Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Why the amendment to provide for Gay Marriages is Un-constitutional for Canada.

Very simple:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

And lest someone counter by saying that "Whereas" here means "In spite of the fact" or "In contradistinction to", Merriam-Webster's dictionary mentions a second meaning: "in view of the fact that: Since- used especially to introduce a preamble."

The hermeneutical key for the preamble of our very own consititution is the supremacy of God and the rule of law. No more, no less. It follows that any subsequent interpretation of this document that violates said recognition is a false interpretation. And since any proposed recognition of homosexual marriages is a clear failure to recognize God's supremacy (note that the word supreme contains within its denotation the possession of authority and dominion), it follows that the legalization of gay marriages in Canada is un-constitutional and unlawful.


Theophilus said...

This is a non-sectarian reference to God that doesn't specify whose notion of God is to be honoured. My best guess is that the reference makes use of the theology of the Magna Carta, which argued that God, not the king, is the ultimate sovereign, and that consequently the king is subject to the law no less than others in the kingdom. Thus "the supremacy of God and the rule of law" are two sides of the same theological-political argument.

Emerson Fast said...

So in other words,

This is a reference to a God so nebulous that one can safely insert or interpret whatsoever he pleases into or out of the charter without ever coming under theological circumspection?

Far too also renders the preamble utterly redundant. What good does recognizing God's sovereignty do if said God has revealed nothing of His will to man, and has no legislative demands or concrete authority over the nation which has wantonly chosen to recognize him?

Theo, I understand that this is what a modern interpreter of the charter would say. But I hope you also recognize that the interpretation you propose is utterly bollocks and meaningless. It is wasted breath. The phrase might as well be removed from the document...because there is absolutely no such thing as a non-sectarian God who is able to perpetually morph into each subjective religious ideology at the same time so as to evade the ethical purview of one particular religious ideology.