, the definition of certain societal norms were also fixed in that place and at that time, and that time was the year of Nineteen Hundred and Sixty-Four C.E.

And henceforth there was no more need to discuss such norms, because those who defined them were set in their minds that there was to be *no change*.

And of two things we could be sure: that the world of sound would never be the same, for those Four Lads More Popular than Jesus had arrived in America; and, that the Great SINC had defined once and "FOUR-ALL" The Sanctihood of Marriage According to How He Lived and How He was Himself married under God, who was slightly less popular than Jesus at that time, and in those days.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> At that time, marriage meant one thing, and one thing only, that being the joining together of one man and one woman forever. Sadly, that changed when the courts made divorce much easier to obtain, and the institution of marriage began to crumble.


Well, at least that clears some things up. Nowhere in that sentence do you mention love. Nowhere in that sentence do you mention family. You mention forever, but don't attack the culture of divorce with the same passion.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I am in no way denying anyone a right. *I am simply stating that it is not and never will be marriage in the opinions of millions of people word wide.* Union yes. Marriage no, and no one will ever change my mind, *nor those of all but a half dozen or so countries world wide* who have chosen to become leaders of the new lost civilization.


With all due respect, using exaggeration to bolster your believes or position is unnecessary and inaccurate. This is your opinion and as you have stated no one will ever change your mind so be confident in that. You don't need to trump up your statements with inaccuracies to make them more valid.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> With all due respect, using exaggeration to bolster your believes or position is unnecessary and inaccurate. This is your opinion and as you have stated no one will ever change your mind so be confident in that. You don't need to trump up your statements with inaccuracies to make them more valid.


So then, name me more than a half dozen countries who allow same sex marriage? And show me the population figures that the countries who don't number less than a million residents collectively? Let me start you out: Belgium, Canada, South Africa and Spain.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> While I recognize that times are changing, I have to stand up as an individual and protest what I feel is right and in turn take all the verbal abuse and ridicule this board continually throws my way, much of it mean spirited, for doing so.


I certainly agree that some posters here have been inexcusably rude about disagreeing with you on this issue. But try not to take it personally. I've been using the internet since the early '80s and this sort of thing is very common. There used to be a USNET news group called 'alt.flame' where extremely hostile arguments were archived just for the pleasure of people who liked to hurl abuse at each other anonymously. I guess there's no accounting for taste. Try to keep in mind that it's just pixels on your screen.



> At that time, marriage meant one thing, and one thing only, that being the joining together of one man and one woman forever. Sadly, that changed when the courts made divorce much easier to obtain, and the institution of marriage began to crumble.


I think this is close to the core of our disagreement. I would argue that the value of your relationship with your spouse is completely independent of the words used to describe it, and the behavior of other people in other relationships.

So why should you care if people are free to get divorced, or if other people call their relationships with fire-hydrants a 'marriage'? It all has no bearing on you and your relationship, so it strikes me as odd that you allow other people's descriptions of their relationships to bother you.

You may be right that I can't understand it, as my only feelings about the word 'marriage' are of vague resentment (because the US government forced me to spend $135 to get a pice of paper so my wife could cross the border... as if the pice of paper made our relationship any more or less stable after 17 years of living together).

I certainly respect your right to object to the redefinition of a term, but what I think you're failing to understand is that, because the term 'marriage' has a _legal_ meaning, it has to be defined in a way that allows it to apply _fairly_ to all Canadians, regardless of their religions, sexual orientations, ethnicities, etc. And it is of the utmost importance that the legal system protect the interests of minorities, because the majorities are usually pretty good at protecting themselves. So the legal definition of 'marriage' has got to be something that ensures the rights of minorities are well-protected.

Because we have laws that regulate the disbursement of pensions, child custody, taxes, etc. which refer to 'marriage' (and this is where I think we should've changed the system), the definition of 'marriage' has to apply to all kinds of relationships, including same-sex couples, evenly.

If we had simply removed 'marriage' from the legal lexicon, then your relationship with your wife, and my relationship with my wife, and some gay guy's relationship with his husband could all be treated equally, and that's the important thing. However, the lawyers decided to do it the other way, and simply call all the reationships 'marriages' which has the same effect, so it doesn't really bother me. But it clearly bothers you and lots of other people for whom 'marriage' is an important word.

I'm afraid you're just going to have to get over it. And recognizing that you're just getting hung up on the word might help. None of this affects your relationship with your wife in any way, so it's really no big deal. If I were you, I'd just start calling your relationship a 'traditional marriage' or something like that, and recognize that the minor semantic inconvenience is a small price to pay for living in a society that protects the rights of minorities.

Cheers


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC,

You are implying that your comment/ argument is much more valid because of the 'millions' who agree with you. This is misleading and inaccurate. It is inaccurate because you present no valid statistics. A Government's stance has no bearing on how many are for or against an issue. This is an exaggeration used for effect and nothing more. That's my point.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Furthermore, governments, and the judges they appoint from time to time, are specifically empowered, instructed and required, to protect and keep safe the rights of all of their citizens, not the majority or the millions or the rich or the many.

We judge societies around the world by how they protect the rights of the few, no matter who it offends or inconveniences.

Let's hope there will be more instances where children are cared for by as many loving adults as possible who would fight to be considered good parents and have *their* rights enshrined in a court action.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> So then, name me more than a half dozen countries who allow same sex marriage? And show me the population figures that the countries who don't number less than a million residents collectively? Let me start you out: Belgium, Canada, South Africa and Spain.


The only one you left out was the Netherlands that actively support same sex Marriage.

Now, the ones in debate (who likely have a LOT of people wanting it to pass or else it wouldn't be issue.):

Aruba
Australia
Austria
China
Estonia
France
Ireland
Latvia
Lithuania
New Zealand
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Taiwan
United Kingdom
United States:
CA, CT, MD, NY, NJ, OR, WA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> SINC,
> 
> You are implying that your comment/ argument is much more valid because of the 'millions' who agree with you. This is misleading and inaccurate. It is inaccurate because you present no valid statistics. A Government's stance has no bearing on how many are for or against an issue. This is an exaggeration used for effect and nothing more. That's my point.


So because you know you can't dispute my statement with any type of fact, you now choose to call them inaccurate or misleading? Name more countries, or prove millions worldwide is inaccurate. If you can't, you have no grounds to call them either.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I also suggest reading Types of Marriage

Then we get a good view on how "traditional" marriage is.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vexel said:


> I also suggest reading Types of Marriage
> 
> Then we get a good view on how "traditional" marriage is.


Ohhh that link was sweet. Sadly Sinc I have to say you argument based on "traditional" definition is holding less and less water.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> So because you know you can't dispute my statement with any type of fact, you now choose to call them inaccurate or misleading? Name more countries, or prove millions worldwide is inaccurate. If you can't, you have no grounds to call them either.


Now _this_ is a merry go round.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A bit of marriage "mischief" to lighten up the mood here in this thread -- 

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/070105/K010504AU.html

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Wedding jokes are not always funny.

When a bride in Austria jokingly answered "no" instead of "yes" when asked if she wanted to marry her husband-to-be, the official performing the civil wedding promptly broke off the ceremony.

Not even the bride's sobs could reverse the decision, and the couple had to wait 2½ months before they could give it another shot, the Austrian newspaper Oberoesterreichischen Nachrichten reported Friday.

Officials at the registry office in the city of Steyr, where the incident occurred, declined to comment directly, but said the incident was highly unusual, according to the newspaper.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> So because you know you can't dispute my statement with any type of fact, you now choose to call them inaccurate or misleading? Name more countries, or prove millions worldwide is inaccurate. If you can't, you have no grounds to call them either.


SINC,

Until you are ready to make blacks slaves again, and take away women's right to vote, your arguments of "tradition" have no foundation.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> SINC,
> 
> Until you are ready to make blacks slaves again, and take away women's right to vote, your arguments of "tradition" have no foundation.


Ah yes, more lies from gt. I have never, ever advocated slavery or taking away women's rights. 

Stooping that low exposes your real side which is exactly where you should stick your post.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, more lies from gt. I have never, ever advocated slavery or taking away women's rights.
> 
> Stooping that low exposes your real side which is exactly where you should stick your post.


You speak constantly of "tradition" and how we shouldn't be changing, yet things like slavery and the right to vote are things people had to fight for. There were many people who felt we shouldn't change those "traditions".

So how much progress are you really for? Just enough to keep yourself happy?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

globeandmail.com: Two-thirds back electing judges
......................
Sixty-three per cent of 1,000 respondents questioned in the Strategic Counsel survey supported the idea of elected judges, compared to 30 per cent who opposed the notion. The results may come as a surprise to the legal community, where it has long been assumed that Canadians see the election of judges as a major drawback of the U.S. justice system.
......................


That should make Sinc happy; And me afraid. 

Canadians trust judges more than politicians so, clearly, the only way to solve this problem is to select judges the same way we select politicians.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: The key factor here is that one can dump judges they don't like. It represents an ability to "fire" the public servant and has no relationship to levels of trust of politicians--quite the reverse.

I think Canadians would also favour "recall" privileges on politicians, provided there was a high enough barrier to do so. You might remember the recall of monumental numbskull "Governor Grey (Out) Davis" in California a few years back.
Very appealing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> globeandmail.com: Two-thirds back electing judges
> ......................
> Sixty-three per cent of 1,000 respondents questioned in the Strategic Counsel survey supported the idea of elected judges, compared to 30 per cent who opposed the notion. The results may come as a surprise to the legal community, where it has long been assumed that Canadians see the election of judges as a major drawback of the U.S. justice system.
> ......................
> ...


It does indeed, and this is something I have been predicting would happen for years. As long as governments continue to coddle criminals and pander to do good groups, it will only continue to grow as a demand of the general public.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: The key factor here is that one can dump judges they don't like. It represents an ability to "fire" the public servant and has no relationship to levels of trust of politicians--quite the reverse.


That's a big difference for the legal system. Expert legal decisions are not founded on popular appeal despite taking societal considerations into mind (interpreting the law should not be like Canadian Idol, in my opinion), but the laws that are interpreted (politicians' creation) are a popularity contest. 

It's like saying you don't want high taxes, and then trying to get lazy/corrupt tax collectors hired. A work-around with unintended consequences.

As for firing judges, I think the idea about both sides' lawyers picking judges handles that better without the dangers to our legal system.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

How about judges get the job based on their qualifications, not based on who has the most money to campaign with.

Elected judges would be a disaster. You are pandering to the mob mentality of the general voting public.

Your common citizen doesn't have an intricate enough knowledge of the legal system to make an informed decision about who should be a judge, and who shouldn't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> As for firing judges, I think the idea about both sides' lawyers picking judges handles that better without the dangers to our legal system.


Why not let the defendent and accused pick them as they'll be the recipient of the justice?

Heck, why not let everyone choose--and we'll call it an election?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Your common citizen doesn't have an intricate enough knowledge of the legal system to make an informed decision about who should be a judge, and who shouldn't.


Your common citizen doesn't know enough to vote for Town Reeve. Why suddenly apply voter intelligence/knowledge limitations to the judiciary.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Why not let the defendent and accused pick them as they'll be the recipient of the justice?


Sure, and they'd likely defer to their lawyers. Their choice, but the two have to agree on a judge or get one "out of the pile". I forget the intricacies of the proposal (some Globe article a while back). It sounded much better than turning judges into politicians for the sake of (and desire to ignore) the law. Again, like hiring lazy and corrupt tax collectors because one does not like the tax rates. 

As for elections, how about other professions that require significant expertise? Doctor, I know you were elected on a "no blood transfusion" platform, but I'm dying here!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> As for elections, how about other professions that require significant expertise? Doctor, I know you were elected on a "no blood transfusion" platform, but I'm dying here!


It takes a soft centrist like you to re-cast doctors as public servants. And you call yourself an economist? For shame!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> It takes a soft centrist like you to re-cast doctors as public servants. And you call yourself an economist? For shame!


A particularly appropriate comparison for Canadians. 

Imagine a 100% public monopoly on health care where you were not allowed to receive care outside the country or buy any over-the-counter medicine outside the public system (that you had to pay for through taxes). Now elect the people in the jobs requiring the most expertise. Suddenly getting tough on fat people could be a doctor's platform for a given neighbourhood. 

Our justice system is such a monopoly (by necessity). That's way too much power for an angry mob. The degree of separation between elected officials making laws and experts interpreting those laws based on foundational documents of a country and precedence (in our system) is important. Otherwise one elected official can just ignore another's laws. That would make the current Fed-Prov-Muni avoidance of responsibility seem quite mild by comparison.

In the end, the mob can always put in place any laws it wants through constitutional revisions and the notwithstanding clause, as it should be able to. No work-arounds, though. If you can't the get laws you want, then tough. Electing a judge to ignore laws is not a good idea, in my opinion. The higher law of unintended consequences is in play and one look at the House of Commons should give some clues.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: - good post Beej.

I'm curious as to the question asked - the poll is not listed on the Strategic Counsel site nor in the article.

Let's elect generals, fire fighters too while we're at it. Oooooohhh he looks good in that uniform.
THIS is a non starter IMNSHO.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> THIS is a non starter IMNSHO.


Oh but it _isn't _a non-starter as it's already started. How it ends will be important here.

Beej: There's already a long history of tradition that places judges and public prosecutors in a separate category from doctors and generals. Your argument is a fallacy in that it attempts to create absurdity by breaking that boundary AND adding an election card at the same time. 

Actually, we do elect mechanics and tailors through dollar democracy, but that's another story.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: There's already a long history of tradition that places judges and public prosecutors in a separate category from doctors and generals. Your argument is a fallacy in that it attempts to create absurdity by breaking that boundary AND adding an election card at the same time.


Simply and example to consider, not a "proof". The highlight being electing people to positions that require substantial technical expertise. The secondary message being the pitfalls of some workaround (in the example, biology) solution because one does not like the outcome of expert consideration. So, despite tradition (not an argument of absurdity, just one of acceptable absurdity  ), the absurdity outcome of electing people to such positions is quite predictable: politicisation and less relevance for facts and expert analysis. Society is specialised and "common sense" just can't handle the devil involved in such professions. 

That some traditions are absurd is not surprising.

[Edit, Sidenote from my recent readings: The Athenians elected their generals. They did get some good ones, but hilarity also ensued. Furthermore, military service was more prevalent so the electorate had a larger portion of real expertise.]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why not work it backwards? If we accept that electing a judge is absurd, because it requires particular expertise, let's also posit that electing leaders of countries is equally absurd as running a country requires some skill to do well, and much hilarity ensues when an eror is made.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Elite but accountable and overseen guilds are critical to modern democracies.
As it sorts out the expert from the politicized - we've seen quite enough of even science being bowlderized for political ends.

What is lacking in my view are oversight bodies as an additional pillar of democracy.
Separation of judiciary and political bodies are critical and popular election of the judiciary serves none well.
Pols make laws - the other bodies are to act as a counterbalance when legislation strays outside the Charter.

*"Canadian Judge"* a popularity contest coming to soon to Sun TV. See your favourite contestants square off at "citing references", the "rapid judging contest - 5 cases in 5 minutes....knitting classes offered.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> electing leaders of countries is equally absurd as running a country requires some skill to do well, and much hilarity ensues when an eror is made.


While there are elements of absurdity - Parliament does not "run the government" - the civil service does and indeed are not appointed nor elected.

The Attorney General follows a similar role for the judiciary


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Why not work it backwards? If we accept that electing a judge is absurd, because it requires particular expertise, let's also posit that electing leaders of countries is equally absurd as running a country requires some skill to do well, and much hilarity ensues when an eror is made.


For a democracy, the electorate asserts its Demands. That micro-managing does not improve things beyond this assertion is unsurprising. The Law of Unintended Consequences asserts itself.

We could also vote on everything (more realistic with technology): monetary policy; every court decision; amendments to every piece of legislation; prison amenities etc. Even excluding the time taken (efficiency) that would be absurd. So the question is how the voters control the destination without managing each step (because they lack expertise, not to mention time). 

Your thought exercise only points out that the weakness will always exist in a democracy (all systems of governance have weaknesses). That does not, however, argue for playing into the weakness.

How is a system of elected judges "better" than the current system? 

So far (over the years) I remember hearing notions of: 

1) Ability to "fire" judges 
2) Not liking the laws of current elected officials
3) Wanting a different kind of judicial bias

Please add to the list. 

1) is a red herring argument in that it attempts to solve a small and specific issue with a big change. Or it's just a cloak for other sentiments.

2) introduces a fundamental work around because one does not like the result of the other elected system. There are good arguments for allowing voters to more specifically identify their wishes (ie. environment, or criminal justice, or public transit...not micro-managing) but, again, you're back to the problem of conflicting pursuits. If big change is on the table, separate the criminal law portfolio from a government's general platform. Once again, electing judges is a deeply inferior solution; almost seems like a cloak-argument again.

3) Pretty straight-forward.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Judges and judiciary are there own worst enemies and in the future, more and more absurd decisions and going soft on murderers will only harden the public's opinion on the matter. 

One thing is for sure. The public will eventually win its desire to elect judges. Watch it happen.

Utopia is dying and reality is now. People are tired of punks packing guns in night clubs and shooting up the town.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> People are tired of punks packing guns in night clubs and shooting up the town.


Yes they are SINC. If only harsher penalties were a deterent.

You see, what you can't seem to get into that thick noggin of yours is that no matter how harsh the penalty, the original problem still exists.

Here it is in really simple words (I'd draw it with crayons on construction paper if I could for you, but words will have to do):

*Harsher sentences do not deter crime.*

I'll repeat it again, just in case:

*Harsher sentences do not deter crime.*

Solve the original problem. Get the guns and bullets off our streets.

EDIT: Had a spelling mistake in there (on vs off).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy: It doesn't matter if the harsher sentences deter crime if the populace feels the sentences are not appropriate or just. I also find some sentences grossly inappropriate--too high for stupid drug offences, too low for acts of extreme violence. 

If you see prison as a rehab house, you're simply not going to be satisfied with harsher sentences. We don't need to debate this.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

My understanding of the justice system is that juries can make sentencing recommendations to the judge. Maybe we need to find a way to make those weigh more heavily in the final sentence.

That might result in stiffer sentences or maybe lighter sentences but if the people are playing a larger role, at least we get away from the whole lousy judge argument.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Yes they are SINC. If only harsher penalties were a deterent.
> 
> You see, what you can't seem to get into that thick noggin of yours is that no matter how harsh the penalty, the original problem still exists.


Resorting to name calling again will not change my mind nor the minds of Canadians. Harsher penalties will satisfy the public and that is what counts. Take your do-gooder attitude and poke it. And speaking of thick noggins, take a look in a mirror.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Anagram for "thick noggin": thinking cog.

Let's change gears, guys.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Harsher penalties will satisfy the public and that is what counts.


Whew! For a minute there I thought you wanted our streets to be safer. Apparently not. Instead you just want people to THINK our streets are safer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy: The streets are safer while the person is inacarcerated. A few weeks in prison for a murderer or violent offender will see the streets safer for only a few weeks. Such a sentence will not see the perpetrator either reformed _or_ punished.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's tough to get through to him MF. The fact that when incarcerated, the criminal can't commit another crime, somehow eludes GT.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: The perp who ripped off his pants was back on the streets in a week, ready to steal the pants of the innocent once again.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Now you are arguing two different points.

Are you talking about removing criminals from the streets, or reducing crime on the streets? These are two different issues.

Harsher sentences will not reduce crime on the street, because punishment is not a deterrent.

Longer sentences don't rehabilitate criminals. A long sentence may just harden those criminals before dumping them back on the street again. Nothing has been solved.

Solve the problem where it begins.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy: You can solve the problem where it begins, while SINC and I can solve the problem on the other end, for whoever flunks out of your great social experiment.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Solve the problem where it begins.


Since it begins with a criminal using a gun on the streets, when we remove him, we solve the problem. Beginning or end, he isn't going do it again and it should be for 25 years minimum if he uses a gun. Problem solved.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> [Harsher sentences will not reduce crime on the street, because punishment is not a deterrent.
> 
> Longer sentences don't rehabilitate criminals. A long sentence may just harden those criminals before dumping them back on the street again. Nothing has been solved.


Agreed, but you see SINC and MF would like to make themselves feel better by thinking that they are "punishing" people.

The US has a incarceration rate that is 3X to 8X higher than Canada and other Western nations.... How's that working out for them?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Since it begins with a criminal using a gun on the streets, when we remove him, we solve the problem. Beginning or end, he isn't going do it again and it should be for 25 years minimum if he uses a gun. Problem solved.


How gun crimes are actually committed in Canada versus other weapons such as knives? How many murders are crimes of passion versus premeditated? 

You seem to like the sensationalist crimes SINC....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> How gun crimes are actually committed in Canada versus other weapons such as knives? How many murders are crimes of passion versus premeditated?
> 
> You seem to like the sensationalist crimes SINC....


Not at all. I think other weapons like knives should get 20 years. Only passion involved is when we kiss there a$$es goodbye when the cell door slams shut.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Guy: You can solve the problem where it begins, while SINC and I can solve the problem on the other end, for whoever flunks out of your great social experiment.


You can't unburn a pie. If you don't set the oven time and temperature correctly, you'll burn your pie. You can't "solve" this problem after it happens. You have to go back to the beginning, and make sure the proper conditions are in place for the sweet, delicious pie, or else you'll keep having the same problem over and over again.



SINC said:


> Since it begins with a criminal using a gun on the streets, when we remove him, we solve the problem. Beginning or end, he isn't going do it again and it should be for 25 years minimum if he uses a gun. Problem solved.


And the gun goes into someone else's hands. And the network to channel guns onto our streets still exists. And the poor living conditions of many families makes for an environment that breeds criminals. And lack of social programs give kinds nothing better to do than be recruited by gangs. And lack of community role models give kids nothing to look forward to.

Crime doesn't start with a gun in someone's hand. It starts long before that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> And lack of community role models give kids nothing to look forward to.


That's just not true. They can look forward to jail time if they choose to follow the same path.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Only passion involved is when we kiss there a$$es goodbye when the cell door slams shut.


And that the problem with your stance - it's all about emotions for you and very little to do with crime and justice.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> And that the problem with your stance - it's all about emotions for you and very little to do with crime and justice.


Do the crime, do the time, is justice. Right now it does not happen. Nothing emotional there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy: No, you can bake the pie any way you want. SINC and I will deal with the ones that--despite following your careful recipe and baking instructions--don't come out quite right.

A two-pronged approach to satisfy everybody!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> SINC and I will deal with the ones that--despite following your careful recipe and baking instructions--don't come out quite right.


Too bad you will never understand that your approach to the problem solves nothing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Too bad you will never understand that your approach to the problem solves nothing.


Too bad you will never understand that your approach to the problem solves nothing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Good ol' prevent-rehab-protect.

Actually, the protect argument is quite strong given recidivism rates, especially amongst young criminals. It comes down to personal values.

Of course, this has nothing to do with electing judges. If one's personal values cannot survive requiring broader support, I guess any old local demagogue will do. The system can always be improved, but not just because one is being out-voted. 

Maybe criminal laws need to be separated from the other one thousand policy items for voters to focus, but having judges responsible to something other than laws makes no sense when the laws are put in place by elected representatives.

Where's the sense in a conviction being dependent upon the latest polls in a given region instead of just interpreting the law (there's already enough unavoidable personal bias in any system)? Commit a crime during a judicial election month and kiss your butt goodbye. If the victim was particularly photogenic, maybe a little mistreatment will be ok. Depends on what time of year the trial for that is.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Where's the sense in a conviction being dependent upon the latest polls in a given region instead of just interpreting the law (there's already enough unavoidable personal bias in any system)? Commit a crime during a judicial election month and kiss your butt goodbye. If the victim was particularly photogenic, maybe a little mistreatment will be ok. Depends on what time of year the trial for that is.


That's getting much closer to what a fed up population is beginning to demand. That of course is the extreme and the correct solution to solving the problem or perception, lies somewhere in between coddle, rehab and parole and sending them down the river for life.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> That's getting much closer to what a fed up population is beginning to demand. That of course is the extreme and the correct solution to solving the problem or perception, lies somewhere in between coddle, rehab and parole and sending them down the river for life.


Fair enough. Then change the laws. If voting for such is too much of a mess (mixed in with tax cuts, health care, education, environment, etc.) then I do see a case for separating the topic (and others) from the all-in-one party system. I'm not sure how to do it, but it's worth thinking about. Electing judges, however, creates more problems than solutions, in my opinion. As would the conversion of any field, requiring expertise, into more of a popularity contest.

Personally, I find this end of "justice" (protection after conviction) to be minor relative to the sources of problems and policies that create real long-term security. Sort of like bringing national attention to a pack of gum just because it's more tangible than grappling with real wasteful bureaucracy. Try to grab the shiny quarter while a hundred bucks is burned right in front of you.

That doesn't mean I agree with some strangely low sentences, just that I find other policy changes to be a much more productive approach if a given member of cabinet happens to have the time. 

And, if the "if you had experienced this" argument is being considered, save it. Sorry, pre-emptive bile.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Fair enough. Then change the laws.


I agree that is the way to accomplish the required changes, but mark my words, the public will settle for nothing less long term than taking away the power of the judiciary to appoint judges. Elected judges will become part of this country's future, like it or not.

That being said, part of the change has to be establishing the qualifications to run for the position of judge. Obviously a layman doesn't know enough law to apply it correctly.

The whole process will take time to develop, but develop it will. There are enough people who have been touched by bad judges who will demand nothing less.

And for the record, a "walk a mile in my shoes" story garnered in excess of 30,000 signatures on a petition for change and elected judges by the father of a murder victim here in Edmonton last summer.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> mark my words, the public will settle for nothing less long term than taking away the power of the judiciary to appoint judges. Elected judges will become part of this country's future, like it or not.


I hope you are wrong. This country's citizens seemed ok with running up a $700+ billion dollar debt and depleting the pension plan, but the lesson was eventually learned. I hope we don't have to go through a course from Professor Obvious on this issue too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The judges will only have themselves to blame in this case. People can accept some degree of aberration in sentencing, but a cavalcade of whacked-out sentences will eventually spur a strong reaction. To some degree, justice is a local matter and should reflect community standards. 

Watch elections for U.S. judges. Some of them run on platforms of fairness, others on their exactitude in applying the law, while still others on their leniency. The current crop of Canadian judges seems like a similar crapshoot, running the same gamut, so I'm not too worried about the break-up of the good 'ol boys cabal that currently appoints them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> justice is a local matter and should reflect community standards.


Yes it is and yes it should...in this way...not sending kids to crime training u.



> *Circles stop cycle of crime and time*
> 
> Apr 10, 2007 04:30 AM
> Jim Coyle
> ...


TheStar.com - News - Circles stop cycle of crime and time

The flip side of this program is of course a severe alternative and in particular for second offences.

...and get the stupid individual drug use burden out of the justice system


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Yes it is and yes it should...in this way...not sending kids to crime training u.
> 
> ...and get the stupid individual drug use burden out of the justice system


Doc: I have no problem trying to rehabilitate kids who might have thieved something or gotten into fights--I imagine SINC doesn't either. When they murder someone in cold blood, I think they've gotten beyond the "Youth Circle" stage. HOw can you "make amends" for taking someone's life?

And I personally agree that individual drug use should be taken off the books--as long as people are held responsible for what they do to others while on drugs. (That is, no excuse that the person was taking drugs and therefore not responsible for his/her actions).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Youth Circles are nothing new out here in the west. Natives have been using them for as long as I can remember. I guess they may be new to Toronto, but certainly not invented by any Bay Street lawyer.

Never heard tell of one being used for a murderer though. They are mainly used to curb mischief.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> To some degree, justice is a local matter and should reflect community standards.


This would be a specific point of disagreement. In the Supreme Court's "swinger club" decision, the community standards legal test was (vague memory) either put to rest or downgraded relative to a more general harms test, and I agree with that in that I think many such standards should be less dependent upon sensibilities and more upon personal freedom. 

"Community standards" are a way, in my opinion, of furthering social conservatism beyond one's personal sphere. It's not black and white, but I usually lean towards less social control. We can self-regulate our communities for most things and only need the law for dangerous things. I was reminded of Janet Jackson's nipple in another thread...same sort of thing. 

It is worth reading the swinger club decision to see the logic of the decision and the dissent. I may even read it again for fun (yes I have a strange concept of fun).

Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - R. v. Kouri


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But if we have lenient sentences for violent crimes, which the local community refuses to tolerate, it will result in either:
1) vigilante justice
2) a demand for elected judges.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pardon me but this "enormous out cry " seems to be based on very little reality.

The Daily, Thursday, July 20, 2006. Crime statistics

Gang violence and organized crime represents a different set of issues and approach.
I'd be interested in seeing gang/roganized crime stats pulled out. I suspect it would paint a specific problem of violence in a narrow area of the criminal activity spectrum.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> But if we have lenient sentences for violent crimes, which the local community refuses to tolerate, it will result in either:
> 1) vigilante justice
> 2) a demand for elected judges.


3) tougher laws.

If the larger community rejects that, then back to 1 and 2. Again, how are elected judges better? If a community wants justice that is materially different from other communities, at what point is a national method of justice superior or inferior? I don't think violent offenders should be treated significantly differently in neighbourhood A than B. The judges will differ but, again, playing into a flaw is not a good thing.

If you prefer, for violent crimes, more local control over treatment, then we've got a basic disagreement and elected judges could make sense, but you've still got the law versus local problem. The judges must operate within the law (for it to be meaningful), so you're looking for a leaning to one side of a range when possible (assuming real judges, no popular Joe du jour). I consider that a bad idea, but can see the logic based on a different starting point than mine. 

And by bad idea, I don't just mean a different starting point, I mean unintended consequences (and my starting point  ).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> But if we have lenient sentences for violent crimes, which the local community refuses to tolerate, it will result in either:
> 1) vigilante justice
> 2) a demand for elected judges.


Presupposes a sizeable problem exists to generate such activity potential.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Pardon me but this "enormous out cry " seems to be based on very little reality. Gang violence and organized crime represents a different set of issues and approach.
> I'd be interested in seeing gang/roganized crime stats pulled out. I suspect it would paint a specific problem of violence in a narrow area of the criminal activity spectrum.


Deep thinking intellectual fools conclusions are never based on reality.

You see MD, the very evidence you want is propagating itself on the streets of Canadian cities every day.

I'll give you a call when we have the stats ready to state the obvious. Until then, carry on in Utopia.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Deep thinking intellectual fools conclusions are never based on reality.
> 
> You see MD, the very evidence you want is propagating itself on the streets of Canadian cities every day.
> 
> I'll give you a call when we have the stats ready to state the obvious. Until then, carry on in Utopia.


seems sinc has made a new friend
i wonder how much potential crime could be prevented by having better schools, easier access to post secondary education, after school community programs

law n order types always seem to prefer their tax dollars spend AFTER the crime is committed

sinc, you're old enuf to remember the phrase; ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Warring Ads in Wisconsin Supreme Court Race - FactCheck.org

A glimpse of our future?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> You see MD, the very evidence you want is propagating itself on the streets of Canadian cities every day.


I certainly haven't seem it and the stats back up MacDoc.

Fools conclusion indeed...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I certainly haven't seem it and the stats back up MacDoc.


Of course you haven't. It's only just begun in the past three years or so, but when the stats come out 5 years from now, it will be there. Murder by hand guns will jump dramatically. It has to. There are now so many involved in even minor incidents on the streets of Edmonton. Seizing hand guns from gang members during minor traffic stops is now commonplace.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I also think that there's only a very poor causal link between increased education funding and involvement in crime. At a certain point you reach the law of diminishing returns. However, with any program that demonstrates such concrete results I support it--as well as incarcerating violent criminals who appear to be unaffected by such programs.


----------

