The WBTA continues to roll out their list of members on their executive council. And there continue to be concerns about members of the executive when it comes to their views on minority rights as mentioned here and here.
The following comes from an August 8, 2007 posting on the blog of John Nesdoly, leader of the Western Independence Party of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Chair on the WBTA executive council:
Direct Democracy and Same Sex Marriage
Same sex marriage is the newest social engineering scheme being imposed on us by Eastern Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that marriage between two members of the same sex is a human right. The Western Independence Party of Saskatchewan and I strongly disagree with this newest finding.
Marriage is older than any nation on this earth and is as old as mankind itself. From the most advanced societies to the most primative marriage is the pne instituition throughout that is universal. That means the union between a man and a woman primarily for the purposes of procreation. Homosexuality has also existed throughout the history of mankind with varying degrees of tolerance depending on the society.
Ancient Greece was probably the most accepting societ of homosexual behaviour in the history of mankind. However at no point in Ancient Greece was same sex marriage ever advocated or even thought of as a possibility. In the later history of the Roman Empire when homsexuality was rampant the same sex marriage concept never even entered the contemplation phase by even the most decadent emperor. It is only now in the late 20th and early 21st century were same sex marriage seems to be gaining traction.
Something that is as altering to our society as same sex marriage should not be decided by liberal judges on the supreme court of Canada. It should be decided on a referendum. In Saskatchewan the Western Independence Party is advocating that 18,000 or three per cent of eligible voters would be enough to trigger such a referendum. The result would then be binding on the provincial government to implement. On same sex marriage the likely result in Saskatchewan would likely be 35% in favor and 65% against.
The government of Canada allows for same sex unions and marriage is defined as such by the federal government. However the marriage machinery, such as the issuing of marriage licences and the civil ceremonies are all performed by the provincial government. With the moral highground of a referendum result opposing SSM, the government of Saskatchewan could act in m,any different ways. The first would be to pass a marriage act forbidding same sex unions in Saskatchewan and once the act is through the legislature immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause to insulate us from court challenges. The second measure would be to forbid the issuing of marriage licences to same sex couples within Saskatchewan. If two gays wanted to get married they would have to travel to a province where the licence would be issued. The third measure would be of course to order our JPs that they are not to perform a same sex ceremony. Lastly the government of Saskatchewan would not recognize such a union when it comes to provincial income tax. While these measures would not completely stop same sex unions in Saskatchewan; this is what can be done if the government was so instructed by the people of Saskatchewan. These measures of course would only be invoked once the moral highground of a referndum result was occupied. If the people of Saskatchewan voted in favor of same sex marriage then we, as the government, would bow to their wishes as well. The people of Saskatchewan are sovereign and in our opinion they alone are the highest court in the land.
God Bless Western Canada
The morality of allowing the majority to decide the rights afforded to a minority strikes us as questionable. Perhaps a representative of the WBTA would also be able to explain this? Are homosexuals to be second-class citizens within a proposed independent Western Canada (whatever entity that might be called) and does the WBTA advocate taking rights away from homosexuals?
The following comes from an August 8, 2007 posting on the blog of John Nesdoly, leader of the Western Independence Party of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Chair on the WBTA executive council:
Direct Democracy and Same Sex Marriage
Same sex marriage is the newest social engineering scheme being imposed on us by Eastern Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that marriage between two members of the same sex is a human right. The Western Independence Party of Saskatchewan and I strongly disagree with this newest finding.
Marriage is older than any nation on this earth and is as old as mankind itself. From the most advanced societies to the most primative marriage is the pne instituition throughout that is universal. That means the union between a man and a woman primarily for the purposes of procreation. Homosexuality has also existed throughout the history of mankind with varying degrees of tolerance depending on the society.
Ancient Greece was probably the most accepting societ of homosexual behaviour in the history of mankind. However at no point in Ancient Greece was same sex marriage ever advocated or even thought of as a possibility. In the later history of the Roman Empire when homsexuality was rampant the same sex marriage concept never even entered the contemplation phase by even the most decadent emperor. It is only now in the late 20th and early 21st century were same sex marriage seems to be gaining traction.
Something that is as altering to our society as same sex marriage should not be decided by liberal judges on the supreme court of Canada. It should be decided on a referendum. In Saskatchewan the Western Independence Party is advocating that 18,000 or three per cent of eligible voters would be enough to trigger such a referendum. The result would then be binding on the provincial government to implement. On same sex marriage the likely result in Saskatchewan would likely be 35% in favor and 65% against.
The government of Canada allows for same sex unions and marriage is defined as such by the federal government. However the marriage machinery, such as the issuing of marriage licences and the civil ceremonies are all performed by the provincial government. With the moral highground of a referendum result opposing SSM, the government of Saskatchewan could act in m,any different ways. The first would be to pass a marriage act forbidding same sex unions in Saskatchewan and once the act is through the legislature immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause to insulate us from court challenges. The second measure would be to forbid the issuing of marriage licences to same sex couples within Saskatchewan. If two gays wanted to get married they would have to travel to a province where the licence would be issued. The third measure would be of course to order our JPs that they are not to perform a same sex ceremony. Lastly the government of Saskatchewan would not recognize such a union when it comes to provincial income tax. While these measures would not completely stop same sex unions in Saskatchewan; this is what can be done if the government was so instructed by the people of Saskatchewan. These measures of course would only be invoked once the moral highground of a referndum result was occupied. If the people of Saskatchewan voted in favor of same sex marriage then we, as the government, would bow to their wishes as well. The people of Saskatchewan are sovereign and in our opinion they alone are the highest court in the land.
God Bless Western Canada
The morality of allowing the majority to decide the rights afforded to a minority strikes us as questionable. Perhaps a representative of the WBTA would also be able to explain this? Are homosexuals to be second-class citizens within a proposed independent Western Canada (whatever entity that might be called) and does the WBTA advocate taking rights away from homosexuals?
No comments:
Post a Comment