NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/27/samesex050627.html?ref=rss

I found this article on the CBC News site quite interesting. It seems that on Tuesday, there is likely going to be a vote on same-sex marriage, and as of now it looks like the pro side will win. What I found interesting was a Mr. Stephen Harper's response to the Bloc Quebecois backing the legislation.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says the government's same-sex legislation will make it through the House of Commons only because of support from the Bloc Québécois, and that, says Harper, means the legislation "lacks legitimacy."

Interesting, considering that less than a month ago Harper was aiming to bring down the Liberal government in association with the BQ. This next comment was also interesting:

Harper branded Bill C-38 the product of an illegitimate union. "I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation," he said.

It seems Harper believes that federalists are less supportive of equal rights for gays and lesbians. That seems a little strange to me. Wasn't it Pierre Trudeau, ardent opposition of Quebec separation that said something about the government not having any place in the bedrooms of the nation? Anyway, one last comment I found strange from Conservative Ken Epp:

"Blacks in the United States," said Epp, "never asked to be called white. They just wanted the same rights." Epp then went on to say that women in Canada sought equal rights without demanding to be called men. "And so I ask the question in this struggle for so-called equality for same-sex couple, why do they want to use the word that describes heterosexual marriage and has for millennia?"

I don't think this is a valid argument. In my opinion, a more valid comparison would be separate schools and other institutions. I mean, instead of actually being equal, can't they just be separate but still pretty equal? That seems to be what Epp is saying...

Anyway, looking for comments on the Harper thing mostly.

All of Canadian politics is pissing me off right now.

Everybody's so focused on this stupid same sex debate that are government is ignoring more important issues, such as health care, defence, foriegn affairs, education, etc. Marriage is none of the government's business. Why won't they all just shut up. It's a private ccvenant, and the government should leave it alone.

As for Harper, he's better than the other leaders but that's not saying much. Why the hell did he treat with traitors? He lost all of my respect by allying with the BQ. As for Layton and Martin, they never had my respect. These quotes make him sound hypocritical, and he probably is in this respect.

Idiots all.

As for Harper, he's better than the other leaders but that's not saying much. Why the hell did he treat with traitors? He lost all of my respect by allying with the BQ.
LOL


GO QUEBEC GO!!!!

I'm quite certain he would have viewed the Bloc's votes as legitimate when HE was in cahoots with them in trying to bring down the government. Now he says their votes are illegitimate when it doesn't serve him. Argh. This is typical of Harper, he says whatever is contrary to the Liberal stance without ever thinking about what he said last week, or last month, or last year. He has no integrity, and is unworthy of leading our country.

All of Canadian politics is pissing me off right now.

Everybody's so focused on this stupid same sex debate that are government is ignoring more important issues, such as health care, defence, foriegn affairs, education, etc. Marriage is none of the government's business. Why won't they all just shut up. It's a private ccvenant, and the government should leave it alone.

As for Harper, he's better than the other leaders but that's not saying much. Why the hell did he treat with traitors? He lost all of my respect by allying with the BQ. As for Layton and Martin, they never had my respect. These quotes make him sound hypocritical, and he probably is in this respect.

Idiots all.

How is marriage none of the government's business?

How is marriage none of the government's business?
What gives government the right to decde who I, or anyone else, can marry? It's a private covenant between the parties being married and any person or organization they wish to include in the choice. The government has no right to infringe upon our freedom to marry who we want, other than in cases concerning undue coercion, incest (to prevent genetic problems), and vulnerable populations, such as children, the mentally handicapped, etc.

To a point, I agree that marriage could just be delegislated and save a lot of grief, but that doesn't seem too likely to happen in the near future. The next best thing is to let same-sex couples marry, I think.

To a point, I agree that marriage could just be delegislated and save a lot of grief, but that doesn't seem too likely to happen in the near future. The next best thing is to let same-sex couples marry, I think.
The only problem with that is in the future some religious groups freedom of conscience may be infringed upon if they choose not to perform same-sex marriages.

What gives government the right to decde who I, or anyone else, can marry? It's a private covenant between the parties being married and any person or organization they wish to include in the choice. The government has no right to infringe upon our freedom to marry who we want, other than in cases concerning undue coercion, incest (to prevent genetic problems), and vulnerable populations, such as children, the mentally handicapped, etc.

Well it's no longer just a private joning between two people. Marriage now has many legal implications and therefore the government should have a say in it. I'd write more but I'm sitting in my car at the moment so it's not the most comfortable place to type :)

Kanatia: that is true, and would be unfortunate. So, we must consider their freedoms as well when making this choice - hopefully the legislation will include protection of the freedom of conscience, but this is a tricky issue.

In respect to the legal aspects of marriage, the parties involved could easily draw up a contract before entering into it.

How? Isn't part of the legislation specific in saying that no relgious group can be forced to preform a same-sex marriage?

Well it's no longer just a private joning between two people. Marriage now has many legal implications and therefore the government should have a say in it. I'd write more but I'm sitting in my car at the moment so it's not the most comfortable place to type :)
It does have legal implications and that is why when people marry they should right up a contract to be enforced just as any other private contract is enforced. As for taxes, I don't mind them asking marital status in an open-ended way, but the government should not legislate marriage.

How? Isn't part of the legislation specific in saying that no relgious group can be forced to preform a same-sex marriage?
I think so, but things like that have a tendency to be challenged and worn down over time. That's why I said in the future it could be a problem, but not immediately.

The only problem with that is in the future some religious groups freedom of conscience may be infringed upon if they choose not to perform same-sex marriages.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. Freedom of religious conscience is well protected by the legislation, as well as by two Charter rights: freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

What annoys me is that the Conservatives cloak their arguments in freedom of religion rhetoric, when in fact their proposal is the one that infringes religious freedom by not allowing those communities of faith that do wish to marry gays to do so.

Now this is just going to get confusing...one guy's name starts with Dark, another with Evil. And they both end in "ia" that's just wrong.

Frankly, I give Stephen Harper 'til the next Federal election before he packs up his ball, glove and bat and goes home for a protracted sulk. You heard it here first, folks. Come (the inevitable Tory loss on) election night (whenever that ultimately comes to pass), Stevie'll deliver a dispirited ramble about forever being misunderstood by all the Liberal dupes from out east, and there'll be another round of identity crisis for Canada's terminally effed-up right wing.

- Whoah, Dobbs. Aren't you counting your chickens before they hatch? Couldn't the Tories mount a successful comeback between now and then?

All things being equal, I'd agree. But all things are not equal, not even close. This most recent turn of events serves to underscore just how out-of-step with the current needs, values and aspirations of Canadians Stephen Harper and his re-branded Reform/Alliance party are. It's my belief that, contrary to what his handlers are telling him, the more the public sees and hears Stephen Harper, the less anyone wants to do with him. Or his party.


This is a man who, after angering the public by trying to bring down the government with the co-operation of the very separatists he dismisses now as 'lacking legitimacy', proceeded to deride Canadians wholesale for refusing to shelve their own political horse-sense and smilingly emplacing him in the PMO.

For Canadians to do that, we'd have to turn back a number of clocks. It would mean: foregoing the same-sex marriage bill, recriminalizing simple possession of marijuana, re-visiting abortion rights, re-visiting capital punishment, and once again playing lap-dog to the Americans, like back in the Mulroney years. Gee. Sounds like...fun, if your idea of 'fun' is figuring out how to piss people off.

Harper honestly expected Canadians, the majority of whom want same-sex marriages recognized from coast to coast to coast, who want to be able to light up a spliff without getting a criminal record, who don't want the divisive issues of yesteryear vomited back up into the public eye again, to put all that to one side in order to grant him his wish to be our new majority-leader.

Make no mistake; nothing short of a parliamentary majority will soothe Mr. Harper. After all, he knows better than anyone in parliament how difficult it can be for a governing minority to rule effectively.

It does have legal implications and that is why when people marry they should right up a contract to be enforced just as any other private contract is enforced. As for taxes, I don't mind them asking marital status in an open-ended way, but the government should not legislate marriage.

Well they are entering into a legal contract when they get married. I feel the government needs to legislate marriage in order for it to be legally legitimate. However, ofcourse the government should not legislate the religious implications of a marriage. No church should be forced to marry people they don't want to. I just don't think any religion should have the power to control who can and cannot get married. The government would, ideally anyway, undertake his without any bias unlike a relgious body.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. Freedom of religious conscience is well protected by the legislation, as well as by two Charter rights: freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

What annoys me is that the Conservatives cloak their arguments in freedom of religion rhetoric, when in fact their proposal is the one that infringes religious freedom by not allowing those communities of faith that do wish to marry gays to do so.
The whole debate annoys me. With all the corruption in government, the sorry state of our social programs, the very sorry state of our military, and our near irrelevence internationally you'd think our politicians would have better uses of their time and our money than some stupid debate over marriage, which is none of their business anyway. They should stop with the debate over this non-issue and start working on Canada's real problems.

This whole debate and how it is framed is destructive to the freedoms of Canadians and only serves to bring the government more control over our lives.

Harper branded Bill C-38 the product of an illegitimate union. "I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation," he said.
Gilles Duceppe (BQ/ Bloc Quebecois leader):
"We were elected by the people, we have a mandate as legitimate as any other deputy in this Chamber. They call it democracy."
[Note: translated from French]

Jack Layton (NDP / New Democratic party leader):
"Mr. Harper is telling to Canadians that the Quebeckers' vote is not equal to the vote of other Canadians [...]"


Note:
Liberal Party of Canada - 135 seats
Conservative party of Canada - 99 seats
Bloc Quebecois - 54 seats (* all in the Quebec province)
New Democratic Party - 19 seats
Independent - 1 seat

The whole debate annoys me. With all the corruption in government, the sorry state of our social programs, the very sorry state of our military, and our near irrelevence internationally you'd think our politicians would have better uses of their time and our money than some stupid debate over marriage, which is none of their business anyway. They should stop with the debate over this non-issue and start working on Canada's real problems.

This whole debate and how it is framed is destructive to the freedoms of Canadians and only serves to bring the government more control over our lives.

Yes, it is a sad state of affairs. But Stephen Harper isn't the man who will eliminate corruption, improve social programs, or bring 'relevance' to our international reputation (I assume by 'international' you're referring to our closest 'international' neighbours? If not, then who? Please elaborate). He could just be the one to alleviate the 'sorry state of our military', but I don't think too many Canadians (except Mr. Harper's supporters) really want us to do much for the armed forces anyway. It's just wasted money.

If Mr. Harper wants me to shelve my politics in order to get my vote, the least he can do is to shelve his neocon policies if he wins. But I don't trust the fucker.

Yes, it is a sad state of affairs. But Stephen Harper isn't the man who will eliminate corruption, improve social programs, or bring 'relevance' to our international reputation (I assume by 'international' you're referring to our closest 'international' neighbours? If not, then who? Please elaborate). He could just be the one to alleviate the 'sorry state of our military', but I don't think too many Canadians (except Mr. Harper's supporters) really want us to do much for the armed forces anyway. It's just wasted money.

If Mr. Harper wants me to shelve my politics in order to get my vote, the least he can do is to shelve his neocon policies if he wins. But I don't trust the fucker.
He might not be. But I do know for sure that Layton and Martin are not the ones who are going to do this. That leaves Harper as my sole hope, however slight it might be.

By international I mean the US and everywhere else. At one time we were one of the most powerful nations in the world (3rd alrgest navy and 4th largest army) we were so internationally relevent that we mediated a war between the powers of France, Britain, and Egypt and made them listen to us. Now thanks to Mulroney and NAFTA our economy is little more than an extension of US'. We should improve relations with the US, but we are almost irrelevent everywhere else. We need to have the ability to support freedom and democracy abroad.

Most Canadians, while we don't want to return to being number 4 do not want our military to have to bum rides from the US, and to be improperly equipped for combat or peacekeeping. We do not want our choppers falling from the sky or our submarines developing leaks and fires. We want a military that might be able to protect us in case of war and that may be able to help in international problems like Darfar, Bosnia, etc.

Now thanks to Mulroney and NAFTA our economy is little more than an extension of US'.
Right on target. I hate Mulroney for that, precisely.
He has stripped Canada of its credibility and international roles.
Before the NAFTA, we had a diversified economy and we were exporting to numerous nations in the world. Now our companies are all being bought by American super-companies, and more than 80% of our exports go to the US. Our economy is tightly coupled with theirs. We have lost our economic independance, which means the US could put political pressure on US at any time.

Everybody's so focused on this stupid same sex debate that are government is ignoring more important issues, such as health care, defence, foriegn affairs, education, etc. Marriage is none of the government's business. Why won't they all just shut up. It's a private ccvenant, and the government should leave it alone.



Couldn't say it any better myself!

Quote:
Harper branded Bill C-38 the product of an illegitimate union. "I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation," he said.


Oh wow when I heard that on the news I just about threw my book at the T.V. That man is so ignorant that it astounds me that he is still the leader of a federal party. In fact, for the fun of it let's take a look at some of the other stupid things Stephen Harper has said.

"It is simply difficult – extremely difficult – for someone to become bilingual in a country that is not. And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been... So there you have it. As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed."
- Stephen Harper on bilingualism, Calgary Sun, May 6th 2001.


Well good thing his sense of logic works :rolleyes:

"The Liberals have allowed a handful of tenured judges to create a situation where churches, synagogues, mosques and temples could be compelled to perform marriages that violate their own moral codes."

- Stephen Harper attacking the Liberals on same-sex marriage, News Hound, September 7th 2003. The proposed law specifically precludes any church, synagogue or mosque from having to conduct any marriage which violates their belief system.

And he always makes sure to have his facts straight

"Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work."

- Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders, who in 2001 called Nelson Mandela "a Communist and terrorist."

:eek: ..these are the people this man trusts as members of his party

"Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made ... that this is analogous to race and ethnicity.... (For) anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, 2003.

Ya because that perfectly fair analogy makes his stance on same-sex marriage sound bad..which it is

But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people.
Stephen Harper

As a general rule, except when it comes to same-sex marriage it would seem

I forget how this one goes exactly because I can't find a source for it..but..

"The same-sex marriage bill threatens Canada's image towards its tolerance of minorites"

Yes, our image of providing equality to minorities is greatly threatened by this proposed furthering of this equality for minorities.

Sheesh, it's like he pulls these out of a hat and hopes to hell that it'll make sense. I bet him and Bush would make good friends.

Note:
Liberal Party of Canada - 135 seats
Conservative party of Canada - 99 seats
Bloc Quebecois - 54 seats (* all in the Quebec province)
New Democratic Party - 19 seats
Independent - 1 seat

I believe that there are three independants, not one?

All of Canadian politics is pissing me off right now.

Everybody's so focused on this stupid same sex debate that are government is ignoring more important issues, such as health care, defence, foriegn affairs, education, etc. Marriage is none of the government's business. Why won't they all just shut up. It's a private ccvenant, and the government should leave it alone.
Ummm. it was this same Harper guy that you praise here that was going to defeat the Liberals on "more important issues, such as health care, defence, foriegn affairs, education, etc.", by voting WITH the Bloc to defeat the budget.

Perhaps you were not paying attention?

I'm quite certain he would have viewed the Bloc's votes as legitimate when HE was in cahoots with them in trying to bring down the government. Now he says their votes are illegitimate when it doesn't serve him. Argh. This is typical of Harper, he says whatever is contrary to the Liberal stance without ever thinking about what he said last week, or last month, or last year. He has no integrity, and is unworthy of leading our country.
AMEN!!

I believe that there are three independants, not one?
Yes, these numbers are outdated by at least 10 months. I haven't found the most recent ones.

Ummm. it was this same Harper guy that you praise here that was going to defeat the Liberals on "more important issues, such as health care, defence, foriegn affairs, education, etc.", by voting WITH the Bloc to defeat the budget.

Perhaps you were not paying attention?
I haven't praised him. I said that he was better than Martin or Layton. Which is not much of a compliment seen as Martin's corrupt and Layton's an idiot. Harper is not good, he's just not as bad as the alternatives. Canada hasn't had a decent politician since Manning retired. As for the handling of this sme-sex debate, they all fail equally.

Make no mistake; nothing short of a parliamentary majority will soothe Mr. Harper. After all, he knows better than anyone in parliament how difficult it can be for a governing minority to rule effectively.
If Harper did win a minority, which party would support him? He just kicked his best buddies (the Bloc) in the balls by calling them illegitimate?

Stephen Harper = possible Joe Clark 2

Except Joe was a far better Canadian than this present ReformaTory.

At one time we were one of the most powerful nations in the world (3rd alrgest navy and 4th largest army)
That was at the end of WW2. You would have liked us to keep up an armed force that employed almost 1 in 11 Canadians?

We want a military that might be able to protect us in case of war.
So, you would like an armed force as big as the US? Who is going to invade Canada? If it is not the US, they would need to come by boat? Besides, as members of the British Commonwealth, we have lots of strong allies and vice versa.

If there was ever another WW, then Canada would respond. We were great at ramping up production in WW2.

That was at the end of WW2. You would have liked us to keep up an armed force that employed almost 1 in 11 Canadians?

So, you would like an armed force as big as the US? Who is going to invade Canada? If it is not the US, they would need to come by boat? Besides, as members of the British Commonwealth, we have lots of strong allies and vice versa.

If there was ever another WW, then Canada would respond. We were great at ramping up production in WW2.
No, we do not need something that insanely large. That was just an example to show how far we've fallen. But a military for our state that could be comparable to other states of the same size would be nice.

We can not match the US period. They outnumber us, outproduce us, and out everything us. We could not win a war against the US.

Yes others would have to come by boat, but that's not all that crazy. Many modern wars are fought by nations attacking far off places. So the navy is as important as the army. Alliances are nice but you can not be dependent on the help of your allies for they could just drop you at teh wrong time.

A moderately-sized, modern, well-equipped force, capable of reaching trouble spots throughout the world is what I want. So we could help our allies, help out in trouble spots before they erupt into a major war, so are forces weren't a national embaressment (no disrespect to the soldiers their doing fine, it's the politicians that are ruining it), so the could keep the peace, and promote democracy and freedom throughout the world.

They should stop with the debate over this non-issue and start working on Canada's real problems. Don't worry, it will soon be a non-issue, as soon as it become legal:)

In any case, we Canadians like to fuss about the minor stuff, and ignore the big stuff...massive corruption and so on (how much have we spent on the gun registry now? over a billion?), but then again if this particular issue wasn't an issue, it wouldn't be an issue...you follow?

Trust me, it makes sense. It's only a big kerfuffle because people resist it so much when there are much more important (and bad) things going on in Canada...

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=18f3ed3d-b8a2-4021-81ae-f81c6da8838d


Gov. set to OK same-sex marriage

Canadian Press

June 28, 2005

OTTAWA -- When the Liberals began the process of legalizing gay marriage in Canada, Jean Chretien was in office and Paul Martin was waiting in the wings to become prime minister.

Now, about two years later, the bill is on the verge of being passed in the House of Commons. Bill C-38, titled Law on Civil Marriage, is expected to clear the House on Tuesday evening after the Liberal government moved on Monday to limit debate and set up Canada as just the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage.

The idea goes back about four years but it was in the summer of 2003 that the Liberals sent the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for advice.

Gay marriages were already being performed in some provinces after lower courts overturned traditional marriage laws. But the same rights weren't afforded to homosexuals across the country.

The bill first made it to the Commons in February amid internal dissent within the Liberal party and opinion polls split on the issue.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has led the charge against the legislation. On Monday, he raised eyebrows by saying a gay marriage law will be stamped with illegitimacy because it will owe its passage to Quebec separatists.

Same-sex marriage legislation would have been thwarted if only federalists MPs were casting ballots, the Conservative leader said.

"The truth is most federalist MPs oppose this. It's only a deal with the Bloc that's allowing it to pass."

The Bloc has 54 of the 308 seats in the Commons.

"We're elected," responded Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe. "Our mandate is every bit as legitimate as any member who sits in this chamber.

Early Tuesday, the gay marriage legislation survived a second vote in the House with 154 MPs voting for and 124 voting against, including 24 Liberals and the NDP's Bev Desjarlais, who could be suspended from caucus for not following the party's line.

Minister of State Joe Comuzzi, a vocal opponent of the legislation, was in the House for the vote but abstained. Another cabinet minister against the bill, Natural Resources Minister John Efford, was absent.

Just an hour earlier, a government motion supported by the Bloc and NDP was passed to limit debate to another eight hours, culminating with a final vote on Tuesday night.

Belgium and the Netherlands are the only other countries to permit same-sex weddings.


I got no opinion on this, any thoughts?

Our government should start focusing on issues that matter and leave marriage alone. It's none of their business.

Right on target. I hate Mulroney for that, precisely.
He has stripped Canada of its credibility and international roles.
Before the NAFTA, we had a diversified economy and we were exporting to numerous nations in the world. Now our companies are all being bought by American super-companies, and more than 80% of our exports go to the US. Our economy is tightly coupled with theirs. We have lost our economic independance, which means the US could put political pressure on US at any time.
Ah....we have more than Mulroney to blame for our 'pact with the devil' (our closeness with the US). It's been an issue from the beginning. If we hadn't made unions illegal way back when, we wouldn't have had to 'get around that' by importing US unions...and now look at all the money that goes south in the form of Union dues (especially in the trades) instead of doing some good in Canada. NAFTA alone didn't fuck us, we fucked ourselves from the getgo.

I bet him and Bush would make good friends.

Where do you suppose the Tories get their backing from?

Eh?

Another good example from Canada that the USA should follow

Our government should start focusing on issues that m atter and leave marriage alone. It's none of tehir business.
Too late. Let's just get it over with, let it happen, and move on.

I was praying that this was the U.S. You broke my dreams.

Another good example from Canada that the USA should follow
What? waiting two years before complying with the Supreme Court's decision?
About time, I say.

Oh wait, you were talking about allowing the same rights to the Gay population ;) I'm with you on that one. :)

I was praying that this was the U.S. You broke my dreams.
I know me too

If Harper did win a minority, which party would support him?

Well, that's just it. No-one but a terminal fool would pin their hopes on the Tories' lead balloon.

He just kicked his best buddies (the Bloc) in the balls by calling them illegitimate?

Oh, yes. I think he has now definitively shut the door on any future dealings with M. Duceppe & co.

Stephen Harper = possible Joe Clark 2

Except Joe was a far better Canadian than this present ReformaTory.

Yeah, but Joe was an old-school Tory. These new Tories have nothing to do with Progressive Conservatism. I'll tell you, Robert Stanfield is spinning in his grave every time this charmless man (Harper) manages to fit yet another inch of his foot past his tonsils.

So let me get this straight, not only has Harper alienated all of the gay and lesbian community, but now he's also alienated him and his party from all of Quebec? LMAO! The conservatives in Canada don't seem to be able to get anything right, do they? I recall a few weeks ago Harper thought the Bloc was just fine to bring down the government.. what an idiot. Martin is probably laughing his ass off. The conservatives are doomed. Well unless they change leadership before the next election.

Our government should start focusing on issues that matter and leave marriage alone. It's none of their business.
You're right, it shouldn't be in their power to deny the right to some people and allow it to others.

Our government should start focusing on issues that matter and leave marriage alone. It's none of their business.

I kinda agreed with ur thoughts. But what I believe is that this issue should've been put on a referendum so that people can decide instead of these grey-haired MPs in the House of Commons.

So let me get this straight, not only has Harper alienated all of the gay and lesbian community, but now he's also alienated him and his party from all of Quebec? LMAO! The conservatives in Canada don't seem to be able to get anything right, do they? I recall a few weeks ago Harper thought the Bloc was just fine to bring down the government.. what an idiot. Martin is probably laughing his ass off. The conservatives are doomed. Well unless they change leadership before the next election.

No, Xanaz - even if they change leaders before the next election, they're still doomed. I figure it'll take another six to seven years before the new Tories figure out what it was that people liked about the old Tories enough to vote 'em in periodically. Even then, it'll still take three or four years of hard work convincing the nation they're not all a pack of drooling reactionary troglodytes... and even then, well...

I actually feel incredibly sorry for bona fide Progressive Conservatives in our country. They are being denied a voice (well except for the governing Libs, who come as close to old-style PC as you can get, of course) in parliament.

I kinda agreed with ur thoughts. But what I believe is that this issue should've been put on a referendum so that people can decide instead of these grey-haired MPs in the House of Commons.
A referendum cannot deny rights that were granted by the Charter. I'm glad they didn't waste time and money on a national referendum.

I kinda agreed with ur thoughts. But what I believe is that this issue should've been put on a referendum so that people can decide instead of these grey-haired MPs in the House of Commons.
Continuation of denying people equal rights should never be put to a popular vote

People should not be denied equality just because it is popular to do so

iMerge.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I kinda agreed with ur thoughts. But what I believe is that this issue should've been put on a referendum so that people can decide instead of these grey-haired MPs in the House of Commons.
Yes! That will be a much more efficient use of our tax dollars![/sarcasm]

Belgium and the Netherlands are the only other countries to permit same-sex weddings
The article errs, Germany has same-sex marriage as well. Except that it isnt called that. It is called lifepartnership. That technicality aside, the supreme court ruled that both marriage and lifepartnership have to have the same rights and any discrepancy is to be removed. It is equal rights, different term here.

The article errs, Germany has same-sex marriage as well. Except that it isnt called that. It is called lifepartnership. That technicality aside, the supreme court ruled that both marriage and lifepartnership have to have the same rights and any discrepancy is to be removed. It is equal rights, different term here.
In Germany are the two covered under the same law? (personally I distrust having “separate” but equal terms but I can understand how they are just language choice) but if there is truly separate laws covering them then we get back to true “separate but equal” which I defiantly don’t trust

IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THE USA!

*this thread won't please (or confirm their beliefs of Canadians) the USians on board here unless we mention/blame them at least six times...*

IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THE USA!

*this thread won't please (or confirm their beliefs of Canadians) the USians on board here unless we mention/blame them at least six times...*
I am a USian and I have no requirement for you to do such in order to confirm my beliefs that in some ways canada has made some great decisions

In Germany are the two covered under the same law? (personally I distrust having “separate” but equal terms but I can understand how they are just language choice) but if there is truly separate laws covering them then we get back to true “separate but equal” which I defiantly don’t trust
Of course the laws are seperate. When the laws concerning marriage were made there was no thinking of gay marriage. The point is that every part of the law defining rights and duties for heterosexuals has to be transferred to homosexuals as well, by order of the supreme court. That doesnt mean they copied the marriage laws letter by letter, but it ensures equal rights for all couples.

I think Same sex marriage should be allowed! I mean yea it's different or we may think it's weird but, unles you're gay it really isn't any of our business. They are ppl just like us and if they fall in love and wanna get married who are we to stop them.

Continuation of denying people equal rights should never be put to a popular vote

People should not be denied equality just because it is popular to do so

I belief in equality, thats why i voted for the NDP. Ur right, people's equal right cannot be put to a popular vote.


Stephen Harper = possible Joe Clark 2

nahh, it should be Stephen Harper = George W Bush

I think Same sex marriage should be allowed! I mean yea it's different or we may think it's weird but, unles you're gay it really isn't any of our business. They are ppl just like us and if they fall in love and wanna get married who are we to stop them.

Ding!

Another winner...what'd they win, Chet?

Stephen Harper is merely pandering to his base. He knows he lost the vote and can't do anything about it, so he find empty rethoric like questionning the legitimacy of the bill to not loose to much political clout in his party.

Just like the Bloc qould have no problems blaming the Conservative for all the problems in the world if it had a chance to help bring the separation of Quebec.

Canadian Politics: Today's allies are tomorrow's scapegoat.

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
Stephen Harper = possible Joe Clark 2
Ever heard about Joe Clark's Hole (National Park) ?

(Only a true Canadian watching CBC would know)

Ever heard about Joe Clark's Hole (National Park) ?

(Only a true Canadian watching CBC would know)
I prefer the Peter's Mans Bridge.

Or Jean Poutine.