Define Cynical Fan Forums

<a href='http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 2632617151' target='_blank'>For information, look here</a>. And <a href='http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/c ... 9.wpd.html' target='_blank'>here</a> is the official ruling.

Read it in the morning newspaper...<br><br>"And in other news today, a mass exodus to Canada has begun. Sources are unsure of the cause, but most people are pointing to the dragons as the cause right now..."<br><br><br>Heheee, <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

...I can't begin to fathem how to read the latter of the two links.

The latter link has been filibustered to death.

*Pulls out legalese to english dictionary*

Irony: when I clicked on the "English" link, what did I get?<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> sino: file-error: fatal: /home/web/lexum/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc079.wpd.html/ csc-scc/cgi-bin/disp.pl/en/rec/html/2004scc079.wpd.html: Not a directory<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Apparantly, there's a error translating legalese to English. <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--><br><br>(edited to prevent stretching of page) <!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Gizensha+Dec 10 2004, 11:31 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Gizensha @ Dec 10 2004, 11:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> ...I can't begin to fathem how to read the latter of the two links.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><!--QuoteBegin-Ruling Summary (paraphrased)+--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Ruling Summary (paraphrased))</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin-Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes+--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> 1.  Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.<br><br>2.  Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Q: Is the content of the proposal within the federal governments exclusive power?<br>A: The first part is, the second part isn't<br><br>Q: If yes, is it constitutional?<br>A: Yes<br><br>Q: Would this act accomodate the rights of religious groups to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony against their religious beliefs?<br>A: Barring unusual circumstances...<br><br>Q: Is the opposite sex requirement already in place constitutional?<br>A: Since I know you're going to get rid of it <i>anyways</i>, I'm not going to answer. Oops, looks like I just did. But I didn't answer the question, did I?<br><br>Q: Hey, I'm the one asking the questions!<br>A: Are you now?<br><br>Q: Stop, your confusing me!<br>A: Confusing you, in a way that <b>blows your mind</b>?<br><br>Q: Nope, just confusing me...<br>A: Darn, you sure?<br><br>Q: That's it! This seating is over!<br>A: Or is it?<br><br>Q: It ... is ... ov--<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>--looks like my summary derailed halfway through. Oh well... <!--emo&:rolleyes:--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... lleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Thanks. That helped. Alot.

No prob.

They've also been questioning the bans placed in many states in the US. There are number of court cases in progress. The arguement is the same one mine is, that the government has no right to make such a decision.<br><br>I don't care what religion says, that's God's choice, not Man's. We have no right to judge. Who does George W. Bush think he is, God himself?

<a href='http://www.idrewthis.org/2004/bushandgod.html' target='_blank'>Yes, apparently</a>. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->

from my point of view it is a matter of two things. Freedom and religion. This country was founded on freedom and now this country want to take it away from some people. The other one is religion and that is a matter for a higher power. No man can judge that. If the churches do not want to marry same sex couple then it is their right not too. But the goverment has no bussiness in determining that at all. Church and goverment should not mix.

On a related note, <a href='http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... urce=email' target='_blank'>Newfoundland Approves Same-Sex Marriage</a> <br>

Not surprising - they delayed the case just so they could hear the federal ruling.

In Denmark, same sex marriage is allowed. Our discussion is if it's going to be allowed in churches in stead of only city hall.<br><br>I love my country