Politics: Ethics: Gmarriage displaces marriage in Canada--for any foreseeable future
.
Yesterday, refWrite referenced a CBC gender/sex-factored 1woman1man. Gmarriage as a public-legal displacement-definition obscures the specificity of the gender/sex-factor in the intimate union of 1woman1man across their difference. This is not true of either lesbian intimate union nor of 2men intimate union.
So, the shift of public-legal definition, first by Canada's courts all the way to its Supreme Court, and now by the House of Commons, renders marriage de-conceptualized into the impoverished notion of gmarriage > generic marriage > so-called "same-sex marriage" which latter term erases the very specificity in difference between lesbian intimate union and 2males intimate union. The final transition has been from " 'same-sex' marriage " to the clever "equal marriage." All the shifts in the terminology have led to a most moronic outcome.
Instead of so-called "same-sex marriage" or "equal marriage," refWrite has been expressing for years now, the tripartite analysis of three main kinds of intimate union, each of such unions characterized by mutual and reciprocal vows / promises / statements / assertions of exclusivity between two adult people [before God] to form a distinct specific instance of a societal sphere of intimate union, probably sexually expresive between the two within that unity but not necessarily-sexually expressive and not necessarily intending to reproduce a further generation of family line/s according to the idolatrous absolutization of consanguinity and congenicity which as constitutes the natural-family model
[family, when it occurs, most often intersects marriage, as family and intimate union in its sphere sovereignty are not identical...this last kind of marriage is that traditionally favoured by Western governments and had been for centuries--a certain type of marriage/family intersection that has been given a priority for state-support, a type among all kinds and types of marriages and families as related to the general reproductivity of the overall number of members of a society, and their gender/sex factor-distribution ...the problem is that in Canada we are confused about the huge shift in demographics going on according to several parameters of which lesbian and 2men intimate unions, some of each with children and thus a demographic intersection of marriages and families of tremendous weit to each particular Western society (note how China has solved this very problem with its Only One Child policy over the years]Thus the three kinds of intimate union are 2women marriage > 2men marriage > 1woman1man marriage. The consanguinous, congenetic type of intersection or hybridization of marriage with family (2 parents, child/ren a pluraiity of which relate as siblings).
I realize I am rambling, but can't pause to thoroly sort out the energing loose ends of the theory I'm working on, certainly not in all its interconnections, here. So I move on to the news of the day for which the theorizing serves as some sort of framework for interpretation: "MPs defeat bid to reopen same-sex marriage debate -- Motion tabled by Tories falls 175-123" (Dec7,2k6) CBC News:
A motion to reopen the same-sex marriage debate was easily defeated in Parliament on Thursday, as expected.Morals, mores, manners
MPs voted 175-123 against the controversial motion tabled by the ruling Conservatives.
The motion had asked the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.
The Liberal and Conservative parties allowed their members to vote freely, and there were some surprises.
Twelve Tories — including cabinet ministers Peter MacKay, David Emerson, John Baird, Jim Prentice, Lawrence Cannon and Josée Verne — broke from party lines and voted against the motion.
This blog-entry will be moved to rW2
"It was simply a matter that I felt had received fair discussion and airing in the House of Commons and other venues, and I feel there are other pressing matters before the Canadian people and certainly before this chamber right now," MacKay said after the vote.--Owlb
Most Liberals present gave the motion the thumbs down. Among them were Joe Comuzzi, who gave up his cabinet post in 2005 so he could vote against a same-sex marriage bill proposed by the Liberal government.
Thirteen Liberals supported the motion.
All Bloc Québécois and NDP members present voted against Thursday's motion, as their party leaders had directed.
Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper said a free vote — promised during January's general election campaign — would settle the matter, the vote should put an end to parliamentary wrangling about same-sex marriage.
"We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue; we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we'll accept the democratic result of the people's representatives," Harper said Thursday following the vote. "I don't see reopening this question in the future."
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Harper must now accept defeat.
"It was the wrong move to question the rights of the people and to try to override the Charter [of . He must not be very proud of that."
Victory bittersweet, activist says
Laurie Arron, national co-ordinator for Canadians for Equal Marriage, said the victory is bittersweet.
He said he's pleased the vote was defeated, and by such a large margin, but it's unfortunate the issue came up at all. He said he and others already fought hard to have same-sex marriages legalized in Canada in 2005.
"I'm relieved that we're not going to have to fight this battle again," he told CBC News Online. "This issue's been debated to death. I'm glad today it's finally laid to rest."
Same-sex marriage became legal in Canada last year when the Liberal government passed Bill C-38 in response to a series of court rulings that said gays had the right to marry.
That bill passed 158-133.
Thirty-two Liberals voted against it, while 95 supported it. Only three Conservatives gave the bill the thumbs up.
Thursday's motion hollow, Liberals say
Liberals called this most recent motion hollow because, even if it had passed, it would not have struck down the right of gays to marry.
Most constitutional lawyers have said the only way the Tories could change the law would be to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something Harper has said he would not do.
Charles McVety, head of the conservative Canada Family Action Coalition which is opposed to same-sex marriage, said his group will not give up the fight.
"The people of Canada are not going to let this go, because marriage is too important an institution to just let it evaporate because of the emotions of a few people in Parliament," he told a news conference.
Further Research:
House votes not to reopen same-sex marriage issue
A vote Harper doesn't want to win ANALYSIS: A same-sex defeat blunts a Liberal arrow from the campaign quiver [Brian Laghi]
No comments:
Post a Comment