 |
"L. Michael Roberts" (L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com) writes:
> Bo wrote:
>> TORONTO (AFP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin is staring down a backlash over
>> his plans to legalise marriage, as Roman Catholics, Sikhs and his
>> domestic political foes mobilise to thwart him.
>> As Martin toured tsunami disaster areas and sought trade deals on a
>> five-nation tour of Asia, a promised drive against his bid to make Canada
>> the third country to sanction same- marriage kicked into gear.
>> The Roman Catholic archbishop of Toronto, who represents more than a million
>> believers here, warned Martin, himself a Catholic, that his plan would
>> trigger serious, and unpredictable shocks to society.
> Now the Canadian Catholic church is apparently engaging in politics. I
> wonder how the archbishop would feel about being reported to revenue
> Canada and having his church's tax exempt status revoked?
Just start a campaign, and I'll sign up your petition. I'd be thrilled to
see this IMHO paedophile-supporting organization deprived of the means of war
against us.
>> "The conjugal partnership of a man and woman is the beginning and basis of
>> human society," Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic wrote in an open letter to Martin
>> Wednesday. {Funny, I thought decency, compassion and tolerance were the
>> basis of a civilized society}
I once read a feature about him in a daily. He is gross. The reporter
mentioned he (Ambroz-sick) called a woman a bitch (and never apologized).
Oh yes, Ambroz-sick had the reporter wait for (if I remember well) an hour
in the waiting room although they had a firm date. The Archie (archbishop)
then had the reporter into his office, where he told him he would still see
him because he (the Archie) had nothing else to do.
>> "Tampering with marriage and family poses significant social risks."
> We have had same- marriage for about 18 months in Canada... perhaps
> the archbishop could point out some concrete examples of the
> "significant social risks" which have occurred so far.
>> The Cardinal, who heads the diocese of Toronto which boasts 1.4 million
>> adherents, argued that the voice of the people expressed through parliament,
>> and not judges should decide such a fundamental issue.
>> The Supreme Court last year gave the government the constitutional go-ahead
>> to change the definition of marriage, and seven of the country's provinces
>> and territories have authorized such unions.
>> Canada would follow the Netherlands and Belgium in authorizing same-
>> marriage. Spain is moving in a similar direction.
>> But the Cardinal argued Wednesday that "judges are not elected, and are
>> ultimately not accountable for their decisions," using a secular argument to
>> advance his faith-based position.
> And the archbishop was elected and is ultimately not accountable for
> his decisions....
Sorry, Michael, the Archie was only appointed by the White Robe in Rome.
Well, you might say he was elected by a Pole, and neither by a Croat
(Ambroz-sick is a Croat Canadian) nor by a Canadian. In the Roman Church,
archbishops and cardinals are chosen by the White Robe. Bishops may be
consecrated by any other(s) bishops, but their consecration must have
first been approved by the White-Robed Pole.
>> "Fundamental social change should only occur with the consent of the people
>> through their democratic institutions," he wrote.
> In which case, women would still be waiting for the right to vote in
> some parts of the world.
Yes, the Roman Church opposed granting the franchise to women for years in
Quebec. While Canadian women voted federally from 1919 (circa), the
then priest-ridden QC government allowed them to vote only in
1949.
>> The government had taken the unusual step of asking for a Supreme Court
>> ruling on draft legislation last year.
>> The bill is expected to be introduced into parliament early this year, where
>> it is expected to pass, despite Martin's perilous position atop a minority
>> government.
>> Martin has said there will not be a free vote, meaning that cabinet
>> ministers are obliged to support his bill. Some members of the left-leaning
>> New Democratic Party (NDP) and the bulk of the separatist Bloc Quebecois are
>> also expected to back same- marriage.
Martin said although he was not eager to call an election, he was ready to
do so on Human Rights. Right on.
>> Government plans would see the definition of marriage changed to the "lawful
>> union of two persons," rather than the "lawful union of one man and one
>> woman."
>> Ambrozic called on Martin to invoke a constitutional override mechanism
>> which allows laws to operate for five years, even if judges have ruled them
>> in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the bill of rights.
Martin said he would never go for the "notwithstanding" thing.
> And yet it is that very same Charter that allows the archbishop to
> stand in front of a his congregation wearing a dress, and as a celibate
> man, give birth control advice to his followers! I wonder how he would
> feel about having that right taken away at the drop of a notwithstanding
> motion?
> +==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
I wonder if a case could be made under the newly amended anti-hate
legislation to have RC clergy and separate/private-school teachers.
Manuel
|
|
