[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Mike F@Oct 24 2005, 08:18 PM
What exactly are you saying?

Are you saying that because there isn't a good reason underlying the law it is open to be challanged? That because brother-brother/sister-sister sex doesn't count as incest (which I'm not sold on, but will let pass for the sake of argument), then there's no good reason to prohibit incestuous marriages and so it's challangable?

It is quite straight forward.

The inclusion of male/male or female/female relationships is clearly outside the current legal definitions of "incest". Based on Charter Rights, by saying these relationships are in fact incestual could be a violation based on sexual orientation as they are arguably NOT incestual by law.

Regardless of your foot down, "end of discussion" tantrum, NO ONE can say how this would be viewed if it goes to the Supreme Court, so save me your pathetic theatrics.

And given that opposite sex incestuous marriages are illegal, you can't challange it as discriminitory.

So any activity that is "illegal" cannot be challenged as discriminitory? What the hell is the Charter of Rights all about if it isn't to "protect" the people (rightly or wrongly) from laws or practices deemed "illegal"?

If the Government of Canada made a law saying it was illegal to have gays ONLY allowed to marry other gay people, would that not be something to be challenged? Geezus man. The whole point of this is that an existing "law" has now been opened for discussion and possible challenge based ON the implementation of Bill C-38.

The ONLY way that a law cannot be evaluated by the Charter is if the Notwithstanding Clause is involked. All others are fair game.

you're out of luck and are still just fearmongering.

Quite interesting that you have once again used the fearmongering BS.

Like TS, I am just showing the issue, I am not taking a side. I do this type of thing for a living (look for loopholes needing to be closed, follow processes trees to absolute completion, etc). All I am saying here is that under the current legislation, yes, one would have to be either blind or brainwashed to think that the possibility does NOT exist.

EVERYTHING is possible, until all options to MAKE IT POSSIBLE have been tried, and have failed. This one seems clear enough that a high-school law student could see the possibilities. Why cannot you?