Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glava
Your explanations seem a bit condescending.
|
My apologies. I wanted to make certain the importance and strength of the person speaking where as understandable as possible to everyone, from Canada to New Zealand to China.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
I don't understand what he means by the following excerpt from the speech. Why would civil unions not be equal as the rest of Canadians? Why can't civil unions grant the same rights as marriage?
The reason I'm asking is because here in the states I don't believe the majority will accept changing the traditional definition of marriage as being "a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife". However civil unions may have a chance of being accepted here.
|
Seperate but equal failed in the USA.
Seperate but equal failed in South Africa.
Seperate but equal has failed in Canada.
There are constitutional issues: provinces have alot of power over marriage and laws regarding marriage, and such a reworking may not be constitutionally valid.
Secondly, seperate but equal is not equal. One could abolish the definition and recognition of marriage within the government, and replace it with civil unions -- that would be equal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul Martin
Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.”
Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal. What’s more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime – and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality.
|
Martin covered most of these points, above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NCB
There are plenty of large companies now that have benefits for all partners, including homosexual couples. My wife works for one as well as my brother.
Let's just leave it to the market. Govt doesn't need to be involved in the healthcare game. You're a Canadian, surely you understand that with your current healthcare debacle
|
Canada spends as much government money, as a percent of GDP, on our health care system as Americans do. American spends more private money than public money on health care. Canada spends 1/3 as much money privately as publicly on health care.
The US spends more money on health care paperwork than the entire Canadian government budget. Over 3% of your GDP. Canada spends less than 1% of it's GDP on health care paperwork.
Our lifespan is longer (last I checked), our cancer survival rates are better, and our heart attack survival rates are worse.
When I break an arm, I walk into a clinic or hospital, hand them my health care card, and I get fixed.
Canadian public health care isn't perfect. But it does work.