Canada Legalizes Gay Marriage

Well if bush was to get of his lazy keister
and deliver what he promised (MARRIAGE AMENDMENT)
then it will not...if only he would show more
resolve in this issue. Yeah thats it bush

support the cause show resolve lets repeat it
again and again until bush gets the message
show resolve bush in the marriage amendment
support the cause of Christian marriage.

Hey was that a fox link...good for you dragoon
you have decided to join the major media link
society ..good for you.

I actually agree with you Dragoon it should not
happen here..marriage is one thing that belongs
to Christianity and brought order to our society.
I think we can work outside the box and be creative to help gays out but "marriage" the word
is owned by Christianity. imho

Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, said he was "very sad that the state has invaded the church, breached separation of church and state andredefined a religious word."


thanks for the link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163054,00.html

bump

 

Actually the President has nothing to do with the approval of Constitutional Amendments.

 

Actually the President is the bully pulpit and
the salesman to close the sale...thats his job.

 

Maybe San Francisco and Boston will move to Canada now.

 

We don't need a Federal Marriage Amendment, we need these amendments at the state level, and we need the Federal government to act to protect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996.

Today, July 22, is the yearlong anniversary of the 2004 vote by the US House to pass the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313, 108th Congress), removing jurisdiction from the US Supreme Court and the lower federal courts over cases concerning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996.

The MPA (HR 3313) passed by a vote of 233 to 194 in the US House on July 22, 2004, and then the Republican-majority US Senate "sat" on the bill for the rest of the 108th Congress (through early January 2005), until the bill died. Congress had the power to strip jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts from cases concerning DOMA, protecting the institution of marriage from homosexuals, and Congress still has the power to remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and lower federal courts today. Obviously, it has not been a priority for the Republican-majority Congress or the Republican President to do so - a year has gone by, and the MPA has not passed. (The President and Congress are more concerned with extending the unconstitutional Patriot Act and passing the sovereignty-stealing CAFTA bill!

The United States Congress, by a majority vote, has the power now under article III. Section 2. of the United States Constitution to remove appellate jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court, and, under Article III, has the power to even eliminate any or all of the lower federal courts (let alone define their jurisdictions), and so could end U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal court interference now in the areas of abortion, homosexual marriage, acknowledgment of God (prayer issues, Ten Commandments), etc.

 

Congress passes and will continue to pass laws that activist judges can and do ignore them.

An ammendment would make it part of the Constitution and judges could not ignore that.

That being said, an ammendment will not be passed.(IMHO) It couldn't get out of Congress requiring the super majority that it does.

If it did by some miracle make it out of Congress , it would take years for the required number of states to ratify it, if they ever did.

But I do agree it should at least be introduced for Bush to fulfill his campaign rhetoric.

 

These activist judges can't enforce their rulings, that is the job of the executive branches of government at both the federal and state levels. If Congress removes the courts jurisdiction in regards to the DOMA, then any judge that tries to rule against it is acting unconstitutionally.

Judges do ignore the Constitution, look at the recent SCOTUS descision to let local governments steal private property from our citizens. We need the checks and balances of the other two branches to start demanding these judges abide by the Constitution or risk being impeached!

I agree with you, even if it were introduced, I doubt a FMA would pass, we need to focus on the stats passing amendments and Congress moving forward to protect DOMA, and start impeaching activist judges!

 

I'm all for gay marriage. If you're married, what's there not to be happy about?

 

Good point!

 

In actuality, it was because of the mainstream that this word became such. This word used to mean simply "happy," but it's meaning changed when homosexuals used it as code back in the 50's when the world thought homosexuality was a clinical illness. The word "gay" gave them a
smaller word that was an adjective, not a
noun. This allowed those who used it to
identify as homosexual in addition to other
identities. Some people use it to include
bisexuals and lesbians, but today, it usually
refers only to homosexual men.

I know, I know, too much information.

 

Well, it still is a mental illness. The word is disinformation or propaganda because they are the most unhappy people in the world.

I wonder if the Mormons will try to influence Canada (with money) to legalize polygamy, which I don't think that they have totally abandoned?

 

"Hey, isn't Congress involved in making laws? Don't they represent us? Aren't we in control of Congress? Isn't this a republican democracy in which we live? It is us - the citizens of the nation - that are to blame?

Let's lean on the Congress to do what we want them to."

Hey while your leaning on them tell them 80% of Americans want the the borders secure and no we aren't in control of congress. Look at it this way Dragoon if you worked for Ken at a set rate of pay to protect his interests and Joseph comes along and keeps filling up your bank account with gobs of cash and giving you campaign money and political favors hand over foot who you gonna be loyal too?

 

There seems to be a news blackout about Canadian legalization of same-sex marriage. It has not been a topic of discussion on the weekend talk shows to the best of my knowledge. You would think that the modernists would be saying what a great triumph of civil rights Canada has enacted, wouldn't you? Of course, it is a social tragedy. That new law should make Canada a "mecca" for American and Latin American homosexuals. Wonder what the 300,000 Arabs in Toronto think about this new law?

 

It would help us if they would move there. We could get along without them very well. The other nations that have full-blown same-sex marriages are the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain.