fixer1

I am undecided as to what to do with the SSM problem. I really do not care myself about whethere gay couples are officially recognized, and treated as equalls to mainstream married couples. I just do not see why they need to have the word marriage in their union to reflect that. My position is that as long as everything else is equal, then why the need for the definition of marriage to be changed to include them. It is not as if they are saying that they are so alike you can not see the difference. The fact is they are different then the mainstream, and it was not that long ago just being gay was a crime punishable by law. So I do believe we have come a long way, and I am not sure I can say I want the definition of marriage to change, just to include them. But I also do not want them to be denied any rights that married couples have, as that would not be right. I guess what it comes down to is children grow up thinking that marriage is between a man and a woman, and they go on to have child and raise a feamily. The gay marriage is not of the same make up, and any family raised in these unions will not be of the mainstrean ways and means. So there are differences to these unions. Religion plays a lot into how we see marriage and I do believe that if it were not for religions we would not even have marriages, defined by the present state. I was married by a Justice of the peace and I find it no problem to say I had a Civil Marriage or union. I wonder at just how much of this is political posturing and how much is demands by the gay community. Does it matter if the word marriage is used or Union is used as long as everything else is the same? I guess if someone can convince me that it is really a large difference, and show me why, in pratical terms I would say fine change the definition. But to change it for something of so little consequence is not something I would want to start doing.

I hope John Manley does not get back into politics. He was never a very bright person to begin with, but never was he leadership material, unless you count being the parties yes man to Chretien as being a quality. Ignatief was supposedly being groomed for leadership, but I can not see him as being in anyway ready for it. First he needs to do something to prove himself. McKenna, would definitely be one of the possibilities, but I do not see him as leadership material yet, but it is not that their are many choices. Stronach, while a new comer, does have some possibilities, but also has many liabilities as well. But if she did give it a go, and she has the money and backing to try. It would be a first for the liberals in having a women as party leader, and that would play well with the voters next time out. But she would really have to take a high profile position on publicly displaying her beliefs, before she would be seriously considered. It will be interesting to watch.

I at one time favoured her to lead the Conservatives over Harper, as I was sure she had proven business sense. I was very disappointed at her switching to the liberal side and how she did it, but if her constituents can forgive her for that, then I guess I can do so as well. I can see her trying to run for liberal party leader, if Martin resigns, but I do not think she will make it in the liberal party for quite some time. he has the time and the money to wait it out though. I am not too sure she has the temperment to do so. I guess time will tell.