All Divorce, All the Time… from The Wild Duck
Stanley Kurtz caught some attention in Canada this week with his article: Dissolving Marriage: If everything is marriage, then nothing is kate at small dead animals noted Kurtz’ commentary in Beyond Marriage Mr. Kurtz has written and commente... [Read More]

Tracked on February 4, 2006 9:15 PM

Are you saying that my goal here is unreachable?

Abolishing religious marriage would be unconstitutional. Abolishing federal government meddling in private affairs is just a repealed statute away.

For those uncomfortable with homosexual marriage, the repeal of the Marriage Act would be an enormous step forward - the end of state imposition of a definition they revile.

As for the legal perquisites associated with marriage, perhaps its time to revisit some of them.

By the way, I'm married and I don't think anything I propose here would destroy the millenia old and still strong institution of marriage.

These rubes will go ahead and cite King Solomon as supporting polygamy; because he had 700 wives.

Biblical precedent you know?

Yep, advancing the cause of the "Status of Women" as worthy only of the harem; or in the view of the former Immigration Ministers to adorn the strippers pole in your local version of gynaecology row.

Yep, you've come a long way baby!!

for the fucking last time:

decriminalization DOES NOT EQUAL legalization

Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
Who is ...... Snow McLachlin and the Seven ...?

If She says not to politicize, then politicize the appointment process. She is one Liberal appointee of thousands of Liberal patronage appointments. >>>

February 3, 2006
SCOC chief justice: Don't change appointment process

OTTAWA (CP) - The chief justice of the Supreme Court says Parliament should not try to change the current process for appointing judges to Canada's highest court.

Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin says the existing appointment process is working just fine and should not be politicized.

Currently, the Constitution gives the prime minister final say in naming justices to the high court.

McLachlin says that's effective in maintaining public confidence that the courts are not political.

In a speech to Ottawa business people, McLachlin said the public won't want its high court to be a "mirror" of Parliament.

There is currently one vacancy on the nine-member Supreme Court - the seat vacated by former justice John Major, who retired in December. >>
http://www.rapp.org/url/?1BBO3YJY

In the past week or so, there has been speculation about when and how a vote on same-sex marriage would go in the new parliament. I'm actually hoping that Harper will hold off on having a vote until such a time as someone challenges the laws against polygamy. I believe that could have a drastic effect on how the vote on SSM would go.

It's obvious that there is a Shining City on The Hill that we, the vast unwashed, out in the hinterland simply can't see. "McLachlin says that's effective in maintaining public confidence that the courts are not political." Well I guess we're just wrong! Again, political appointments are not political. If we just keep saying that it will be true.

Actually I was hoping Harper would table a vote on reopening debate on SSM when the liberals make the leadership race official.

That way we get to hear if those "progressive" leadership candidates will reveal their secret agenda to purge all those opposed to SSM from the liberal party.

Yeah, I would like to see a repeal of the Marriage Act too. Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Ultimately, any definition of marriage, once it is separated from procreation has to come down to one question - who is sleeping with whom? If that question does not figure into marriage, then marriage has no basis, and what you really have is a "legal social contract" that can be entered into by any individuals. Hence, it is no longer a "Marriage Act".

"... a modern domestic partnership system (allowing any combination of number or gender) ..."

... or age or species ...

Oh joy joy, can hardly wait till they let me marry my gold-fish "sweetlips".

The question begs to be asked..."When or where DO we stop?"

"..."When or where DO we stop?"

How about on your doorstep?

I wonder if anyone will ever notice that this is EXACTLY what the opponents of SSM said would happen. Too bad cries of 'racist' and 'bigot' have replaced political dialogue in this country. We might just have been able to save ourselves.

Two things really struck me about Kurtz's article:
1. If marriage is the 'primoridal sacrament' - the first and most obvious 'means' of experiencing God as loving Father as JPII said in Theo of Body - then this is the ultimate attack on faith in Canada. Remove marriage and you remove the loving Father - the intitial temptation in Eden. Sheesh.

2. It's like living in a Science Fiction film up here in Canada. We KNOW what this means, we are POWERLESS to alter it, it is so ludicrous and unbelieveable that we find it 'hard to believe', but we know it's true and watch it unfold in front of our very eyes. Sci Fi all the way. Or what people must have felt like in Nazi Germany just before the war. Too weird.

Doesn't the CPC want a free market?

The problem with marriage is that it only comes in one size. For more choice the free market provides the perfect answer in the form of various relationships available.

"Exclusivity and the use of choice to define one’s identity are at the core of modern consumer society Extending this to marriage is only logical."

Well if "God is dead" according to Nietzsche, then all things are possible. Man has become god, and moral nihilism is a legitimate object.

As Thrasymachus suggested "justice is the advantage of the stronger" (338c) and that "injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice'" (344c).

Bailey's proposition is to deconstruct the notion of marriage out of existence. In short, marriage as an institution is a non-starter according to the leading elites who would guide us.

The proposition that sexual activity has a moral character is out of step with Bailey's world view; save sex with those under 14, with animals, or with one's clients or student charges.

One could cite examples of Thrasymachus through the history of the last two millenia. Whether it was wise rule or not is open to debate.

What Bailey has not done is suggest why one should buy into her fundamental world view premises.

Taking "deconstructionism" to its logical conclusion; why have any restrictions on sexual activity. Lets take the "me or I" view to its final destination.

Of course the SCC said you can't snuff your sex partner in the "sex club ruling". Anything is possible as long as 'no one gets hurt' and the mating ritual isn't done in the public square.

The "if it feels good do it" mantra, finally reveals ifself in all its nakedness.

Which of course brings one to the notion of whether sexual activity has a moral character for the human species? We note that the transmission of social diseases did not figure into the SCC decision on sex clubs.

In short, the elites don't want to play "SEX POLICE"; so you can do what you want as long as you don't kill anybody, have sex in public, or violate professional ethics. Marriage as a societal construct has no inherent value; so by degrees we will throw it out.

Given the divorce rate is 50%, I think as a society we are well on our way to the land of "deconstructionism".

But as with most -isms, this too will be found to be unworkable and thrown out when taken to its logical conclusion.

The only intellient thing Pierre Trudeau ever said was "The Government has no place in the bedroom" ...I agree with him. Wasting more money and energy on things we can't control is stupid...get marriage out of the government.

D

As someone who used to work within the child welfare system, I can tell that Ms. Bailey will stay comfortably within the Ivory tower if polygamy is legalized, or decriminalized, or whatever.

Aside from the obvious moral issues, this would cause pure chaos within the legal system. Presently, in a child welfare case, each parent is entitled to a lawyer. If you have three children, three fathers and one mother that equals five lawyers. (1 representing the director of child welfaer).

Child welfare laws would have to be rewritten. Investigating an allegation against a polyamourous family would be a nightmare. I imagine Prof. Bailey will be staying far away from the front lines of law enforcement if her vision becomes reality.

Re the comment that government does not belong in the bedroom - I guess it depends on what you mean by government. The 'government' I am interested in is the kind which 'serves' society as opposed to controls it - that protects marriage because of it's invaluable service TO society - by the procreation and raising of children and hence healthy citizens. Society OUGHT to be 'protecting' an indispensible unit of its very structure... and in that, it has a place.

Sometimes I think we all need to go right back to the main question: What is government for in the first place? How can we ever agree on the actions of something when we cannot agree on it's purpose? There are too many people in government who think its all about social control, agenda promotion, personal power, economic wealth, etc

When in reality, it seems to me - serve and protect the common good - seems to need a bit of a resurrection

Naw, Canadian's aren't fools...they just vote Liberal...

"When or where DO we stop?"

Please. They will never stop until everything defined as traditional has been destroyed. All the while I am expected to extend the courtesy and respect to those living alternative lifestyles that is never returned.

Eventually, every Canadian will have the right to marry a goat and have sex with it. I'll be told that this is equivalent to my marriage, and if I don't agree I'm clearly a racist, speciest, homophobe, chauvinist, nazi.

The problem here is that people want a socialist economic system with a libertarian moral system. That isn't tenable in a multi-cultural system (I contend) because you'll have enclaves of people who will free-ride on the social benefits while flaunting social norms (you know, things like having kids out of wed-lock).
The reasons for the laws surrounding marriage are there to encourage it. Marriage provides structure for society. It's a basic unit of society. Take that structure away from the base, and society becomes less ordered.
So, if you want to abolish the institution of marriage (as far as the government is concerned), be prepared for less order in society.

And I intend to hire our as a rent-a-husband to a couple of dozen young chicks who are looking for widows pensions when I keel over from all the action, ;)

Just think - each one of them can look forward to a lifetime of support from the Govt of Canada.

Rumpy, "Eventually, every Canadian will have the right to marry a goat and have sex with it."

So are you opposed to SSM because you honestly think it will open to door to man-goat marriage? Let me reassure you, I don't think this is going to happen.

If two people love each other and want hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits, yada yada why stand in their way? These people are human beings like you and I who feel the same emotions we do. They aren't infiltrators covertly seeking to destroy marriage.

So what! Gay's want to marry ? Big deal let them. I don't have to live with them or like it but I don't tell other people how to live their lives and besides who does it hurt anyway? No one really except the moralistic religious groups. Get rid of marriage? Why the hell not! Living wills take care of who gets what! Also there is enough infidility going around these days to run a three ring circus. Only a fool can think that one person is all someone needs for the rest of their lives. You can and should love as many people as possible ( I am not talking sex here) friends are the single most important thing we need as we get older and our own kids and their children forget that we are family instead of the bank. Not to mention my tax's are much higher because I am married. There are a lot of advantaves to not being married and just living with your partner the most basic is that there is no threat hanging over your head that he/she will leave. Get out there and be your own person and make it on your own and then you are equal to your partner and don't necessarily "need" them to support you. You need them because you support each others idea's dreams , hopes etc, and share the same values and enthusisam for living. Try twenty six years of conventional marriage and see if your life is toitally fullfilling. Chances are there is a lot of old resentment in there because he wants to play poker and oggle the young girls and she wants to go shopping for things she does not necessarly need. One person for life! ? Give me a break!!

Jose: RE- SSM "Let me reassure you, I don't think this is going to happen."

Right, where did I hear this logic before?

Here kiddie kiddie kiddie. Men/Boy clubs next.

Actually, marriage in Canada is synonomous with legal sex and so, when someone discovers that there is nothing really illegal about sex, marriage will in fact be obsolete. Why bother?

The sad thing is that, with the advent of abortion, sterilization, contraception, divorce and sex as recreational activity and 'please-me-fun', all the other aspects of sexuality and marriage have long ago been re-defined anyway...

What a sad thing that our whole culture - not just Liberals - thinks sex and love are other than what they are...

A civil union of some sort I can accept and understand. However, I cannot support full fledged SS marriage and I refuse to make light of some other parent's tragedy. The parent's of Gay and Lesbian couples certainly/hopefully come to accept their children's choice. That makes sense to me. I get it. And it's the right thing to do when you love someone. Accept them for the good and the bad.

However, there is a fine line between acceptance and celebration. The latter has become the norm in regards to same sex lifestyles in Canada. I wonder if the heterosexual parents who attended those parades would be OK with their child growing up Gay or Lesbian? I wonder if those parents get married and have children without any thought or hope for grandchildren, and the families genetic lineage living on?

There is rampant hypocrisy on this subject in our society. No parent would choose to have anything other than a healty heterosexual child, and anyone who says otherwise is a damned liar.

Acceptance - yes. Celebration - a resolute no.