And so the silliness goes

Sure enough, the counter arguments against 'gay marriage' pretty much landed where I thought they would:

From an article on CBC's website:

"The state's interest is the sexual relationship," he said, "because it produces the children."

Err - I hate to point out the obvious here, but does the genius that made this argument have any idea how many children are being raised by single parents? How many children are being raised by gay parents? There's a lot out there - not a majority, but a lot. Reality check - people will still reproduce. Recognizing gay marriage won't stop that - any more than outlawing homosexuality stopped homosexuality from occurring.

Robert Leurer argued on behalf of Alberta that marriage is a social institution. "Law didn't create marriage, but instead attached legal consequences to marriage," he told the court.

He's correct, law didn't create marriage - humanity created marriage - but they also created law. As I recall, someone once said 'the law is an ass'. Think about it.

In the Sun, I find this gem:

Robert Leurer, arguing on behalf of Alberta, said the federal government cannot simply change the constitutional definition of marriage to allow same-sex unions.

Perhaps I'm blind, but I didn't see anything in either the 1867 Constitution act, nor in the 1982 that formally defined the term marriage. The word is used (in only a few places), but it is not defined per se. Strikes me that this is a straw man argument then.


Church groups said they'd be marginalized and could face suits if they were to preach or teach against such marriages.

Huh? Where does this idiotic logic spring from? Even Bill C-250 (the hate crimes amendment) is quite explicit in its provisions regarding scriptural study and discussion. Recognition of the legal entity of a same-sex marriage has exactly _nothing_ to do with the spiritual/religious recognition of it. Therefore, I fail to see how this marginalizes any church group. Could they face lawsuits? Civil suits perhaps, but I really doubt it would be terribly frequent - if at all.

Once again, I turn to the point that not only do we have multiple faiths in this country, there are also those who do not subscribe to any one faith. Therefore to impose a religiously bound definition upon those people is contrary to the fundamental freedomes described in section 2 of the Charter of Rights.

Second, the Universe tends to be a 'what goes around, comes around' place. I will point out that in regions where a "Church" (or religion) has significant political sway, they tend to be the marginalizers of people such as homosexuals. Look in certain countries where Islam is close to the corridors of power, where homosexuality - especially between males - gets a death sentence! {I'm not saying that Islam is a bad thing here - merely that those who comingle it with political power tend to have done so in a rather brutal fashion} To hear church groups bleating about being "marginalized" is almost laughable to me - look at what has been done in the name of "the Church" in the past, and then tell me how the churches are any different than any other power and wealth seeking organization.