Saturday, January 22, 2005
More stupidity about same-sex marriage, part III
So I gather, by the zero comments garnered by each of my last two entries, that the subject of stupidity about same-sex marriage is one of great interest to my regular readers (or possibly said readers have just had their computers confiscated by their block wardens - no matter). Because of this, I continue with the series.
You know what's stupid this time? Suggestions that legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to challenges to Canada's prohibition on polygamy. People levelling those accusations are every bit as ignorant of the way Canadian law - and Canadian constitutional law in particular - works as is the Prime Minister.
As in my last entry, the piece of legislation at work in this instance is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question at play (legislation works and questions play, obviously - duh) is whether the current prohibition of polygamy is consistent with the guarantees of religious freedom in the Charter. This is a question to which I don't know the answer, and I think a court study on that would be immensely interesting. I hope it happens, not least because I have been advocating the elimination of the rule for half a decade, most notably in my call to arms in the Faculté Saint-Jean's Mouton Noir four years ago (tragically, said call to arms, along with my accompanying tribute to Pierre Trudeau, was so heavily edited that I resolved to never again run anything in that particular rag).
What effect, you may well ask, would an amendment to federal statutes (such as the one that will presumably soon be proposed by the Martin government to legalize same-sex marriage) have on such a question? Well, none. At all. Either the Charter requires the government to allow polygamy or it doesn't. If it does, it does with or without legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. If it doesn't, no legislative action short of an amendment to the Charter is going to change this.
In keeping with my tradition of alternating targets, my next post will be on my persistent puzzlement over the Prime Minister's threats to call an election on this issue.
Also: is this the new badgerbadgerbadger?
|
So I gather, by the zero comments garnered by each of my last two entries, that the subject of stupidity about same-sex marriage is one of great interest to my regular readers (or possibly said readers have just had their computers confiscated by their block wardens - no matter). Because of this, I continue with the series.
You know what's stupid this time? Suggestions that legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to challenges to Canada's prohibition on polygamy. People levelling those accusations are every bit as ignorant of the way Canadian law - and Canadian constitutional law in particular - works as is the Prime Minister.
As in my last entry, the piece of legislation at work in this instance is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question at play (legislation works and questions play, obviously - duh) is whether the current prohibition of polygamy is consistent with the guarantees of religious freedom in the Charter. This is a question to which I don't know the answer, and I think a court study on that would be immensely interesting. I hope it happens, not least because I have been advocating the elimination of the rule for half a decade, most notably in my call to arms in the Faculté Saint-Jean's Mouton Noir four years ago (tragically, said call to arms, along with my accompanying tribute to Pierre Trudeau, was so heavily edited that I resolved to never again run anything in that particular rag).
What effect, you may well ask, would an amendment to federal statutes (such as the one that will presumably soon be proposed by the Martin government to legalize same-sex marriage) have on such a question? Well, none. At all. Either the Charter requires the government to allow polygamy or it doesn't. If it does, it does with or without legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. If it doesn't, no legislative action short of an amendment to the Charter is going to change this.
In keeping with my tradition of alternating targets, my next post will be on my persistent puzzlement over the Prime Minister's threats to call an election on this issue.
Also: is this the new badgerbadgerbadger?
