CBC Watch has a story about the vagueness of the term “sexual orientation” in legal application.
Citizen’s Research Institute (CRI) press release :
CRI notes that on December 18, 2003, Judge Romilly of the British Columbia Youth Court in his reasons for sentence in the R. v. J.S. (para 50 -pg 36) case, opened the door when he stated the following concerning the term “sexual orientation” under section 718 of the Criminal Code:
“I am of the opinion that this crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a factor similar to sexual orientation and is covered by this section of the Criminal Code. It strikes me that this section contemplates hatred against ‘peeping toms’ and/or ‘voyeurs’ as being within its purview, since in my opinion such activity represents a sexual lifestyle which some may consider deviant, but is a sexual lifestyle all the same.”
I’ve been arguing for a long time that this slippery slope is going to become very steep when research into molecular genetics discovers that there exists a genetic basis for some of these behaviors. Coupled with fuzzy thinking such as this on the part of liberal judges, things could get very interesting in years to come.
So you’re for the traditional definition of marriage as long as there are civil unions. Equal but distinct, it would appear?
I’m all for creating two classes of people in Saskatchewan too. The government should draft a bill saying that all the people in the city will be called urbane. They will have all the same rights and privileges of those in the country. The country people will be called ‘hicks’ though. It’s equal but distinct.
Hey Todd, there is no sexual orientation means test required to get a marriage permit.
We’re not talking about “homosexual rights”. We’re talking about redefining the fundamental meaning and intent of an institution that predates the historical record.
But even if politicians do redefine it in the legal sense to permit homosexuals to marry, I still can’t marry my sister.
Is that fair?
And, fyi – the correct term is “extremist”. “Hick” is no longer pc. Nor is “redneck”, though it’s considered acceptable between members of the Redneck-Canadian community to use the term towards each other.
Hey, if you boink your sister, fine by me.
I have been with my partner for almost 9 years now. We have a home, we have a joint bank account and we pay taxes. Neither of us have ever been in trouble with the legal system and we are good neighbours with those around us.
We both believe that we were born gay and feel strongly about this. But regardless of this, we truly love each other. To me, that equals what heterosexuals have and, compared to many marriages, exceeds it.
If the government wants to get out of the business and do civil unions for everyone and let churches handle marriages, that’s fine with me. I just don’t my relationship relegated to second-class status compared to that with other people.
One way or another, gays and lesbians will eventually be recognized as equal. We are somewhere midway along the same rights battle that blacks in the U.S. went through back in the 60’s.
Strictly speaking, “orientation” refers to the relative location of a person or object in three-dimensional space. “Sexual orientation” therefore refers to, e.g., achieving intimate congress while hanging from the rafters like a bat. Opposing hate crimes or discrimination motivated by sexual orientation is obviously a matter of urgent and pressing necessity deserving the attention of Parliament and the legislatures.
This is exactly the process of statutory construction used by Trudeau’s Supreme Court to eviscerate the Criminal Code prohibition on soliciting, which had to be “pressing and persistent.” Strange that they don’t apply the same standard to their invented protections for “sexual orientation.”