Jason Cormier wrote:
> On 6/29/03 19:24, in article bdnsfk$ue7fp$1@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de,
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> I don't know about Canada, but in the US neither the SCOTUS nor any
>>>> other organ of government grants rights. That having been said,
>>>> first the Court would have to find that there is a right to marry.
>>>
>>> I betcha some of the guys I know would think yer kinda cute when you
>>> lecture, Kevin.
>>
>> Hell, I'm cute in fluorescent lighting on the first day of my period.
>>
>>> Wanna meet one at Toronto City Hall? Wear a suit,
>>> bring your birth certificate, and cash or credit card. I'll show you
>>> the new Canada.
>>
>> Of that I have no doubt.
>
> So tell me, Kevin: How do you feel about gay marriage? Forget the
> issue of the courts and their intrusion upon the areas of legislative
> authority and other such constitutional/procedural issues. How do you
> fell about marriage no longer being prohibited for homosexuals in
> most of Canada?

I have no feelings about the decisions of Canadian courts. I don't even have
thoughts about them. For the same reason, I couldn't comment about the issue
of courts/legislatures in Canada even if I wanted to because I haven't the
slightest idea about the workings of the various levels of Canadian
government. They are of no consequence to me.

> How about the same across the US?

It's a state issue, so I doubt it would be the same across the US. Marriage
is a privilege in that a license is granted by the state, and as such the
several states have differing laws as to who may marry whom. The most
obvious example would be state laws regarding legal age of marriage.

For this reason I think that the Defense of Marriage Act was inappropriate.
I see absolutely nothing about marriage that falls under Congress's Article
I powers or the federal judiciary's Article III powers. The same goes for
sexual activity, which is why I felt the SCOTUS was wrong to even hear
_Lawrence_. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would have voted
to abolish that law, but I'm not. Neither are any of the nine justices in
D.C. Too bad that only three of them realize this fact.

>>> (The little  woman shouldn't be a
>>> problem....according to the neo-con whining, legalised bigamy is
>>> only days away.)
>>
>> I don't know what a neo-con is, so I am afraid I am unfamiliar with
>> their whining.
>
> It's a term that's become popular in describing the new generation of
> Canada's conservative politicians, political parties, and those that
> support them.

Ok. In the US it's become a favorite term of the left, almost always as a
pejorative, but there is no clear definition. I've read a number of article
about so-called neoconservatism, but they have all been incongruous, even
those written by those on the right.

-- 
Kevin Gowen
"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong
thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." Dick Gephardt
(D-MO), presidential candidate