maldon_road

One of the interesting aspects of the Canadian condition is the willing to restrict free speech in the interests of "fairness". When I look at hatemeisters (David Ahenakew and Larry Spencer come to mind) they did far more damage to their social standing and careers by shooting their mouths off about, respectively, Jews and gays, than the state could ever do by a prosecution and a $2500 fine. We don't need "hate speech" restrictions. Society knows how to deal with them.

And a few years ago they executed 14 plant mangers for not meeting their quality control standards. Heads will roll over this latest fiasco.

Does sacrilege justify violence?

You are talking about developments that have occurred over the last 25 years. The right to alimony, for example.

The government gave it the same legal status as marriage.

We can blame the government for "legalizing" common-law relationships and making divorce easier as the causes for marriage breakdowns or we can blame it on a self-centred society that doesn't want to take responsibility, that finds it easier to chuck a marriage than sit down with the other person and make an effort to make it work.

Given the very limited use of SSM I doubt any consequences will be "major". If I were to try and identify the biggest problem we have now with respect to "marriage issues" it is that the institution is decaying - 50% of current marriages end in divorce with all the trauma (for both parents and kids) that is associated with a divorce - and I know first hand. Far bigger numbers than SSMs.

In years to come I don't doubt that some changes will be accepted without reservation - gay marriage, for example, as people realize that it is not a social threat. But there will always be people opposed to abortion given the argument that fetus is in effect a human life.

Remember when SSM came in. We were told it would be the end of Western Civilization. There would be plagues of locusts and that everybody should start building an arc. Much ado about nothing. In a few short years it has become a non-issue. Scott Brison is marrying his boy friend and nobody cares. The same thing would happen if polygamy was legalized. It might be practiced sparingly by a few cultural groups but by nobody else. One spouse is enough. Who wants two of them? BTW, "Susie Has Two Mommies" is a text book used to teach about lesbian parenting.

There is no reason to believe otherwise. If one person can raise a family then so can three.

It's beyond belief that either the courts and/or the politicians would approve of any sexual relationship where informed consent was not possible. And I don't agree with the argument put forth by the religious right that SSM became a slippery slope and after that polygamy became inevitable. In fact I think it was only a matter of time before polygamy became legal and it had nothing to do with SSM. The case for polygamy is much stronger than that of gay marriage.

You are correct. My post was intended to be sarcastic. The politicians will bend over for the polygamists - no pun intended. But we can presume they will grow some testicles when it comes to the man-boy pedophiles.

Spot on. If you can marry another guy or do with the plethora of women you are married to, why not with an 8-yr old girl? After all, it's just another sexual form of sexual orientation. :angry:

It's marriage so it's federal jurisdiction. Parliament would have to invoke the N/W clause. And I'm not sure they would. If the Courts have determined polygamy to be a fundamental right, using the N/W clause could be construed as trampling on those rights.

People are continually talking about what the courts should do. And unfortunately that is going to be the case. But I don't regard SSM or polygamy as "human rights" to be determined by judges appointed by the government. This is social policy and should be within the domain of Parliament. But, alas, this is post-Charter Canada. If can't get what you want politically, see if the courts will give it to you. :angry:

True, but religionists will be able to use the Charter religious rights provision to press their claim.

What is the relevance of the guy's weight? The only factor is, can he do the job? Even thin people can get sick and use employee benefits. When you have group insurance it is improper to discriminate against individual employees.

Very well said. Before, with SSM, we were getting into pretty new territory and many courts have ruled it a constitutional right. How can we now deny polygamy which is practiced by many religions? Susie now can have two mommies. Before long she will be able to have two mommies and a daddy too.

The Government of course knew the facts but nobody else did. Nice bargaining position to be in.

True. If the Repubs are to win, it will have to be a candidate who can overcome the Bush-factor. However, the best candidate for the GOP would be Clinton - if she is nominated by the Dems.

I've been saying that for a long time. I don't see Obama being a serious contender and Clinton will fade away. But when you get past them, who do the Dems have that will beats the Republicans?

The Opposition doesn't have the testicular fortitude to defeat the government. If they wanted to they could bring in a non-confidence motion on Kyoto at any time. And when they had a vote on Afghanistan the NDP sided with the government!

My humblest apologies to Humphrey Bogart for comparing him to Stephen Harper.

We of course have already broadened the concept of marriage with SSM. And if the courts are going to call that a constitutional right they can easily do the same with polygamy. As for "legalizing" prostitution, there are plenty of ads every day in the paper for those that want to pay for play. Okay, so the word sex isn't mentioned but we all know what they are offering.

Interesting question on the radio the other day. Given that we have Captain Queeg as PM how many Canadians can name the members of the Cabinet? Or half of them? Half a dozen? Three?