Warwick Green

Not really. If a married woman gets pregnant her husband is considered to be the father even if he is not and his name will be on the birth certificate. Then it's a lie. Who's to know? If wifey has been stepping out and gets knocked up she is hardly likely to tell hubby the kid isn't his.

From the child's perspective, how is it any different? In the court ruling the child has two legal mothers; a step-mother however is not a mother. In reality what the ruling means is that if the birth mother dies, the woman's partner will become the child's mother.

Not really. If a married woman gets pregnant her husband is considered to be the father even if he is not and his name will be on the birth certificate.

So your daughter has no problem with two mothers? That's the normal arrangement. It's not two mothers in the sense that a judge has decided that the partner of a lesbian is also the mother of the other woman's daughter. Monty Python could have done a great skit on this - "The Ministry of Silly Family Arrangements"

I'm remarried. My second wife is the step-mother of the daughter from my first marriage.

The judiciary didn't give Canada same sex marriage. It already existed. The law just recognized it and ruled the law that two equal people couldn't be married. Do you have a citation for the RCMP believing that the courts would rule polygamy legal? I've never seen that. The courts interpreted the charter to read that SSM was a constitutional right. They could do the same with polygamy. Fascinating case. In this one the sperm donor was recognized as the father with the lesbian wife wanting to be declared as the second mother. What if the lesbian couple did not want to give the sperm donor any recognition and he sued to be recognized as the third parent? I doubt the lesbian couple would be happy.

The court ruled this way because parents, step parents and legal guardians all have recognition now. The laws simply acknowledges a fact that already exists in families across Canada. The law on polygamy still exists. I don't see that changing as a result of this. It was the judiciary that gave us SSM - that nobody but gays wanted. Who knows, we may see polygamy yet. The RCMP don't want to charge the folks in Bountiful, BC with polygamy; they are worried it might be declared a constitutional right.

It mixes up natural parenting with the legal definition of marriage. If there can be three parents (as determined by the judiciary) why can't we have three married parents? We may have seen the first step to polygamy.

If these couples are promiscuous and already are spreading infection I doubt this bill will changes things.

And if the bill is passed does anyone think the terrorists will care?

Don't stereotype Christians as idiots. They're more than capable of having deeper concerns than gay marriage. I agree most do. It's those few who look upon SSM as the end of the world who give all other Christians a bad name.

Yup. I would agree that there are major obstacles.

As I suspected the United Church is a political party, not a religious organization.

A hint of what will happen when Rae becomes PM. He would have allocated half the Senate seats in Ontario to women in the event the Senate became elected. So only women could have run in those seats. Rae keeps telling us how much he has learned since then. Lets hope one of those things is that this approach is undemocratic

Right. And the only way Rae could have made his proposal work is to designate some Senate seats as "women-only" seats. And then others, Aboriginals, blacks, Muslims etc would say, "What are we, chopped liver? Don't we get guaranteed seats too?" Soon we don't have a democracy any more.

Let's not forget Herr Rae who, if an elected Senate came about, was, as Premier, going to "guarantee" 50% of the senators from the Province of Opportunity would be from the distaff side. This guy could be PM one day.

The tories want to increase the age of consent to 16 from 14 for heterosexuals. It should be the same for gay sex as well. I can't think of any reason why it would be different.

And the Liberal efforts with Iran were no more successful. And, by the way, back then they were just as vocal about yelling "human rights abuses" as Harper is now.

That explains it. Tory Gothic. Those are the ones they are pandering to.

He'll be lucky if all he gets is a prison term. He's accused of murder and terrorism. MacKay claims that Canada has an "understanding" with PRC not to execute him but even MacKay didn't sound convincing. Next week the Goon Show starts in Montreal so no doubt we will all hear about how to improve Sino-Canadian relations.

In next Spring's election (Harper vs Rae) people (read the Asian community) will forget Harper's ham-fisted diplomacy and remember that he stood up for the rights of Huseyin Celil now in the custody of the PRC. On the hand, if Harper had been more diplomatic would it have helped release Mr Celil? Who knows?

Well, after reading the happenings in Britain (please refer to the other topic "British Muslims groomed to Kill at the rest of the world section, especially the article I've posted, Piggybacking On Terror In Britain), I have changed my views...dramatically. I hope to see the west take a strong stand. Tolerance is not for those who seek not to tolerate others...but also seek to destroy. The west had been generous in opening its doors....but its way of life should not be jeopardized, nor its citizens be endangered by doing so. Not in our own soil! Only those who truly wish to partake of the freedom and the way of life that we offer should be welcome to stay. Those who seek to change our way of life by every means possible, should not be welcomed by us. I don't know if our Muslim clerics are as bad as some. One in the UK (now in jail awaiting deportation to the US) used to tell his congregation that they had a holy obligation to kill a Jew before they die. The UK allowed him to preach that without talking action. Now I fully believe in the freedom of speech and am opposed to "hate speech" laws. But this is over the edge. If a Muslim preacher did that here we should charge him exhorting people to commit a crime.