Prince Metternich

What the hell is the grey cup?

Yes, and the uncertain ones could just as easily go "nay!". Quit passing off your fond wishes as reality.

WHY ?

MS, are you on crack, or just good ol'fashioned coke? The site is reporting that more MPs will be voting against then for. ha ha ha

The problem here is that you possess the requisite hubris to actually believe that marriage is a man-made institution, as though an inventor one day walked into his shop, had a bright idea, and "made marriage." You're wrong. The automobile is a mad-made entity, and you are right that, in this capacity, man may tinker with it as he sees fit. But marriage is not "made." It is the product of the collective human experience, fired through time and cemented in tradition. It is rooted in emotion and our collective psyche, much like friendship, love, and a collection of other affective orientations we hold toward one another. This is the point that I was getting at when asking whether government benefits for marriage really made a difference. When marriage is viewed in its totality, those benefits aren't worth a hill 'o beans. And yet a government of a feeble western country elected for the course of four years sees itself as fit to unilaterally alter this. Can the government also alter friendship, can it alter love? I found it particularly amusing that you took great pains to outline the evolution of marriage, only to throw away the importance of that painstaking historical process and hand over all rights to defining marriage to the state. I'm sorry that you worship the wrong god. Marriage will likely evolve, and when society notices that it has, then I'll recognize that along with everyone else. That has probably already occurred. But I'll be damned if the pack of corrupt finite gauleiters known as the Liberal Party of Canada think they can redefine the human experience for me.

Except that the lower courts have already made it clear that to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying is an infringement of their Charter rights. So while today's ruling just adds a little judicial clout to the legislation the Liberals wanted to introduce anyway, it also reminds us that the court would eventually move against any state of affairs, including inertia, which restricted the rights of men or women to marry. The Liberals wanted gay marriage, the court said they can go ahead, Cotler is on TV now saying that he now has a constitutional obligation to move forward on the legislation, and everyone knows the courts will bring about same-sex marriage if the government doesn't anyway. A good day for democracy? I don't think so.

My apologies, and allow me to revise: You are as cowardly as any deferential Canadian.

Let me get this straight: The Liberal government fires off three banal questions in order to validate legislation it has already written to a court stacked with Liberal appointees and, most recently, explicitly pro- gay marriage justices (Hi Lady Abella), and people think this is news?

Wow, you are a clever one!

You people apparently live rather sterile lives. Are the financial benefits and government transfers of wealth all that marriage consists of? Are all that bind married couples together those benefits? Sure, it can tax, regulate, and do whatever it likes as long as it falls within the state's effective purview. But it can't simply will that cabbage to suddenly have a new chemical makeup, or that cabbage will suddenly become a high source of protein, or that your car will, from this point forward, be able to run on crushed cabbage. Marriage existed long before any of you or any of our exalted justices were around, and it will coninue to exist after we're all wormfeed. Its rooted in something more substantive and durable than the dictates of the fleeting state. The state can no more alter it than it can alter any objective reality. Not that it won't try, in its hubris. But as deferential little Canadians, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend any power greater than the almighty state. Please don't fault me for your stunning inability to recognize that which is obvious in life. That having been said: Of course there is not a universal definition of marriage, but only because buffoons like yourself fail to recognize what is right before you. Doing so would kneecap your little relativistic argument, wouldn't it?

Yes, that great Islamist Jerry Falwell. I thought this was a serious discussion board?

Thats only true if you think that marriage exists solely at the pleasure of the state. If the government announced that it would no longer recognize any form of marriage, would marriage cease to exist? Of course not. Marriage exists within civil society, separate from the state. All of this prattle makes the presumption that marriage can only exist if the courts and legislatures allow it to. As though marriage was non-existant prior to some governor coming along and saying, "I will marriage into existence." And what the state invents, the state can amend. Nonsense! How typically Canadian; a feeble deference to the state even in areas where the state has no effective authority. I take it you're from Ontario?

Is it going to hurt me? Of course not. Duh. Why am I involving myself in the personal affairs of of others? Well excuse me, but do the rulings of several courts and sloughs of government legislation count as "personal affairs"? This is a public policy issue. I can discuss it for as long as I damn well please, until the theocracy of political correctness you'd undoubtedly favour is imposed upon me.

More nonsense from an Eastern loser.

Easychair: If you're still reading this, here's some free advice. Takeanumber is clearly bitter about something. Maybe his girlfriend dumped him in Calgary. Who knows? Anyhoo: Calgary is the most liberal of the Canadian cities. I think that this is due to two interconnected realities. First: There is virtually no old money in Calgary. Compared to a city like Vancouver, any well-off families in Calgary became that way in the last two generations, and most did so through business. I attribute the lack of a tory, conservative element to Calgarian political culture to this. Second, Calgary is largely a city of non-natives, with both Canadians and non-Canadians moving here constantly. To understand Calgary, its necessary to know that it can't be separated from the dynamism that results from a constantly changing and growing population. Also as a result: Calgary's ethnic diversity has been increasing along with its general growth. Apparently takeanumber has never made a trip into the Northeast. Is there a sense of community in Calgary? How the hell should I know? All I know is that when I moved here I went out and made friends and got a girlfriend. Calgary provided a liberal environment within which to do so, and provided the symbols and context necessary to make me proud of my home. I stumbled along the Red Mile, I've spent too many leisurely hours strolling along the Bow River on Prince's Island, I've eaten at too many ethnic restaurants on 17th and in the NE, I've window-shopped in Kensington too often, and I've spent many productive hours on the grassy hills of the supposedly ugly U of C campus. Then again, I hate the Stampede. Defining culture or community is for people with too much time on their hands. And people in Calgary don't have time on their hands; they're too busy contributing to the dynamism that is the only only real defining characteristic of the city and to building Canada's greatest city. Come to Calgary. We need you, and you'll never have any reason to look back.

Thats right, MS. Because things were just peachy between the US and Al Queda before Bush was elected president. I understand that morons like yourself are anxious to repair damages to these relations caused by Bush. So here's a good way to start: eradicate democracy, install an Islamist theocracy, make women walk around in burkas, and stone them to death if they get out of line. All ready, MS?

So you thnk Carole James is going to be the premier in 6 months?

Hey guys: Thanks for the invite. Apparently, anyone that opposes gay marriage is a "hard-rightie" or whatever. Sigh. OK, I'll patronize you. Is marriage defined on the basis of government legislation? Is the fact that grass is green and the sky is blue? Apparently, because all of these instances of objective reality are easily changed by way of legislative amendment. After all, if the state dictates that marriage can be a union between a man and a man, that grass is actually a nice shade of mauve, and that the moon is made of cheese, then all of those things must certainly be true. Of course, the people that started this thread very likely nod their heads in agreement while the state informs them that it is fair and equitable that 50%+ of their incomes be confiscated and redistributed. Suckers.

People too often get caught up in binary arguments about the biological or behavioral determinants of homosexuality. Of course, the issue is much more nuanced than that. Some people may feel more inclinced to be homosexual than are others, but there is always an element of choice involved in being gay, even if just a choice to give in to those biological inclinations. To treat homosexuality as just another ascriptive characteristic is to deny the mysterious qualities of attraction and sexuality. To legislate on this basis is moronic.