Talk:Family Coalition Party of Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

EDITING TALK: FAMILY COALITION PARTY OF ONTARIO

The Party feels that "pro life" is more positive, as indeed life should be.

• I have no objection to the term "pro-life". CJCurrie 21:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no categorical bias against same sex "couples" receiving the same benefits (from all governments and agencies). The FCP recognizes the importance of formally registering long term relationships whether between a man and a woman, or two lebsbians or two homosexuals. Before the law there needs to be 100% equivalence. The FCP however does not wish to rewrite the traditional and sacramental meaning of marriage. Therefore it does not support entering into the same Registry (maintained by the Province, the Parishes etc.) as married couples those who are not heterosexual couples. In all else, formalizing, registering and making known the "special status" or contractually binding spousal bill or rights and obligations is welcomed and preferred over casual arrangements that often leave the State burdens such as those arising when non survivorship pension benefits are allowed. [Posted by anonymous editor, 3 April 2006.]

Are you certain that this is official party policy? I'm going from the FCP's online "Family Values" policy section, which includes the following entry:

5. The Ontario Coalition supports the institutional value of marriage, being the union between a woman and a man to the exclusion of all others. Only this definition will be used in the provision of spousal benefits and for any program funded or administered by the government. [1], "Family Values", "More Specific Policies" CJCurrie 04:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What we have here is the tiranny of unintended abuse of Her Majesty's English. The words "institutional value" can only mean "the traditional definition" of &c. Moreover, one cannot use a "definition" in the provision of rights and benefits. One can likely base government programs on a definition (as a conditio sine qua non of entitlement) but it must also be bound by the Charter which, mercefully, does not allow definitions to be restrictive, or arbitrary or (in a word) unconstitutional. I don't want to sound pedantic but....a lot of what the Party is putting out there bears revision and spinmeisterization. Your Humble Servant (hereinafter YHS)[btw I kind of like YHS- my favourite Saint, the Patron of Vinchiaturo, is Bernardine of Siena-the greatest spinmeister of the Church who became of Doctor of the Church- and he went by JHS which meant, I think, Jesus (est) Hominum Salvator- or Jesus saves the entries on his computer] Life is blood sweat and beers, so cheers! [Posted by anonymous editor, 3 April 2006.]

It's quite possible that you're correct as regards constitutional rights, but I'm still not certain your assessment corresponds to official FCP policy. CJCurrie 01:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Currie it's me YHS. I must say I reeeealllly like this.It's like an endless chessgame. God if I had known this existed I would never have joined the Istituto Ecomania Semiantica. With all due respect to Umberto Eccomi. What Joe seems to be saying is that peope who are not straight (and who is?) have the same rights as people who are straight, i.e. to marry people of the opposing sex. In other words, and this is like the how many angels can fumigate on the head of a pine, what Joe is saying is that if the non-straights were given the rights to marry inter se et contra naturam, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE GREATER RIGHTS THAN THE STRAITS. LET US SAY YOU WERE NOT GAY, OR LET US SAY I AM NOT GAY. You and I could only marry a personable of the (I hate to use the word opposite) un-same sex. But if you or I were (respectively) non-straight then we could end up married, or we could each have a female spouse, which is a two way option that straights who are fully straight can't have or even interpolate, casually or otherwise. So you see maybe Joe has a point. What may have happened (per incuriam of Legislators cum maxima culpa of the Judiciary)we may have failed to treat equals equally. Which is a NO NO under the Trudeaumania of Canada. So, to recapitulate, the FCP is only against CONFERRING GREATER RIGHTS ON NON-STRAIGHTS than it confers on unipolar people who can only think "boy/girl, boy girl" etc. ad infinitum. This is a tough one. Only St. Bernardine (and only after He became a Doctor of the Chruch) can help us on this one. Because of course a distinction without a difference is what he was into.[ Thank you for the privilege of my EDITING TALK:fcp PAGE, you are saving me a bundle on spychologists and psychiatrantists] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Spensieri (talk • contribs).