Alberta Premier Proves He Is a Bigot

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-14 07:11pm

CBC wrote: CALGARY - Alberta Premier Ralph Klein says it should be OK to discriminate against gays and lesbians when it comes to marriage.

While they deserve civil protection in other areas, Klein says that shouldn't extend to same-sex marriage.

"I have friends who are gays and friends who are lesbian and they're wonderful people," Klein said Monday. "I do feel that gays and lesbians ought not to be discriminated against in any other form other than marriage because I think that marriage is a sacred thing that exists between a man and a woman."

Klein admitted there is little legal recourse for the province in its battle against the federal government's same-sex marriage bill, but Klein says Albertans should write to their MPs and to Prime Minister Paul Martin, as he will be doing.

"We will be writing to all Liberal and Conservative members. I'll be writing to the prime minister," Klein said.

The Supreme Court said last week that the federal government has the legal right to change the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians, and Martin says his government will introduce that legislation in January.

Last week, Klein called for a referendum on the issue, but he has since backtracked from the idea, saying Tuesday that he was just "thinking out loud."

The idea for a referendum was dismissed by Martin, and by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and deputy leader Peter MacKay.

Once again Alberta proves that it is the last bastion of fundies in Canada.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-14 07:15pm

CBC

CBC wrote: OTTAWA - Federal Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says his party will protect the traditional definition of marriage.

Stephen Harper
Harper said Tuesday that the Conservatives will introduce amendments to the government's same-sex marriage legislation if the proposed law doesn't conform to the party's vision.

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ottawa has exclusive jurisdiction to decide who has the right to get married in this country – but that religious groups are not obliged to perform unions against their beliefs.

On Tuesday, Harper told reporters that he's aiming for a consensus recognizing traditional marriage without taking away from the rights of same-sex couples. It's unclear exactly how Harper plans to achieve this.

Harper said he also wants the legislation to ensure that religious officials won't be required to perform same-sex marriage.

The Liberal government is expected to introduce legislation in January.

Harper said he will allow Conservative MPs to vote according to their conscience. Liberal backbenchers will also be allowed to vote freely, but cabinet ministers must support the legislation.

But Justice Minister Irwin Cotler slammed Harper's proposals, saying he's trying to have it "both ways."

He said Harper would have to invoke the notwithstanding clause to push his amendments through.

"You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Harper. Come clean on where you stand."

Cotler also said civic officials will also not be mandated to perform gay marriages if doing so is against their religious beliefs.

More BS from the Conservitive Party (Federal).

Cotler also said civic officials will also not be mandated to perform gay marriages if doing so is against their religious beliefs.

The above is what really botheres me. When you go to work as a civil servant you check your religion at the door. It has no place in a government institution, practice it when your not at work.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-14 07:20pm

"I have friends who are gays and friends who are lesbian and they're wonderful people," Klein said Monday. "I do feel that gays and lesbians ought not to be discriminated against in any other form other than marriage because I think that marriage is a sacred thing that exists between a man and a woman."

The whole problem here is this notion about "sacredness". Can he PROVE why this should be thought of this way?

Ok, lets get to the nitty gritty.....

Definition:

1. [adj] (often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person; "a fund sacred to charity"; "a morning hour sacred to study"; "a private office sacred to the President"
2. [adj] made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated chursh"; "the sacred mosque"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine"
3. [adj] worthy of religious veneration; "the sacred name of Jesus"; "Jerusalem's hallowed soil"
4. [adj] concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music"
5. [adj] worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling"

Other than the "worthy of respect or dedication" that should have to be PROVED and not just accepted as an appeal to tradition, and the "devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person" which AGAIN should have to be defended as being deserving of such a status, all the rest of the definitions are religous in nature.

Religious beliefs are not appropriate as a foregone conclusion to legal rights.

The only people that heavily argue otherwise are of the stripe of some shade of fundamentalist that secretly desire the laws of the land to be their
interpretation of the laws of their religion.

That is NOT a good reason for declaring something "sacred" in the eyes of the law.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-12-14 08:16pm

a bigoted fuck wrote:"I do feel that gays and lesbians ought not to be discriminated against in any other form other than marriage because I think that marriage is a sacred thing that exists between a man and a woman."

Well seeing as how "marriage is a sacred thing that exists between a man and a woman" and all, I eagerly await the announcement of Mr Klein's plans to introduce legislation banning divorce because after all marraige is “sacred” and when asked about divorce Jesus said:

a guy who Mr Klein believes to be the sky pixie made flesh wrote:19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-12-14 08:48pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Cotler also said civic officials will also not be mandated to perform gay marriages if doing so is against their religious beliefs.
The above is what really botheres me. When you go to work as a civil servant you check your religion at the door. It has no place in a government institution, practice it when your not at work.

As a Civil Servant in Canada, let me tell you that parking religion at the door is currently the case, and there is no way in hell that would become otherwise. For the simple reason is as of right now, we refuse to change civil servants from an assignment if someone complains over religious or personal beliefs. i.e Fundie Muslims that object to a female civil servant are told 'sorry, she's got the assignment'

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-15 01:02am

You know what is really fucking funny. Protestant churches, reject the sacrement of marriage as part of doctrin. DUring the reformation, one of their splits with the RCC was over the number of ritual sacraments. The catholics have seven, including baptism and the Eucharist, AND marriage. The protestants only have Baptism and the Eucharist.

SO according to their own belief system, these protestants are full of shit about the sanctity of marriage

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-15 07:03am

Stephan Harper wrote: Harper said he also wants the legislation to ensure that religious officials won't be required to perform same-sex marriage.

I don't get this. The government has never said it would force churches to perform these marriages. It's a non-issue but the fucktards keep dragging it out.

Besides why would a gay couple want to be married by an institution that thinks they are evil?

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-12-15 08:59am

Cpl Kendall wrote:More BS from the Conservitive Party (Federal).

Cotler also said civic officials will also not be mandated to perform gay marriages if doing so is against their religious beliefs.

Err... Irwin Cotler is the Justice Minister/AG (i.e. a member of the Liberal cabinet).

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-12-15 09:02am

Never mind... I see you were referring to the quote above, not below.

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » 2004-12-15 09:04am

Thankfully, fundementalists don't control and make up most of the population in Canada.

You know, I wonder if in decades from now, Paul martin will be remembered as a great prime minister because of the legalization of gay marriage.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-15 10:02am

You know, I wonder if in decades from now, Paul martin will be remembered as a great prime minister because of the legalization of gay marriage.

Would you be saying that if Cretin was still Prime Minister?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-15 10:33am

Martin is simply bowing to the changing views of the public. All polls show that young people are far more tolerant of things like gay marriage than old relics. No one ever became known as "great" for following the people rather than leading them. Of course, no one ever became really vilified for doing that either; it's the safe route.

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » 2004-12-15 12:01pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
You know, I wonder if in decades from now, Paul martin will be remembered as a great prime minister because of the legalization of gay marriage.
Would you be saying that if Cretin was still Prime Minister?

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. I don't like Paul Martin, in fact I think he's sneaky little weasly asshole, although had I voted, I would have voted for him, because I think he's better than any of the other candidates.

It was merely a random though, not a sign that I actually like him.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-12-15 12:46pm

When this passes we could see a lot of gay americans wanting to come to Canada, and a lot of Albertans wanting to leave. I wonder if we could arrange a trade?

Alyrium Denryle wrote:You know what is really fucking funny. Protestant churches, reject the sacrement of marriage as part of doctrin. DUring the reformation, one of their splits with the RCC was over the number of ritual sacraments. The catholics have seven, including baptism and the Eucharist, AND marriage. The protestants only have Baptism and the Eucharist.

SO according to their own belief system, these protestants are full of shit about the sanctity of marriage

That's just priceless! Looks like the catholics are the only ones who can argue for the sacredness of marriage. I wonder if anyone brought up gay marriage back then as an arguement against the splitting of the church.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-12-15 03:26pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
You know, I wonder if in decades from now, Paul martin will be remembered as a great prime minister because of the legalization of gay marriage.
Would you be saying that if Cretin was still Prime Minister?

One decision rarely makes or breaks anyone's reputation. Gay marriage isn't one of them. It is not like Martin boldly stepped forward and stated "I will legalize gay marriage, come hell or high water". He basically punted the question to the Supreme Court who punted the major issue (can the government decide not to legalize gay marriage and not violate the Charter) back. A fount of moral courage he is not (but that is true of most Canadian PMs - most are blowing in the wind).

Personally, Martin made an able #2, but is a wimpy #1.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-12-15 03:54pm

Jalinth wrote:It is not like Martin boldly stepped forward and stated "I will legalize gay marriage, come hell or high water".

Lol, I actually remember him saying something like this, not the gay marriage part but the "hell or high water" part.

No, Martin isn't a revolutionary. But, even if Martin did have strong views for gay marriage, why do you think he would flaunt them? Even if Martin had strong personal beliefs, it would have been politically suicidal for Martin's party to start appearing as radical as the NDP during the election campaign. Liberals needs to stay centrist for popular appeal, and keeping gay marriage low key was the right thing to do (politically). Remember how close the polls were, we were thinking minority Conservative government!

Wimpy number 1? That's retarded. Martin did what politicians do best -- maneuver into position to pursue his agenda while manipulating the masses. That's political cunning.

In the end, gay marriage gets legalized, that's it. Who cares if Martin isn't a loudmouth. Its not like Martin hasn't stated his personal opinion on this issue already, and flaunting that personal opinion could have alienated many potential Liberal voters during the election. Plus, gay marriage wasn't exactly on the top of Canadian's minds during the election.

Brian

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-15 07:46pm

[quote="Korvan"]When this passes we could see a lot of gay americans wanting to come to Canada, and a lot of Albertans wanting to leave. I wonder if we could arrange a trade?

Where do we sign up for that plan I'll? happily accept every gay in the US if it means getting rid of every fundie in Alberta. Canada stands to gain a rather large amount of people in this deal.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-12-15 07:51pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Korvan wrote:When this passes we could see a lot of gay americans wanting to come to Canada, and a lot of Albertans wanting to leave. I wonder if we could arrange a trade?

Where do we sign up for that plan I'll? happily accept every gay in the US if it means getting rid of every fundie in Alberta. Canada stands to gain a rather large amount of people in this deal.

As long as we can do a land swap - while Canada is big, we could use some nice weather (we'll take the West Coast thank you very much

)

We can change O Canada to a Beach Boys song in recognition of our biggest new province.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-15 07:55pm

Jalinth wrote:
As long as we can do a land swap - while Canada is big, we could use some nice weather (we'll take the West Coast thank you very much )

We can change O Canada to a Beach Boys song in recognition of our biggest new province.

While I would regret that my parents would become part of the USA, they can always move. Take BC, there's way to many yuppies and hippies there anyways.

Incidently, I'm from Langely, BC (outside Vancouver), where are you at?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-15 08:02pm

We can change O Canada to a Beach Boys song in recognition of our biggest new province.

That'd be great: our anthem sucks anyway

.

Then, which the massive influx of English-speaking citizens, we'll finally have an excuse to hold a national referendum to finally abandon this "bilingual" nonense. Suck it Quebecois pig-dogs: Suck it hard

.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » 2004-12-15 09:19pm

What's a bit frustrating is the Maritimes are leaning against it as well; many of the MP's both Liberal and otherwise, have said they would vote against Gay Marriage being set as 'marriage' for many of the reasons that were already mentionned.

Premier Lord in New Brunswick would rather not have to acknowledge it, but he said he would support whatever the Feds decide. OTOH, 3 Liberal MP's in New Brunswick have said they'd vote against it.

Man I wish I could get out of this region. *sigh*

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-15 09:25pm

Jetfire wrote:What's a bit frustrating is the Maritimes are leaning against it as well; many of the MP's both Liberal and otherwise, have said they would vote against Gay Marriage being set as 'marriage' for many of the reasons that were already mentionned.

Premier Lord in New Brunswick would rather not have to acknowledge it, but he said he would support whatever the Feds decide. OTOH, 3 Liberal MP's in New Brunswick have said they'd vote against it.

Man I wish I could get out of this region. *sigh*

Well at least 3 Liberal Cabinet ministers have resigned over this, citing religous beliefs. Fucking cowards.

It doesn't matter to them that Canada wants this, they'll continue to hide behind their God and his hate.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-15 09:36pm

What's a bit frustrating is the Maritimes are leaning against it as well; many of the MP's both Liberal and otherwise, have said they would vote against Gay Marriage being set as 'marriage' for many of the reasons that were already mentionned.

Hmph. I grew up in the Maritimes. Small town outside of Dartmouth. I'm not surprised at all actually. But mind you, the general mindset is nowhere NEAR as redneck as it used to be.

It's getting better thankfully. What I wouldn't give to have the power to just erase those three lines or so that mention homosexuality in the Bible.

Sure there are the many other things in there that are condemned just as harshly such as eating shellfish, dressing in drag, disrespecting your father and mother, etc etc, but for some reason there is such a big hate on for gays, that Christians wield those passages like the flaming sword in Eden.