October 03, 2006
Why isn't this getting more attention?
From: [Name Withheld]
Reply-To: cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: September 25, 2006 2:09:33 PM
To: cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: (cyf-talk) Artsy question on equality & a little tangent re parents (sorry)
--- In cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com, "[name withheld]" wrote:
>Expecting everyone to turn out as successful as everyone else is
>expecting Canada to live out a fantasy. Sure it's a nice idea, but so
>is every child in the country having two happily married, loving,
>committed and responsible parents.
Two? why stop there??? Depending on the outcome of a case being heard today/tomorrow in the Ontario court of Appeal, we may be looking at teams of parents...
Of course, the original applications judge on this matter did spell out a problem with that." If a child can have three parents, why not four or six or a dozen? ... What about all the adults in a commune or a religious organization or a sect? ... "
Sorry, I couldn't resist. As much as I hated the entire waste of time on the same sex marriage issue, I think some small tipping of the hat should go out to those who warned of this sort of transformation of the public definitions involved...
Irwin Cotler and many others laughed at those individuals ... but whether you love or hate the idea of poly-parenting, polygamy, and other principles that are the fallout here, it turns out some of the skeptics like Ted Morton were right in their predictions.
It's hardly news to the main SSM lobby, who never really cared. It's hardly news to those who warned against taking the route of the courts ... BUT -- it MIGHT be startling news to the large number of middle-ground Canadians who, while they were understandibly open-minded enough to consider making changes and accepting a redefinition of marriage for same sex monogamous couples, were obviously taken-in by a lobby that knew very well the consequences of taking the Charter route on that issue ... and they were likely not prepared to see a whole raft of other government definitions ripped sideways ...
Watch the news ... I've never seen such an internet drought and conspicuous absence of reporting on Court of Appeal File No. C39998, Superior Court of Justice File No. FD200/03. The case is very significant indeed. There was a CBC Newsworld interview with one of the lawyers that is nowhere to be found online. . . and otherwise nothing except reports from one lobby site or another...
We're one step closer to where I said we'd probably need to go back a few years ago -- towards stripping marriage and even perhaps guardianship down to the brass tacks of private contracting. I think many Canadians are going to be upset about this, including many gay and lesbian folks I know ... but 'dems the breaks when you haul out the court sledgehammer...
While I could never quite bring myself to settle on many SSM issues, I lament the simplicity of Canadians in how they dealt with it on both sides. It has led to this - which many would say is too far ...
This baby's radioactive. At this stage even the most ardent opponents of the changes can only buy popcorn and watch. I only mention it so that you can watch as it happens.
To fellow Tories on either side of the SSM issue - don't gasp too much. We had to see this coming. Best focus on taxes, debt, economics, federalism, and the stuff that's still uniting and changable ...
Reply-To: cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: September 25, 2006 2:09:33 PM
To: cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: (cyf-talk) Artsy question on equality & a little tangent re parents (sorry)
--- In cyf-talk@yahoogroups.com, "[name withheld]" wrote:
>Expecting everyone to turn out as successful as everyone else is
>expecting Canada to live out a fantasy. Sure it's a nice idea, but so
>is every child in the country having two happily married, loving,
>committed and responsible parents.
Two? why stop there??? Depending on the outcome of a case being heard today/tomorrow in the Ontario court of Appeal, we may be looking at teams of parents...
Of course, the original applications judge on this matter did spell out a problem with that." If a child can have three parents, why not four or six or a dozen? ... What about all the adults in a commune or a religious organization or a sect? ... "
Sorry, I couldn't resist. As much as I hated the entire waste of time on the same sex marriage issue, I think some small tipping of the hat should go out to those who warned of this sort of transformation of the public definitions involved...
Irwin Cotler and many others laughed at those individuals ... but whether you love or hate the idea of poly-parenting, polygamy, and other principles that are the fallout here, it turns out some of the skeptics like Ted Morton were right in their predictions.
It's hardly news to the main SSM lobby, who never really cared. It's hardly news to those who warned against taking the route of the courts ... BUT -- it MIGHT be startling news to the large number of middle-ground Canadians who, while they were understandibly open-minded enough to consider making changes and accepting a redefinition of marriage for same sex monogamous couples, were obviously taken-in by a lobby that knew very well the consequences of taking the Charter route on that issue ... and they were likely not prepared to see a whole raft of other government definitions ripped sideways ...
Watch the news ... I've never seen such an internet drought and conspicuous absence of reporting on Court of Appeal File No. C39998, Superior Court of Justice File No. FD200/03. The case is very significant indeed. There was a CBC Newsworld interview with one of the lawyers that is nowhere to be found online. . . and otherwise nothing except reports from one lobby site or another...
We're one step closer to where I said we'd probably need to go back a few years ago -- towards stripping marriage and even perhaps guardianship down to the brass tacks of private contracting. I think many Canadians are going to be upset about this, including many gay and lesbian folks I know ... but 'dems the breaks when you haul out the court sledgehammer...
While I could never quite bring myself to settle on many SSM issues, I lament the simplicity of Canadians in how they dealt with it on both sides. It has led to this - which many would say is too far ...
This baby's radioactive. At this stage even the most ardent opponents of the changes can only buy popcorn and watch. I only mention it so that you can watch as it happens.
To fellow Tories on either side of the SSM issue - don't gasp too much. We had to see this coming. Best focus on taxes, debt, economics, federalism, and the stuff that's still uniting and changable ...
