Seeing red in the judiciary
Jan. 29th, 2004 01:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kellinatorThis isn't my usual subject material, because there are so many of you who do it so much better than I ever could, and anyway I'm sure someone out there will flame me for this, but I have to mock post this anyway.
From Layland v. Ontario, 1993:
"The law does not prohibit marriage by homosexuals provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex. Some homosexuals do marry. The fact that many homosexuals do not choose to marry, because they do not want unions with persons of the opposite sex, is the result of their own preferences, not a requirement of the law.... In my opinion, the common law limitation of marriage to persons of opposite sex does not constitute discrimination against the applicants [a gay couple wishing to marry] contrary to s. 15 of the Charter."
I generally don't believe in violence, but I would like to smack the person who wrote this for being an asshole and an idiot.
Now I'm so mad I'm going to go through line by line...
The law does not prohibit marriage by homosexuals provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees, asshole.
Some homosexuals do marry.
Yeah, they force themselves into marriages to straight people because society makes it so hard on them, and it almost always ends in disaster. It's obvious that you're too much of a raging hemorrhoid to recognize that one of your own children could be gay, so let me put it in terms your tiny little pea brain might understand: What if your child married someone who turned out to be gay, resulting in pain to the entire family when things didn't work out, which they hardly ever do in this case? Oh, that's right, you're a dicksmack, you'd blame the spouse for marrying your poor straight baby, ignoring that you're the one that's saying the law says it's okay for people to do that, but somehow illegal for gay people to get married. Your logic is not like our Earth logic.
The fact that many homosexuals do not choose to marry, because they do not want unions with persons of the opposite sex, is the result of their own preferences, not a requirement of the law.
Talk about blame-the-victim logic.
In my opinion, the common law limitation of marriage to persons of opposite sex does not constitute discrimination against the applicants contrary to s. 15 of the Charter.
Blow me. I pity the people of Ontario having a fucking moron like you on the bench.
From Layland v. Ontario, 1993:
"The law does not prohibit marriage by homosexuals provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex. Some homosexuals do marry. The fact that many homosexuals do not choose to marry, because they do not want unions with persons of the opposite sex, is the result of their own preferences, not a requirement of the law.... In my opinion, the common law limitation of marriage to persons of opposite sex does not constitute discrimination against the applicants [a gay couple wishing to marry] contrary to s. 15 of the Charter."
I generally don't believe in violence, but I would like to smack the person who wrote this for being an asshole and an idiot.
Now I'm so mad I'm going to go through line by line...
The law does not prohibit marriage by homosexuals provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees, asshole.
Some homosexuals do marry.
Yeah, they force themselves into marriages to straight people because society makes it so hard on them, and it almost always ends in disaster. It's obvious that you're too much of a raging hemorrhoid to recognize that one of your own children could be gay, so let me put it in terms your tiny little pea brain might understand: What if your child married someone who turned out to be gay, resulting in pain to the entire family when things didn't work out, which they hardly ever do in this case? Oh, that's right, you're a dicksmack, you'd blame the spouse for marrying your poor straight baby, ignoring that you're the one that's saying the law says it's okay for people to do that, but somehow illegal for gay people to get married. Your logic is not like our Earth logic.
The fact that many homosexuals do not choose to marry, because they do not want unions with persons of the opposite sex, is the result of their own preferences, not a requirement of the law.
Talk about blame-the-victim logic.
In my opinion, the common law limitation of marriage to persons of opposite sex does not constitute discrimination against the applicants contrary to s. 15 of the Charter.
Blow me. I pity the people of Ontario having a fucking moron like you on the bench.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-10 03:21 pm (UTC)The fact that judges occasionally create law doesn't invalidate my claim that it isn't a good thing. In fact, common law cases are so messy that many states are revoking common law status for certain torts and contracts. In Georgia alone, we've done away with common law marriage, administrative policy (outside the courtroom, where the judge still prevails), and contract structure.
And, as the SCOTUS once found out, making their own laws in no way requires the executive to enforce them. Just ask the Cherokee on that one.