|
Post by LauraJean on Sept 11, 2003 8:56:30 GMT -5
CMAC, I'm waiting (not very) patiently to hear how things went. Unfortunately, I'm leaving town for the weekend and won't be able to check the thread until Monday. (On the bright side, it's because I'm off to a Packer home game! ;D) I'm still rooting for "the process" and am confident that God's will will prevail, if not now, then soon. LOL, does it ever!! If you get a free minute (yeah, right ) check out Alabama governor Fob James (1995-99) and his attitude about "states rights" and the US Constitution, in particular the 10th amendment. Quite an interesting position. Peace! LJ GO PACK!!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 11, 2003 10:44:19 GMT -5
Hi CMAC!
Wondering how it's going.
When you get time, please keep us updated! Thanks and God bless!
Lisa
|
|
|
Post by CMAC on Sept 13, 2003 19:29:20 GMT -5
A short note to inform you that the meeting with the AG apparently went quite well. He was very interested in the points the lawyers were making. The lawyers involved, and there turned out to be six of them anyway regardless of my absence, were all prepared and had presentations. However, the AG did point out that the efforts might be better made to the Federal government as it is the Federal government that is trying to change the definition of marriage in view of the decisions of the Courts of Appeal of three of the provinces wherein it was decided that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry was a denial of equality to which they were entitled under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, as the Federal government is not intending to take the issue of same sex marriages to the Supreme Court of Canada, it leaves it open for the Province to appeal the decision of its Court of Appeal and have the Supreme Court of Canada deal with the issue by that route.
There is a limit on what I can tell you is going on here at this time. Sorry.
You know, many of us thought these sort of problems would arise when Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought in an entrenched Constitution. Back when we relied on the common law and Anglo-Canadian legal convention, Parliament was supreme and the laws it made, unless contrary to public policy (virtually never), were upheld. Many of us tried to tell people that bringing in a U.S. style constitution would result in the judiciary effectively making law that fit their view of political correctness and their social agenda, and overriding the elected representatives. However, Trudeau was more educated in French civil law than English common law and I don't think fully understood the role of consensus and the advantages of flexibility, representation, responsible government, constituent input and adaptability that the concept of Parliamentary supremacy had.
Gee, chickens can make a lot of noise when they come home to roost, can't they?
|
|