|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Canuckistan,
Since I predicted that:
a) Obama would win by a significant measure; and
b) there would be no serious issues involving voting fraud
I feel that I am on a roll.
I am almost certain that the either the Supreme Court California or, if not they, the Supreme Court of the United States, will knock down Proposition 8.
On the Federal level, there are two routes to destroy Proposition 8.
One is the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The second is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It is more likely the court will avail itself of the EPC, but thanks to Loving v VA, the Court may also find marriage to be a fundamental right, triggering a Due Process analysis.
At any rate, I expect such state laws to be challenged at the Federal level.
HOWEVER, it seems as if gay rights activists want to win this one on the ground and at the ballot box. They understand that demographics are with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
canuckistan Mod Team


Joined: 17 Jun 2003 Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hope you're right.
I hope the senate reaches 60.
Some church leaders were fundamentally dishonest by preaching to their flocks that with the passage of Prop 8, same-sex marriage would be explicitly taught to their children in school.
Southern white church leaders played much the same role against the advancement of civil rights for blacks. After their sermons you'd find some dead the next day.
In too many places that mentality still has not been changed:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081115/D94FI48G0.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
I hope you're right.
I hope the senate reaches 60. |
No, you don't. You really don't want either major party to be able to proceed unchecked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 Location: Eungam Loop
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
The US still has a lot of growing up to do.
|
Camon dude. It has been 4 years or so since the government of Canada extended same sex benefits. |
Nope. Most of Canada granted the same legal benefits (as marriage typically confers) to same-sex couples living together, already since *1999*. Formalizing the legality of the marriage ceremony was merely an extension of what most Canadians already didn't give a crap about for years--who's in love with whom.
We grew out of the "Who's sleeping with whom" thing in the 70's with Trudeau--it's nobody's business but their own. Same as someone's religion--very rude to even ask--it's private.
And thankfully you won't see these Canadian federal laws overturned by the mental case bible thumpers since they don't have a stranglehold on politics in Canada (see previous comment about religion being a private issue)
We have a very clear separation of church and state. |
Canada does not have very clear seperation of church and state. The Canadian government funds religious based schools. This does not happen in the US. Canada even funds Muslim schools, and we all know how muslims feel about homos.
Christian nutters getting involved and having clout in the political process has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
canuckistan Mod Team


Joined: 17 Jun 2003 Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Beej wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
The US still has a lot of growing up to do.
|
Camon dude. It has been 4 years or so since the government of Canada extended same sex benefits. |
Nope. Most of Canada granted the same legal benefits (as marriage typically confers) to same-sex couples living together, already since *1999*. Formalizing the legality of the marriage ceremony was merely an extension of what most Canadians already didn't give a crap about for years--who's in love with whom.
We grew out of the "Who's sleeping with whom" thing in the 70's with Trudeau--it's nobody's business but their own. Same as someone's religion--very rude to even ask--it's private.
And thankfully you won't see these Canadian federal laws overturned by the mental case bible thumpers since they don't have a stranglehold on politics in Canada (see previous comment about religion being a private issue)
We have a very clear separation of church and state. |
Canada does not have very clear seperation of church and state. The Canadian government funds religious based schools. This does not happen in the US. Canada even funds Muslim schools, and we all know how muslims feel about homos.
Christian nutters getting involved and having clout in the political process has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state. |
Religion does not dictate public policy in Canada. Much to the chagrin of the nutters.
Unlike the US, our prime minister does not publicly profess "God told him to do "X". This type of thing is standard fare of political platforms in the US. Including presidential ones.
As far as schools go, it's clear you do not understand the history of confessional school boards and the right to dissent under the BNA Act of 1867, and the developments of the last 125 years after it, you would not be posting the above. But rather than launch into an exhaustive review/history of the BNA Act and how confessional school boards have applied to each province and the amendments made to their names, nature, and "confessional" status since their confessional status have long become irrelevent. For example--the schools in Quebec were realigned along linguistic lines (English/French) in 1998, not "religious" ones (Portestant/Catholic).
As per gov't business, I'll provide you with this link of a minister complaining about said separation of which I speak:
http://www.halifaxlive.com/artman/publish/little_080905.shtml
| Quote: |
| This does not happen in the US. |
Really? Not so clear.
I'd say this is pretty darn close to having that 1867 idea of the "right to dissent". There are very clear rules to using public money in schools in Canada, as there are in the US:
http://www.morningsun.net/opinions/x1498356255/Religious-charter-schools-follow-the-money-lose-the-faith
You can still "dissent" in Canada and finance your own school and teach whatever religious curriculum you wish, ie: flying spaghetti monsters, you just can't do it with public money. Using public money = following a secular curriculum.
Canada and the US do NOT fund muslim schools that have religious teaching with public money. The only schools that that have those rights are those granted to French Catholics/English Protestants by the BNA Act of 1867 (see note above to what's happened with those ie: Quebec) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I am almost certain that the either the Supreme Court California or, if not they, the Supreme Court of the United States, will knock down Proposition 8.
On the Federal level, there are two routes to destroy Proposition 8.
One is the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The second is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It is more likely the court will avail itself of the EPC, but thanks to Loving v VA, the Court may also find marriage to be a fundamental right, triggering a Due Process analysis.
At any rate, I expect such state laws to be challenged at the Federal level. |
Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, Federal Court of Appeals rules
| Quote: |
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.
The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|