marriage

[Nurvingiel]

That's interesting Katya. I think it depends on how the individuals feel. Personally, I would want a career, and I my future husband does too. I think because we would both be busy, we would raise the kids equally.

My mom stayed home when my brother and I were young, and worked part-time when we were older. My parents raised us equally.

Originally Posted by inked

Let's see, you have an elected representative government, right?

The legislature makes the laws in an orderly fashion, right?

Then the Courts interpret the laws and judge them to be appropriate or not in relation to the Constititution (in which regard, is it written or not?) ?

Now, if I have the sequence right, please explain how the process is working properly when the tail is wagging the dog?

The tail is not wagging the dog, the Charter is the dog.

[inked]

Nurv,

Charter, schmarta (to borrow nifty, neat word from Lizra).

The laws have not been made or voted on. How can a Court rule on any non-existent laws? is my question. The tail (the Court assessment of legislation) is clearly wagging the dog (the decision to make laws by the legislature who haven't voted to on this subject). Help me out here. I am trying to understand.

[Nurvingiel]

Now I know how JD feels... *hugs JD*

Charter schmarter! *bangs head against desk* It's not my fault that you don't understand the Canadian legal system! Know that our Supreme court judges are not merely pulling judgements out of their wazoo for reasons I stated above. I wish I was more of an expert on the Charter to explain it better.

[inked]

Nurv,

How do you render a judgement on the non-existent?

If this is too tough a question, I'll give you the answer! You subvert the system by having the judges vote on the concept beffore it is legally in place and therefore arguable or defensible. Then, you have thwarted the constitutional process...even for Canada. GO, CAnucks! Go CANUCKS! GO!!!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv,

How do you render a judgement on the non-existent?

I don't know.... but I can tell you how laws are challenged according to the Charter (IIRC).

A law exists, say, on marriage.

People exist, and some may feel said law discriminates against them.

According to the spirit and law of the Charter, discrimination is wrong.

The people challenge the law, and the Supreme court makes a ruling based on the Charter.

Provinces change the offending law to reflect the ruling, and thus the Charter, more accurately.

[inked]

Yes. That is the process I envisioned. But that is not what the uproar in Canada is reporting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Court has apparently ruled an opinion on a non-existent law which has not been voted on by the legislature!

*suspicious glance to the side* Say, you DID read the posted article, didn't you?

[Nurvingiel]

I read the article.

*commits seppuku*

EDIT: I think I made one mistake earlier saying marriage laws were provincial. I think it's actually federal.

Incidentally, the article you posted seems very one-sided. I'm starting to get suspicious about your articles...

[inked]

Nurv,

My articles one-sided?

Just because I learned of it from the protests against the subversion of the Canadian process for legislation is not an idication of sidedness; it's only how I became aware that there was *ahem* ANOTHER point of view in Canada than yours *smiles benignly and looks about absently* .

[Nurvingiel]

Well, I just thought a quote from Anglican Archbishop (IIRC) Michael Ingham (of Vancouver) would have been appropriate along with Archbishop Raymond Roussin's quote (which was in the article).

I suppose since it was about the anti-gay-marriage movement it wouldn't contain a lot of the pro-gay-marriage activists... so you're off the hook this time. *suspicious eye squinting*

[Elfhelm]

Marriage makes you happy, or at least that's how this article interprets it:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6718282/

I wonder if it isn't that men who are happy are more attractive in some way, or if men who are happy stay married. For isn't it logical to ask, why would someone happy get a divorce?

(It seems odd to me that gay marriage is being discussed on two different threads. Shouldn't this one be for people considering the pros and cons of marriage?)

[Nurvingiel]

Good idea Elfhelm, I was getting confused there.

[inked]

Marriage is indeed a potential source for happiness. But to make marriage the source of one's happiness is to put the cart before the horse. Happiness is the RESULT of the committment to become a society of two with specific goals. The BOCP spells it out in the marriage service, NURV:
forsaking all others
mutual support
for better, for worse
in sickness, in health
for the bearing of children
... it is the accomplishments of these (and other) goals that yields happiness OVER TIME, not INSTANTANEOUSLY as is rashly presumed.

[Nurvingiel]

Why was that directed at me? I know how it goes.

[Elfhelm]

So, inked, you are saying that people who can't have children shouldn't get married?

[inked]

Nurv, that was just for funzies!!!

Elfhelm, I already answered that one at the beginning of this thread !!!


NOW, since Ihave assiduously avoided religious references until the one immediately above, I suppose (having taken holiday from the GLBT thread), I could undertake to discuss marriage from that perspective, if anyone so desires!

[Elfhelm]

In what way did you answer that question, inked? As I read your replies, it SEEMS you think marriage is only for having children. I don't specifically see that you also say that people who can't have babies should not get married.

Despite not being able to have children because of physical problems, my aunt married my uncle and they lived full and happy lives. They were extremely involved in the church. They would NEVER have "consummated" anything without being married! It was unthinkable in Boston in the 40s! So, in fact, their marriage was permission to have sex.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

So, inked, you are saying that people who can't have children shouldn't get married?

#56 in this thread, Elfhelm, but since the authority is so *ahem* eminent, I shall quote myself *blushes shyly (NOT)*

Now to address the lack of reproduction brought up by someone (sorry I can't recall whom). The accident of failure to reproduce in a given marriage does not negate that the purpose of marriage is ensure the procreation of babies. It is an intention of marriage not fulfilled due to a multitude of possible causes. It actually affects about 10% of couples choosing to attempt conception. That components absence does not invalidate the other purposes of marriage in social terms. We have high tech modes of attempting correction, but check out history for alternative modes (surrogate children, surrogate parenting, adoption, etc). In today's world, some couples elect not to have children but still have the marriage. So marriage is more than simple provision for children in the begetting or rearing.

[brownjenkins]

how 'bout those who choose to stay together, happy and content, have children, but never get married?

maybe the best solution of the whole lot

[Insidious Rex]

I believe thats called "living in sin".

[inked]

yes, brownjenkins,

THAT IS WHY we have palimony, paternity testing, child-support laws, and family courts cuz whether YOU do the paper or not, YOU DO THE CRIME - YOU DO THE TIME!

Sure solved that one didn't you !