Go read Colby today.
“… the Supreme Court has left itself–for better or worse–defenceless against polygamy. You don’t think “views diverge” on how many people belong in a marriage? All they do, all over the world, is diverge. There is a great deal more “divergence of opinion” on this subject than there had ever been, before about 1970, on what sexes could get married. The language used here is so doctrinaire in its deference to disagreement that Muslims and unreformed Mormons have, to all intents, already won their case. Feminist opponents of polygamy in fundamentalist religious communities will find, soon, that the “living tree” bears bitter fruit.”
What Cosh says is probably true but the SC will find away around it and polygamy will not be allowed in Canada. Why?? A feminist court will not allow women to be seen as chattels. Also women, gays and natives are the untouchables according to the Supremes and are offered special protection against everything. Lastly, to quote another website, The Supreme Court judges are nothing more than a bunch of Liberal pimps. They will find a way around polygamy.
Yes,but they won’t find a way around the change from one man and one woman to two persons.They neglected by chance or on purpose tolimit the age of people that can get married including adults to minors.
Ah, but if they allow polygny, they will have to allow polyandry too, and neither the Muslims nor the unreformed Mormons will like that.
For that matter, they’d have to allow group marriages as well.
With all due respect to Mr. Cosh, his otherwise valid point is moot given how little attention the present SCC pays to precedent. In particular, there is no real risk of “marriage” continuing to be expanded because the SCC ignores its own previous rulings and essentially makes it up as it goes along. The “progressive” justices simply cobble together a hodge podge of jurisprudence, “science”, geopolitical developments, biorythyms or whatever (none of which typically has anything to do with the issue they’re considering) to support whatever it is they wish to accomplish.
Thus, we read in their latest pronouncement “(t)he recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion [that marriage is limited to opposite sex persons] is true today”. In other words, forget millenia of tradition, centuries of democracy and decades of jurisprudence to the contrary, what’s important to this SCC is that “several Canadian jurisdictions and two European countries” have (judicially) imposed gay “marriage” on their citizenry.
Any authority to the contrary (even THEIR OWN) is simply dismissed or ignored. Thus, for example, you will search their latest judgment in vain to find their careful and thoughtful reflection on the comments of their predecessor justices that marriage is inherently heterosexual” (Egan decision, 1995). Given how few people actually study their rulings and the fact they are utterly above criticism, the SCC justices can rule as they please with no fear of consequence.
As a result, there seems to me little need to fear further expansion of the concept of marriage by the SCC, since that would require they actually follow their own precedent.
David Warren � Ottawa Citizen
In political football, we’ve watched the completion of a double-handoff: the Liberals handing to the Court to make a decision that could be politically suicidal, then the Court handing back, by ruling the Liberals had already made the decision by failing to appeal judgements in the lower courts. (Let us pause to admire the fine footwork!)
more at:
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/SunSpec/Dec04/index152.shtml
WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: Married men are healthier:…..
Andrew Sullivan has added another argument to allow gay marriage.
Let us get married and we’ll cut down on the hooch.
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_12_12_dish_archive.html#110299545650612278
Yawn