JMH

Does it matter? Either you accept that as Canadians we believe all citizens are equal under the Charter or you don't. It doesn't matter how many there are or whether we like them or even whether we approve. A quick example for you. In the 1800's it was common practice for both british and french immigrants in canada to marry First Nations women. After awhile, both the Anglican and Catholic churches decided they didn't like this so they nullified all marriages saying that since the women were not baptized Christains early enough (they had to make it that way because most of them had converted to Christianity before or at the time of their marriage) the marriages were not valid. Many women were abandoned by their spouses. So, would you accept this restriction to the Charter? Can a religion say, sorry we don't like you savages so we'll nullify your sacrements, the ones we performed? There is an old saying "First they came for the gypsies but I wasn't a gypsey so I didn't care. Then they came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't care. Then they came for the homosexuals but I wasn't a homosexual so I didn't care. Then they came for me but there was nobody left to care." Gay marriage has nothing to with the charter -as it has already been decided upon.............the charter allows civil unions by default. Gay marriage, on the other hand can not be passed; Its ironic but true that the charter would have to be violated (freedom of faith) in order to allow same sex marriage to occur. Even more ironic is the fact that the only way out of this (legally) is the use of the "not with standing clause".

Memories of Y2K. I was laughing last night when CBC media (from the East primarily) seemed genuinely upset by our new Gov. Many journalists conveyed a less than positive slant to their "non-partisan" responsabilities, suggesting that the Liberals just needed a time-out to regroup and take Canada by storm again?.........soon. Mr. Martins immediate resignation was precisely what I'd suspected in this circumstance aswell. He came across (to me) as a spoiled little brat during his tennure. Well he now comes across as being a spoiled little brat that can't stand to lose. "How dare the little people of Canada treat me this way". Well, I'm glad he's gone and that woman that squaked like a parrot too (deputy prime minister). As long as Harper doesn't spend too much time under "Dubuya's" desk, all is well in Canada.

I don't blame them either but if you hadn't noticed, our entire border patrol would have to be reformed in order for these people to be armed. Lets face it, we have low wage, poorley skilled staff guarding the 49th parallel. Lets arm "Wall-Mart greeters" first and see how it goes.

Unfortunately, radical gays decided to beat on church doors demanding marriage as opposed to civil unions. Many of the clergy refused and it became a civil rights issue. I'd be curious to know how many gay people exist in Canada. Any stats?

I can only say that after my divorce, I had nothing...........nothing. From 120K a year , I went downtown and hit every construction site. I got a job as a labourer on site at $10 an hour. It took time, patience and hard work to get ahead. I passed so manny able bodied , young folks along my walk to work ( bummin change )that I learned. If your a lazy piece of shit ..........your a lazy piece of shit. By the time I finished the construction project, I was second in command and had to "order" labour from a slave shop. The guys and gals on the street weren't interested.

Actually, I saw him in a leather bar (dont ask) , He was doing karioke with his chinese wife, singing several "village people" tunes. Unfortunatly, he blended in far too well. what ashame.

My sincere apoligies Melanie. I felt that you were attacking me for what I deem is simply reasonable. I'm very sorry. I suppose that my summation on the topic would be that the political road concerning this issue had come to an end long ago (unnanimously in parliment-in your favour.....witch I agree with); you won! The Religious aspect however, is just that. Some people beleive in GOD Melanie. Our own charter dictates that they function without interference from others, so that they may live in peace unto their following. These words are telling. Ironiclly, these same chartered rights are used against the church in the name of Homosexual rights. This is my point..........; neither party has the legal chartered right to impose its dogma upon the other . All that can be done-should be done, has been done. The effect of witch , I consider to be amongst the most progresive in the world. We are not Europe. We are not the U.S.A.. We are Canada. We are fortunate to be privy to the failings of other democracys and our ability to learn and adapt. Again, please accept my apology JMH

Being serious Drea, I would have lunch with a different choice but thats me...........and you are........you. Thats what makes this country great in my oppinion; the ability to disagree with one another yet not be too far off base with each other at the same time. It allows refinements to be made, as needed by the people with a minimum of fiscal or cultural impact. We are getting there! Efficiency in Gov.........................weird.

Thanks Drea, it's rare that someone says a nice thing about my thoughts anymore. They want me for my Nachos.

Well done. Well done fine SIR! At least someone is thinking "outside of the box" today. Are you gonna eat that?

Many marriages function just fine without religion, believe it or not (I suspect you will not). You don't need to have a religious ceremony to be joined in marriage, but the word still applies. Churches have always had the right to refuse to marry someone who doesn't conform to their beliefs, and that still stands, which is why they can't have the monopoly on the word "marriage" - it is accessible to all, regardless of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Do we really need to have this debate again? Well Melanie, I was "married" to my wife in a civil ceremony (it was the best day of my life). As my post indicates quite clearly, I'm not in the least bit........religous. My post (if you read and understood it) is quite simple. Special interest groups have no buisness whatsoever in using Gov. in an atempt to modify doctrines of "the church" (they may be nuts, but thats the way they are.........kumbaiya!). Conversely, the church (a special interest group also) has no buisness manipulating Gov. in the name of GOD concerning "homosexuality". So, if what you are saying is accurate, we wouldn't be discussing it would we? There has been immense pressure on the "more open minded church communities" to preform these "marriages". Many members of clergy have been fired for taking a stance on either side. And for what? So radical gay couples can add a WORD to their movement. My wife and I have many gay freinds (Vancouver), and a male gay couple we've known for 20 years are our finest of freinds..............and guess what? They don't agree with you. In their opinion, your stance undermines the original purpose of the gay movement; acceptance and equality within the populace.........equal not special........live and let live. These days, you just piss people off and create issues within a media that is starving for fluff so FUCK YOU.

As I've gone through the forum topics and discussions, I'm astounded by the number of comparisons with the U.S. ..............from every "Camp"; blues and reds, radical christian right, bleeding heart liberals and on and on. I wish that it would stop. The "group-think Bullshit" has seemingly made it across the border. WOW. Apart from being predominently english speaking and having common genetic stock at the births' of our nations', we have very little in common. Our "radical right wing conservatives" make up such a piddley-ass amount of the population, that its laughable. The "radical left" has (of late) shaved their armpits, gotten a haircut and entered the workforce.........and the "Greeners" well..........nobody can figure out where they're at. So what do we have? Middle of the road people that want to get along, do well and be responsable to our own needs and help others whenever we can. Summary: we have no radical political debate in this country.......boring is good! The three relevent parties in this election have, essentially, the same platform. Yes, there are some issues added for excitement (Canadians need drama to get to the polls), but its all the same shit. In the global sense, we're doing pretty good. The real question is: If you could have a two hour martini lunch with any of the leaders, who would it be? Witch one of these "political animals" would you get along with the best?.............................................................The one that picks up the tab?, or the one that goes "Dutch"? Food for thought.

Unfortunately, it seems that many of the conservative candidates are far from socially liberal: G&M article I particularly like this quote: Wow. belittling homosexuals AND women at the same time. There's social progress for you. I think it is time for a change to a FISCALLY conservative gov't, however, many Canadians are afraid of the social conservatism baggage that appears to be coming along for the ride. I suppose that the Christian right can say what they will, but it doesn't change anything concerning Mr. Harpers mandate (Political suicide isn't on the agenda). That being said, I find it interesting that you seem to feel that this group of religous folks (of witch I am not a member) is bull-dozing the rights of gay people. I say to the contrary. " Marriage" is a religous function, period. Same sex couples were offered all the legal rights and benefits that exist in Canada today-Civil Unions- (by all parties in Gov.); but that wasn't good enough. The more radical gay folks demanded that the Gov. cross the line of "church and state" and force the church to perform Gay "Marriages". So who is treading on who's rights here? If Gay people need to be married in the church.........take it up with the church for christs sake! ALL parties of the Gov. have done everthing that can be done . This is NOT a political issue........PERIOD!

Few Prime Ministers in our history have had sustantial experience in global circles before their appointment to the PMO. It's widely acknoledged that Mr. Harper is very impresive "one on one" concerning diplomatic affairs. I do find the "experience" debate amusing on another front however ; Mr. Martin entered public life armed with an arts degree (philosophy), and went on to secure a law degree (what "the privaliged people" do when they dont know what to do) and became our finance minister. Mr. Harper holds a graduate degree in economics. I'm quite certain that Mr. Harper has a better understanding of the global marketplace, its trends and pitfalls. Intelligent investments and fiscal transparency will be the foundations that permit our future growth.

I'm baffled by some Canadians hysterics when it comes to Mr. Harper becoming the next PM. What exactly do these people think is going to happen? Is it realistic to think that Harper will "throw away" his political career by enacting radical right wing policies? Is he running for PM in order to be bounced out on his can in 18 months? Pretty silly if you ask me. As a society, the vast majority of Canadians fall into the "social liberal- fiscal conservative" realm. If Mr. Harper were to head in any direction beyond "moderate", he and the Conservative Party would become extinct as a political species in this country. Be assured chicken little, the sky is NOT falling.