| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Kanada Justice Minister Packs Court |
| 2004-08-25 |
| via AP Canada Picks Same-Sex Advocates As Judges Two judges known for supporting same-sex unions were nominated Tuesday to fill vacancies on Canada's Supreme Court, and they will be assessed in the country's first-ever public screening of such appointments. Justice Rosalie Abella, a 58-year-old human rights expert, and Justice Louise Charron, a French-speaking Ontarian raised in Ottawa, will be vetted in a televised parliamentary hearing Wednesday. Justice Minister Irwin Cotler named the two Ontario Court of Appeal judges as Prime Minister Paul Martin's choices for two vacancies on Canada's highest court. "There was literally an embarrassment of riches when it came to selecting nominees to the Supreme Court of Canada," Cotler said. Appointing Abella and Charron would bring the number of women on the nine-member high court to four, the most ever. But Cotler denied that gender or support of same-sex rights played a role. "The one criteria that I had in mind was The governing Liberals have asked the Supreme Court to rule this fall on whether their proposed legislation on same-sex marriage is constitutional. Right-wing critics have long pushed for a chance, as in the United States, to grill top-court prospects on their personal views before they begin crafting influential judgments. But a panel of legislators and legal experts will not get to quiz the candidates in person and they cannot overturn Martin's choices. Cotler will field questions Wednesday about Martin's choices from an advisory panel that will issue a nonbinding report Friday. The prime minister will officially appoint the new judges anytime after the report is received. And Kanada makes another |
| Posted by:.com |
| #8 if the family is redefined as an amorphous mass, as it is in several European countries And this is not the case in the US??? What you speak of is not endemic to any one particular country or people. I'm certain divorce rates and such are the same on both sides of the border, and anywhere else in the developed world. Your statement "they knocked the stuffing out of marriage long ago" is an overblown generalization (assuming you're talking about Canadians in general). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-08-25 4:35:43 PM |
| #7 Maybe DLS is on the right track. Could divorce lawyers stave off the attacks of socialists on the traditional family. That would be a truly bizarre judicial endgame. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-08-25 3:51:26 PM |
| #6 Rafael, please explode my impression with facts. My impression is that because religion has been by the state for a large percentage of Canadians, marriage has been reduced to the status of an easily disposable optional contract. My supposition is that if the family is redefined as an amorphous mass, as it is in several European countries, then true socialism has embedded itself like the yellow stuff that some people have under their big toenails. In my mind gays that want relationships are good people. Socialists that want to redefine marriage are the danger to society. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-08-25 3:48:53 PM |
| #5 Why in the name of common sense would anybody WANT this right in the first place? Divorce wars keep half the lawyers in the world in new Porsches, and these people want the same priviledge? Nut cases. |
| Posted by: DLS 2004-08-25 12:30:28 PM |
| #4 How dare you, SH? Don't you know that the tip of the tail of the dog is uber-special - and must wag the whole fucking dog? A few pct points of people have the right to change age-old fundamental social tenets for the vast majority because, uh, um, er, well because they're such a tiny minority! And so very special. And precious! And talented! Have you ever heard Ru Paul sing? And did I mention how special they are? So give up straights. Until you surrender, we'll pout and stamp our feet and perform street theater and threaten the politicians with the myth of our voting block and argue feverishly and whine and march through the streets you built, and police, and sweep, and maintain. And everything. Did you know we're special? We are! "Hey Supe. What's with that guy over there. He's turnin' blue." "Oh him? He's a Gay Imaginary Rights Activist." "Ah. How special." |
| Posted by: .com 2004-08-25 4:18:07 AM |
| #3 I sure hope you mean marriage in the legal sense. I think you may be looking too far north for examples of watered down marriages. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-08-25 4:13:35 AM |
| #2 For Canada, I don't think that same-sex marriage will do much harm. I think they knocked the stuffing out of marriage long ago. I think that Gay-Marriage is just a Trojan Horse for the destroy marriage crowd in the US. As we saw in Canadian example, as soon as there are gay marriages, gay divorces follow almost immediately. Can anyone think of a good reason why two people who dislike each other should stay married? The answer is that continued marriage often provides a relatively semi-stable enviroment for any children involved (in many cases the parents work out their problems because there are barriers to divorce = time, money, social stigma.) In the Canadian example of the two lesbians who filed for divorce almost immediately after being "married" there really isn't any good argument for them to stay together. As divorce law begins to be weakened to account for these cases, equal protection will erode legal barriers to divorce of parents where kids are involved. Note: I am not arguing that gays that want to be married are out to destroy marriage. My argument is that there is a significant number of left-wing kooks who call themselves liberals who fully intend to use gay marriage as a means to damage marriage and families. In many case they are the ones funding the juris prudence in the US. When I say that marriage in Canada is too fully watered down to be damaged much further, I argument is purely anecdotal with a sampling of one. I worked with a guy who had been reassigned from a Canadian subsidiary so he, his wife and their three kids moved to NC. My wife and I thought it was weird when they told us that they got married just before coming south of the border so that the immigration paperwork would be less complicated. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-08-25 3:58:28 AM |
| #1 asked the Supreme Court to rule this fall on whether their proposed legislation on same-sex marriage is constitutional Any bets on what their ruling will be? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-08-25 2:46:35 AM |