Friday, January 21, 2005
More stupidity about same-sex marriage, part II
So I've been fairly harsh recently on those who oppose same-sex marriage, on the grounds that most of them are dumb. In fairness, I should point out that a lot of people who support same-sex marriage are also dumb. Take Paul Martin, for example. He says that he's willing to fight an election over same-sex marriage. That's very nice. I feel pretty strongly about the issue, so I'm glad to see somebody who feels similarily is occupying 24 Sussex.
But what's this? Martin says "Am I ready to go into an election to uphold the Charter of Rights against those who would attack it? The answer is certainly yes."
Um. Paul. First of all, it's not yet been finally determined if the Charter guarantees Canadians the right to marry other members of their sex (though I'm almost certain that the Supreme Court, if and when it is finally required to make a decision on the matter, will rule that it does), so it's perhaps a little glib to portray this as a question of upholding the Charter. Beyond that, though, even if the Charter *does* guarantee this right, you don't need to fight an election to uphold it. See, upholding the Charter isn't your job - that's the courts' job. In fact, if the Charter *does* guarantee this right, the only ways you could stop same-sex marriage even if you wanted to would be amending/repealing the Charter (which would be exceedingly difficult, as any four premiers could block you - to say nothing of the likely caucus revolt and your equally likely inability to get such an amendment/repeal through a Commons that you don't control) or invoking the Notwithstanding Clause. By doing neither of those things, you're automatically "upholding the Charter), and inactivity doesn't require an election (if it did, you would have gone through much more than one election during the past year).
So legalize same-sex marriage because it's the right thing to do, but don't go dragging the Charter into this. Thanks.
|
So I've been fairly harsh recently on those who oppose same-sex marriage, on the grounds that most of them are dumb. In fairness, I should point out that a lot of people who support same-sex marriage are also dumb. Take Paul Martin, for example. He says that he's willing to fight an election over same-sex marriage. That's very nice. I feel pretty strongly about the issue, so I'm glad to see somebody who feels similarily is occupying 24 Sussex.
But what's this? Martin says "Am I ready to go into an election to uphold the Charter of Rights against those who would attack it? The answer is certainly yes."
Um. Paul. First of all, it's not yet been finally determined if the Charter guarantees Canadians the right to marry other members of their sex (though I'm almost certain that the Supreme Court, if and when it is finally required to make a decision on the matter, will rule that it does), so it's perhaps a little glib to portray this as a question of upholding the Charter. Beyond that, though, even if the Charter *does* guarantee this right, you don't need to fight an election to uphold it. See, upholding the Charter isn't your job - that's the courts' job. In fact, if the Charter *does* guarantee this right, the only ways you could stop same-sex marriage even if you wanted to would be amending/repealing the Charter (which would be exceedingly difficult, as any four premiers could block you - to say nothing of the likely caucus revolt and your equally likely inability to get such an amendment/repeal through a Commons that you don't control) or invoking the Notwithstanding Clause. By doing neither of those things, you're automatically "upholding the Charter), and inactivity doesn't require an election (if it did, you would have gone through much more than one election during the past year).
So legalize same-sex marriage because it's the right thing to do, but don't go dragging the Charter into this. Thanks.
