YankAbroad

Again, why are majority religions insisting that their "right" to violate the rights of other people (including other religions) is charter-protected? A ban on gay marriage violates the freedom of faith of religions which conduct gay marriages today -- including Quakers and significant branches of Judaism and Christianity. Does their right to practice their faith as they see fit not matter?

Oh boy -- silliness like this is one reason why I think most pronouncements by the heterosexual establishment about gays are so funny and ridiculous. Here's one of the vast majority of gay men who neither "tried hetero first" nor ever had an inclination to "try hetero." And one who also knows the vast majority of straight men never had the inclination to "try homo" either.

And the UN said Saddam Hussein had stocks of WMDs. My point is, Canada's got to stop being schizophrenic. Either it wants free trade with the USA -- which goes both ways and has no restrictions on what can be imported or exported, or it wants to "protect its markets and resources," in which case it cannot get into a big tizzy when the Americans do the same thing. It's simple, really. I'm happy to let Canada sell oil to the Chinese without US opposition once Canada makes sufficient investment in continental defence. As long as it's not going to have sufficient armed forces to guarantee its own territory and instead lean on the Americans, I don't think it's in a place to determine what does or doesn't risk continental security -- since it won't be in a position to fix continental security if it miscalculates. Again, Canada loves double standards. We invest in Canadian companies and provide the capital needed to get at the oil in them thar sands, we're "taking things over." But if we put Canadian-style taxes or tariffs on markets we want to protect, we're being "unfair free traders." Such schizophrenia can not persist forever -- eventually the Canadian polity will have to decide whether it wants free trade and prosperity, or protectionism and poverty for the sake of misguided and silly nationalist pride.

Of course you don't, because you like him and thus overlook his race-baiting (such as when he plays the theme song to "the Jeffersons" while discussing Carol Moseley Braun). But when someone you don't like race-baits, you do notice. So he was just race-baiting for the hell of it? C'mon. Get real. I hate to break it to you, but Nagin was an up-and-comer in the Republican party for years and years before he switched party registrations in order to run for Mayor. He endorsed Bobby Jindal for governor and also donated to the Bush campaign in both 2000 and 2004 -- endorsing Dubya both times. I doubt his comments were suddenly developed as a result of his Demopublican registration.

Canadian companies have purchased many major American companies -- Banknorth and Waterhouse securities both come to mind immediately. Of course, big corporate transactions by multinationals which have no real nationality don't address the idiotic trade barriers erected against everyday people. You cannot have it both ways -- on one hand, dumping lumber below cost in the USA and declaring it's your right to have unfettered access to our markets, and then on the other hand, closing Canada off to American services and labour. Choose one or the other.

I think Harper should tap Lucien Bouchard. . . for national unity's sake!

tml, you clearly don't understand US politics. The Republicrats NEVER race bait. Only the Demopublicans do.

Remind me again -- what's the difference between Paul Martin declaring that Stephen Harper isn't a real Canadian and hates Canada's values because of his views on health care. . . and your declaring that BubberMiley should leave Canada because his values don't square with yours on religion?

Preston Manning as Canadanistani ambo to Washnothing? Well, weirder things have happened. George W. Bush became presnit, for instance.

One could ask the same of the Canadian government. Its policies towards American migrants, American investment, and American commerce in Canada have cost it considerable amounts of money. For instance, since 1998, I have been stymied so many times by Canadian laws on sales, importing, labour, etc. that I've made investment decisions elsewhere. I estimate it has cost Canada seven full-time jobs averaging about $70,000 a year (which I created in the USA and the UK instead), over $6 million in direct economic activity (due to trade shows and consulting revenue which ended up happening in countries other than Canada), about $800,000 in taxes, and another $500,000 or so in capital investment (mostly office space). And that's just lil' ol' me. I have several colleagues (not to mention competitors) whose numbers dwarf mine. We all comment on how truculent, arrogant, backwards and protectionist the Canadian government is, especially in dealing with American business, and how its sense of entitlement in full access to US markets but protection for Canadian enterprises undermines the Canadian economy. There's a reason why the dominion's economic growth has been so stagnant compared to that of the States. . .

Why isn't it? I don't need to redefine society -- nor do I need supposed representatives of "society" to define my life for me in their terms. Alrighty. Actually, it's not. But I'll not focus on that part of the argument for now. So what about churches or religious traditions outside of Christianity which will marry two men or two women? Why aren't their views valid? Why should the state be involved in deciding who gets tax benefits, death benefits, etc? Shouldn't people be able to assign those to whoever they want? See, this is the big problem of putting government in such a role. Not only are you opening yourself up to having other people's view of marriage made official, but you're also making the government in charge of who gets your stuff when you die, tax free, rather than you, and who can visit you in the hospital, who you can import as a partner from abroad, etc. Frankly, given the continued crumbling of government-registered "marriages," which lack a real rational basis other than letting government control freaks run our sex lives for us, "marriage" as defined by the government today is already a laughable joke and pretty much out of business. As for "protecting it from further decay" by limiting participation, that's a bit like saving a store which is about to go out of business by turning away paying customers. It doesn't make much sense. I don't think the present marriage situation in Canada (or most other countries) makes sense anyway. Get government out of the business of deciding who is or isn't married entirely, open up the rights and responsibilities of licensed marriage to everyone, including single people, and let those who see religious or secular significance in ceremonies get "married" however they want.

The answer is 1922. The point being that "marriage of one man and one woman under the law" is a "tradition" which is considerably younger than Ivory Soap and not much older than poutine. It's just a babe compared to legal slavery and voting rights based on male gender/property ownership. Appeals to "traditional definitions" don't help there one iota. Why not? Why is it your business? Shouldn't you be focusing on your own marriage, given that between one in three and one in two fail in divorce? Incidentally, one of the delicious ironies of "one man one woman under the law," (besides the fact it's not a "tradition" at all) is the fact that about half of all married Canadian men will not be one man, one woman but one man, one woman followed by another woman or two after a divorce or two. Nothing tickles me to death more than having someone who has been married two, three or more times lecture me about the "sanctity of marriage" when I've never been married.

I walked into my local voting booth in 2004, and imagine my surprise to see Americans everywhere. EVERYWHERE. No Canadians, no Britons, just Americans. And mostly heterosexual ones too. It's clearly an effort to intimidate me from going to the polls. We must stop this outrage.

Actually, under the BNAC, Parliament -- the Crown -- reigns supreme. But humour me here. How long have "marriage licenses" been issued in North America? I'll give you a hint -- Canada didn't issue them until well after the USA started to, and US states didn't begin to until 1911.

Quick bit of trivia -- when did Canada start issuing its first marriage licenses -- i.e. "the legal union of a man and a woman?"

And that matters. . . why? Of course, there is no real definition of marriage per se -- unless you're citing the government's licensing criteria (which lack a rational basis). They, they, they. Have you not realized how often you've used that term? Now tell me -- as an American, I am used to Canadians from across the political spectrum lecturing me on what a diverse communitarian society Canada is. Integrated, disparate, but always communitarian. But suddenly, when people talk about gays in Canadian politics, it's almost as though they're Gays -- not Canadians. Now I'm one of Them as well, but I'm not quite sure where to get my Gay passport. Although I am sure that Gaylandia is clean, low-crime, and tastefully decorated, I have no clue as to where the consulate is. So are Asians, blacks, Catholics, NDPers, and First Nations. Ditto for being black, Catholic, etc. So you're OK with the filthy fags not being imprisoned, but you're just not keen on letting them into the marriage welfare club. Whose definition of marriage? Are you Catholic? If not, you cannot get married in a Catholic church, because the Catholics' definition of marriage is different from Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Reform Jews, or atheists who go down to the justice of the peace. They get that from the existing view of marriage today? Could've fooled me. When I was growing up, most of what I saw was a bunch of loud, hypocritical married people getting married "for love," leaving each other "when the magic was gone," maybe having kids, maybe not. Again, what's "mainstream?" If you accept that the majority has the right to tell gays how to raise their kids, do you accept that the majority has the right to tell you how to raise your kids, or punish you for conveying views to them which aren't "mainstream?" That way be dragons. Again, who is this "we," and what makes its pronouncements of "them" valid? Speaking as a gay man, my observation is that the people who talk and think most about gay marriages are the people who think and talk the most about gay sex -- social conservatives. Well, then, I expect you'll be accepting the marriage definition of whatever religious belief happens to come along then, right? And have it imposed uniformly? No divorces, for instance, without annullments? No marriages of virgins to nonvirgins, or Catholics to non-Catholics who refuse to accept pre-marriage counselling first?

This is absolutely correct. The sad part is that this is something which people aren't objecting. As a Quaker homosexual, the idea that the government has a "right" to impose its view of marriage on me is likely as horrifying as it is to a Baptist heterosexual. The irony is that in my country, the United States, marriage was a private religious and social institution with no standing under the law -- other than contract law -- until the early 20th century. The "marriage license" grew up out of a "need" to "protect morality" by preventing white people from marrying black people and vice-versa. Ironically, many of the laws today which restrict homosexuals from getting married, even in places where marriage is permitted, such as Massachusetts, are simply the old "anti-miscegenation" laws from 1913 which were dusted off and reactivated. One would think that a legal precedent with such a dubious history would receive critical scrutiny, but no, we fragile sheep all baaaaaaa in lines waiting for the government to pat us on the head and "allow" us to get married. Egads. It's good to know SOMEONE does. I'm not crazy after all, everyone ELSE is.

Engh, while I refuse to bash religionists, I also refuse to accord the "respect" they demand for irrational mysticism based simply on a demand that people. . . respect irrational mysticism. A priori declarations of "moral superiority" and people who are "immoral" or "crazy" may make the demogogue uttering them feel important and elevated above those he scorns, but they're rarely based on a logical appraisal of the situation. A logical appraisal of the situation would automatically conclude that the problem isn't religious beliefs, irreligious beliefs, gays, or straights, but rather the idea that government should be the final and exclusive authority on whether someone is married or not -- rather than the two people who voluntarily enter into the marriage.

The traditional definition of marriage is "a giant government registry which is used to deny single people, gays, and others who aren't politically favoured a whole host of immigration and taxation rights, while erecting a special welfare program for individuals who register their opposite-sex sex partner with a government office?" Something tells me that most religions -- including those which marry gays -- would take umbrage at the definition you're proposing!

Exactly, he'll shrug after losing and say "Well guys, I tried."

My church marries gays and has done so for many decades now. What's the basis for a religious argument again? Ohhhhh. . . that a majority of religious organizations don't marry gays. Does that mean they have the right to infringe on the rights of those which do? If so, why isn't there a right for the majority of agnostic/atheist/secular Canadians to infringe on the rights of churches? Slippery slopes. . .

Now, I'm a libertarian (blasted as right-wing by American liberals), and I must admit I completely don't understand the supposed "conservative" position on same sex marriage. Conservatives are all about supposedly getting government OUT of people's lives, letting people live their lives as they choose, etc. -- but most support this big, huge, unwieldy intrusion into private life called "government marriage licenses." It would make the craziest socialist central planner grin from ear to ear. Quite simply, my dear conservative friends, you may not like gays getting together and living as they see fit -- but lots of them don't like how you live either. If they could get a majority with other people who don't like how you live and ban you, would you be in favour of that? I don't think so. Finally, the argument that it will cause society to collapse is especially ludicrous coming from supposed free marketeers. Are you genuinely arguing that people wouldn't enter committed relationships and raise families if it wasn't for a giant government registration and welfare program? Seems pretty unconservative to me.

Give an example of republicans race baiting. The Rush Limbaugh show provides almost daily examples, particularly re: Carol Moseley-Braun, Jesse Jackson, etc. In terms of politicians, the Trent Lott fiasco comes to mind.

Nope. George W. Bush didn't say "our best guess is that Iraq has WMDs and we cannot risk otherwise." He said "we know they have them, we know where they are, it is beyond doubt." Your man lied. Deal with it.

As for "liberal racism," how come conservative Republicans only seem to think race-baiting is bad when liberals do it, but are happy to do it themselves?