Update: Portugal's Parliament passes gay marriage

You are right:  Americans have proven themselves to be quite regressive in the areas of gay marriage,  healthcare, and jurisprudence.  

The bill has been passed!

Oh, thanks for that update,  Amy!

A civil partnership in the eyes of a democratic republic, especially the USA is what I prefer over a religious experience as that is as much my right as carrying a gun for instance.

Well Roy in your concept of inalienable right,  is the right of the majority to rule.  Exactly what you have been against when it  comes to the Democrats and Obama.  Who protects your minorities?  In fact gay marriage in Canada was made legal after advice was sought from the Supreme Court.  

Our Charter of Rights was drawn up by politicians and was duly passed in the Parliament of Canada.  The Charter of Rights  assures that every citizen that he or she can challenge unjust laws against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with our Charter and the Constitution of 1982 before you dump on it.

We project the will of the people as well in our laws as well , but there comes a time when the rights of minorities must be protected.  The Charter assures this. 

The difference between Canada and the U.S. is that you fought a war for your independence and we made a peaceful transition to Independence. 

The U.S. Constitution was written almost 250 years ago and is very difficult to amend.  To hang your hat on Freud, Jung, Nietsche or the Founding fathers is a fallacy and doesn't square with the reality of the 21st century.

In regards to courts not having the right to do this, then you must explain to me what the Supreme Court function in the United States is.  Why is there such a furor whenever a judge is selected. 

Your courts even decided an election in 2000.  If elections are not sacred, what is?  If the Supreme Court can decide who and who has won an election why can.t they decide on a right of a minority. 

This is exactly about homophobia.  Does the Boss decide your future? 

But then there is Glenn Beck lol.

Thanks Karen. 

Link to the Canadian Charter of  Rights and Freedoms

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.asp

Canadian Constitution Act of 1982

U.S. Supreme Court

Roy you are the one not getting it.  If you would have read my comment above, you would have seen that the Legislature actually passed the law.  The Supreme Court was used to advice on rights of minorities on this issue.

The fact, however is, that in Canada and the United States someone can challenge a law by legislators and the court can rule on its constitutionality.

According to you Canadians and Europeans are neanderthals and only you get it.  Thank for the compliment.

I think you must look at the overarching perspectives of the Canadian/European view ( which liberal Americans hold as well)  and the American conservative view.

Granted , there are philosophical purviews which make this simple,  in a sense,  and are not complex in their terminology.   I would call the Canadians deontological  in their thinking,  while Roy would be coming from the teleologic and essentialist view.  The former is concerned with DUTIES AND EQUAL RIGHTS;  their formation precedes essence.  The latter,  Roy, would be working from Platonic idealism and natural law, and drawing from a great deal of antiquity.  

Karl would be taking the route of the pragmatist (Barack Obama is a soild pragmatist )  while Roy would be taking the Ideal forms (archetype)  as his rule.  To him,  essence precedes existence;  to Karl,  existence precedes essence.  

Which is the superior mode of thinking?  Empirically, it would be the Canadian view.  Transcendentally,  it would be Roy's view.   The Kantian imperative -  Can I will that the principle of my action be deemed a universal law?  -  would favor the Canadian pragmatism.  But Kant himself asserts that "the world is empirically real but transcendentally ideal"  ----ergo,  the Hegelian synthesis  :  thesis, gives rise to antithesis---and from this the synthesis is born :  The transcendental precedes and directs the empirical.  

Make sense ?  : ( 

I had a very good point to make, but made it too quickly and skipped over too much----but it is important....the meta-analysis of the political really is the ground of it........oy vey : (    In other words, the empirical cannot get wholly beyond the transcendent.  It is grounded in it...................

On what basis do we impute rights?  Via natural law argument.  Or via the Kantian imperative.  It is the second which transformed Europe in the Enlightenment period.  We are ALL LIBERALS:  No one is free post -Enlightenment to think as though they are still in antiquity.  However:  Are we classical equity liberals or new identity politics liberals?  The two have vastly different agendas.  History is judging already.  Which do you think Kant would NOW profess, Roy?  

Almost all of our sorrows spring out of our relations with other people.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer has always been kin to me, thanks for that Rory---Schopenhauer is a god.......But Yes, Roy, Kant would adhere to civil unions, you are correct. He would be an EQUITY liberal, a CLASSICAL liberal.  However,  i think in America,  there is a deeply-rooted fear behind the gay marriage advocacy  -  not without some legitimate ground  -  and it may make them appear arrogant.  But they fear being boxed into civil unions.  Because they know how rapidly the winds of change can blow in America.  That a few political crises could set back the clock. And i think Kant  - and Kierkegaard  - would in this sense feel protective of them....................

Oh, Rory, Kierkegaard is to make people like us feel less lonely in our thinking--tee hee!  You and me both, brother, for the lithium. 

A QUESTION FOR ALL:  It was brought to my attention by a poster, privately, that my philosophical opining and discourse was most unwelcome, and marred the post.  Now, as I am trained in philosophical analysis  -  and I lay claim to nothing else  -  it is something which in my view helps, and does not hinder;  enhances,  and does not spoil.  Any thoughts?   I certainly do not want to bring philosophy in if all are bothered by it......

WOW!!! All the above is most highbrow and intellectual,and I applaud it all but will just say meekly from Down Under Good on Ya Portugal!!! Love is Love and the Church has really been fairly hypocritical throughout the ages and although things change they change exceeding slow...what am I saying!!! FAIRLY hypoctitical?? TRY EXTREMELY!!! Elton and David et al Rejoice!! Jesamyn

Thanks, Jesamyn.  I love to see you on here, sweet sister. x

Thanks,  Roy:  To me,  philosophy makes clear.  And it kept me from thinking in ways that were non-productive and incoherent. x

SMK: I don't know whether or not you have or have had a big brother. Notwithstanding I will take the liberty, and in all my full-blown NYC arrogance and chauvinism,  assume a temporary role as your big brother here. If you don't cotton to the "big brother" thing then how 'bout a Knight Templar?

In any event: I find your philosophical references to be thought provoking and highly relevant. And that is all that I have to say about the special nature of SMK at this time . . . .

I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

Softly, in the dusk, a woman is singing to me;
Taking me back down the vista of years, till I see
A child sitting under the piano, in the boom of the tingling strings
And pressing the small, poised feet of a mother who smiles as she sings.

In spite of myself, the insidious mastery of song
Betrays me back, till the heart of me weeps to belong
to the old Sunday evenings at home, with the winter outside
And hymns in the cosy parlour, the tinkling piano our guide.

So now it is vain for the singer to burst into clamour
With the great black piano appassionato. The glamour
Of childish days is upon me, my manhood is cast
Down in the flood of remembrance, I weep like a child for the past.