Step one, challenge the definition of sexual orientation
Wrong. Polygamy has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation includes gay, hetero and bisexual. If you want to play the bestiality card it would come under sexual orientation I suppose, but polygamy doesn't.
To reiterate from my previous quote: Sexual orientation does not include polygamy or other types of unions
remember, you only need one ultra-liberal (liberal as in free thinking, not the political party) judge to say so once, and suddenly, this statement that "Sexual orientation does not include polygamy or other types of unions" becomes as irrelevant as "women are not persons"
Wrong. If a BC provincial Court Judge made that ruling you would then need the BC Supreme Court, the BC Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada to agree. That's a minimum of 9 judges. But again, that's moot since you clearly misunterstood what the quote said.
The government concluded that if charges were laid against the polygamists, they would raise the issue of their religious freedom as a defense under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
If you read the quote I provided carefully you would realize that gay marriage was legalized on the bases of non-discrimination against sexual orientation, while the quote you provided clearly states that the polygamy law would be challanged under the freedom of religion laws.
Polygamists couldn't raise gay marriage in support of their claim any more than a murderer could point to another man's acquittal for tax evasion to support his defense. These two issues are not at all legally linked, and don't pretend they are.
Once again: please drop this stupid argument.
|