Jimmy, You seem to think everything is a happy ending child’s book. Most of us on the right don’t care about gays and what they do in their bedrooms it’s the larger picture of displaying their sexual activity in public. The pride parade is a perfect example can you think of another similar event for a group where behaviours are on display of a sexual nature? Keep your private lives private, we understand what homosexuality is a sexual preference for the same sex we don’t need to see it in public, just like we don’t have parades where scantily clothed heterosexuals display to us the sexual nature of their lives.

As for marriage I always saw homosexuality as a choice to abandon two things, natural born children with your partner and marriage with them as well. For the prior 300 years until around 1990 nobody even considered gay marriage in our common law courts. The challenges to marriage were almost always around bigamy and the decisions always concluded with marriage being defined as between one man and one woman of consenting age. That definition did not discriminate against gays as they could marry a person of the opposite sex as well if they chose. Unlike racial exclusions which attached exceptions to conditions of the previous definition, sexual orientation did not prohibit one from meeting the preset conditions of marrying the opposite sex. What gays sought was an addition of an exceptional class to marry with no definitions of the term without a compelling legal reason. The concept violates the foundation of our justice system of stare decisis by carving out an exception for no legal reason. Civil unions would have granted all the power of marriage without the word and extended those protections to any number of couplings both gay and not. The whole gay marriage centered on the impossible being now made possible at a cost to our system of laws.

In the USA none of the justices in the majority addressed the 9th or tenth amendments, but instead chose the 14th to support their opinion. The 9th amendment would have been the most reasoned challenged as it defines that certain enumerations of rights do not disparage unenumerated rights and the argument could be made marriage was a right and gay marriage was one as well. The 10th however leaves to the states the powers that to delegate those that are not under the federal scope so at a minimum that should have been addressed as well. Instead they chose to declare marriage as a right to everybody that is protected equally which surely will be used to limit states rights to legislate against multiparty marriage and even as an unintended consequence things like gun control. Surely if unenumerated rights can’t be limited by the individual states then certainly enumerated ones like the second amendment can’t be. Thus gun control is also now dead at a state level in my mind. Same thing for hate speech laws, the states no longer have the ability to tackle legislation of individual rights, so basically the next 15 years will see dozens of constitutional challenges to any legislation that limits individual rights at a state level.

In Canada section 15 addresses individual rights in paragraph 1 and then enshrines discrimination in paragraph 2 to create equality, a prime example of what is wrong with creating exceptional classes. The funny elephant in the room is that a document addressing individual rights written less than 35 years ago somehow missed sexual orientation, are we to believe that NOBODY saw discrimination 35 years ago against gays or is it safe to assume there really was no need to address a personal matter like sex regarding public accommodation? This whole gay rights, sexual orientation movement is a creation of a handful of radical imbeciles holding the narrative of freedom captive to their sexual behaviour. Gays aren’t discriminated against unless they seek to flaunt their private behaviour and then only by a handful of people. They however have no problem creating confrontations by trying to attack faith based businesses for not endorsing their behaviour. I feel like going to a gay bakery and making them make me an anti-gay cake and see what it sets off. The simple and succinct definition of individual rights is they end where they impact others individual rights a concept people on the left can’t seem to accept.