Who Rules Whom?
Is it just me or is something amiss with our Federal Government and the Supreme Court? After the Supreme Court ruled Thursday it
"made it clear that the current definition of civil marriage needs to be changed to make it consistent with the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"The Alberta Government has proposed a letter writing campaign to have a referendum on same-sex marriage to find out if the citizens of this country want same-sex marriage. Anne McLellan, who represents the riding of Edmonton West, says
"I think the Prime Minister has been clear on this, as has the Supreme Court of Canada and seven courts of appeal in the country"Basically, it doesn’t really matter what the people of the country may want, were going to do what we want anyway!! What arrogance!! If the Federal Government has to do what the Supreme Court says, then who is above the Supreme Court? Is the Federal Government just a figurehead for the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court runs the country? The Supreme Court members are not elected by the citizens of the country, they are appointed by the Prime Minister. So who is above whom? Is the Supreme Court above the Federal Government or the other way around? Something seems rotten in the country of Canada!
I, as a citizen of the Country of Canada residing in the Province of Alberta, would like to have a referendum on same-sex marriage.
Quotes from The Edmonton Journal, December 12, 2004
2 comments:
As I understand it, the legislative (parliament) and judicial wings of government are supposed to be separate to some extent. The Court is appointed by the Prime Minister, so in that sense there is some electoral input - elect a party who you think will appoint judges who represent your views. Of course, in Canada that's a little strange because of the way the seats are distributed - the current federal government is not the choice of most Albertans!
Having said all that, as I understand it all the Supreme Court decision practically does in this instance is send the issue back to parliament for the actual law-making. (The legislative wing makes the law, the judicial interprets it, so the Supreme Court's finding is actually not judicial activism (arguably) but an interpretation of exisitng law.)
I believe a bill will be forthcoming, and will be voted on in the parliament, and the issue will be very interesting, given that Paul Martin has a minority government, and his allies can't be guaranteed to vote with him on this issue.
The Supreme Court vote is the start of the issue, not the end.
And having said all that, is your issue with same-sex marriage itself, or with the process? If the former, what's the issue? Most of those who oppose it do so because they believe 'God said so'. I know that's not the case for you, so what are the grounds? (This is meant as a friendly interested inquiry, not any sort of attack or challenge, so please take it in that spirit!) If it's with the process, do you think there are ways to address that?
Bravus,
Why is it that a newcomer to our country knows more about our system than most people who have lived here all their lives? ;-)
I believe you are correct in that the judicial system is supposed to be separate from the legislature. My issue with the process is that the Federal Government had to send the issue to the Supreme Court to get a ruling so they can act on it. Did they send it there because they were hoping they would say no and then they wouldn't have to deal with it? If they really wanted to deal with it they really could have just done it without sending it to the Supreme Court and wasting taxpayers money…again! But the point is why did they have to send it there? The argument from the government is that "the Supreme Court said so therefore we have to do it" and I don't think that is right. Which brings me back to who is above whom?
As for the same-sex issue, I'm not sure I like the idea of same-sex marriage, as it will change the definition of marriage. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we have in our constitution where it says marriage is between a man and a woman. Not man and a man, not woman and a woman. A vocal minority, not the majority, is changing it. I could be wrong on the vocal minority suggestion but the only way to find out is to have a referendum on the issue. Maybe this will sound a bit redneck but what will be the next change of the definition of marriage? Could it be incestial marriage between members of the same family or cousins of the same family? What about polygamy? That may sound a bit "out there" but 10 years ago who would have thought we'd be debating same-sex marriage? If we change the definition to include those groups too, marriage will become nothing special. Pretty soon we will be going down to the local corner store, picking up a form and sending it in to the government for registration. That is why I would like to have a say, right or wrong, on the issue. Oops, sorry, we aren't allowed to debate the issue, as we will then be considered a racist. I wonder what race I would be offending....
For the record I don't have a serious problem with people who are gay or lesbian, I just don't think I am ready for it to be considered mainstream.
Post a Comment