Molly

Long overdue. I couldn't believe it when the feds were working toward the abandonment of that rail line and port at Churchill. Simple 'nation building' demanded its presence, and more.

Ontario was a net importer of grains even before the advent of biofuels. Interesting list, Robert. I see $8M spent in Sask, $19.9M in Alberta, and $445M in Ontario, the net importer. (Nearly $200M on Greenfields alone.) You'd think that if enhanced grain markets was the reason for the projects, more than a very short tenth of the money might be spent where grain is available....

Tell the story of the boxes to the two women I know who are fuming fury, consider themselves single, and checked the 'single' boxes on their income tax, and yet, in the eyes of CCRA are deemed 'common law', with benefits and costs calculated on that basis. I tell you, it's darned difficult for (particularly) a woman to have much to do with a man, and not be penalized as though she is married to him. Benefits from such deeming are far less certain.

Then there's the old standby of slicing the breasts into a pan, dousing them with mushroom soup, and popping the whole mess into the oven. That's a good supper, too. Saskatchewan used to have a program of extra deer tags, for donations of venison to the food bank. I don't know what's come of that in the years since-- probably long gone, even before cwd- but it made a lot of sense. So does a use-the-food goose cull. It only fits the dented can analogy if you consider wild meat undesireable, but I'd happily buy a goose or two, even trade hamburger for it, pound for pound.

Hey! You don't have to check any box saying 'common law' to be deemed 'married' by CCRA! The state , in effect, presumes to 'impose a state of matrimony' unilaterally, even in the face of denial by BOTH parties! In circumstances of common-law 'divorce', in which the state is forced to mediate, the state knows two things: first, that there is a co-dependent relationship of some sort; and second, that the two within that relationship did NOT agree to the standard terms of 'legal marriage'. Without a written contract, (or even with one) court time is spent determining what, if any, mutual obligation they HAVE agreed to. (Again I see it purely through the lens of contract law/property law. No different from any other dispute over an unwritten, but established in deeds, agreement.) Where we have real disagreement (and probably huge miscommunication) is in "Marriage is the perview of the state, full stop." I disagree entirely. The states role re: marriage lies only in the assumptions of the state, and extends only as far as people, by ommission or comission, choose to involve the state. I say again, marriage existed long before the state provided a default contract, and if all marriage law was stricken from the books, marriage would still exist. The state is a johnny-come-lately to it, describing it only after the fact, recording only for its own ease of function. The legal definition is only meaningful in matters of law, not of life. The nature of any given marriage is determined by the individuals who enter into it- only in part through choosing or rejecting the states standard contracts/agreements. The state has little interest in the self-determined marital state of citizens, and should have even less.

What?!!! That rationale doesn't cut the mustard, Topaz. You have to explain why they didn't use long guns BEFORE C68, to make it stick. (There are probably millions- yes millions- more unregistered long guns around than untracked handguns, even WITH registration in place.)

I'd swap the coverage/prices we have here in Ontario for what he had in Sask. When Baby Girl moved here, her premiums more than tripled. It's closer to even for those of us who are older, but making a claim is a fool's game. May as well have a $2500+ deductible.

Oh for heaven's sake! We whine on and on about efficiency in government, and reduction of beaurocracy... and then when someone actually does it, whine some more. Frankly, the government is quite welcome to the money it collects from me on all the new houses , feminine hygiene products and childrens clothing I plan to buy over the next few years, so long as it is costing retailers and government less to collect it, and the savings are remitted right back to me... which is exactly what a harmonized, rebating system does. I'm no fan of McGuinty- think he's a freaking joke, as a matter of fact- but even a blind dog finds a bone now and again.

Visionseeker... the state doesn't use the same language I do... I'm trying desperately to simplify for clarity.... but I still insist that 'legal marriage' and the vernacular 'marriage' are separate entities, and we two are only swapping nuances. If all marriage law was struck down, ceased to exist, 'marriage' would carry on as ever. In this discussion, as in the discussion of gay marriage, I lament that folks seem to struggle with that separation. (You'd think it would be easier, since 'religious marriage' and 'legal marriage' are easily percieved as two separate entities, a get or an anullment easily acknowledged as no business of the state.) The state, for instance, is uninterested in who anyone is boinking, or whether they are celibate, so long as other protective laws are not broken. The state only really cares if folks have some sort of mutual dependence agreement that the state might be called upon to mediate (or decide HOW to acknowledge). Bigamy law, such as it is, really only addresses fraud, whether it is one or both spouses, the state, or anyone else suffering from that fraud. If there's no fraud, then there's no problem. Set up your household(s) as you see fit. To say that the state neither recognizes nor protects those non-legal-marriage arrangements is false. There is a constant struggle to determine to what degree a common-law arrangement should be treated as a 'legal marriage'- assumed the same unless proven otherwise, for income tax purposes- basically a one-at-a-time determination of the nature of the agreement----and arrangements that have been put to paper are enforced as written.

Hyperbole? If that word applies at all, you set the tone. Tit for tat.

That was well put. Many of us, it seems have been trying to communicate the 'false construct' nature of the question. It's definitely of the 'Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety

Why? For criminal acts that were dismissed as 'kid stuff'. If you were assaulted, harrassed, threatened-- even doused with lighter fluid-- by someone, then I'd guess you'd want them punished.

So perhaps I should try different phrasing then, Cybercoma. Trying to define what it means to be 'English Canadian' (in the manner that it is intended- 'not-French Canadian') makes about as much sense as trying to define 'non-Romanian Canadian', or 'non-German Canadian'. Unless you are supposing a non-existent duality, the question should only be presented to those who specifically lack the 'non' to have any real meaning at all...... and to anyone else (as in'virtually everyone supposedly defined and indicated by that descriptor'), it lands some place between foolish and meaningless.

"Why ? If I have a partnership with one other person, and we both agree to let a third person into the partnership, why is limiting that arrangement "reasonable" The state cannot and does not limit you from inviting a third party into your partnership... but the state does limit it's own liability to a single associate of any of you. "But, then we're back to - what seems to me is - an economic argument. The state can't be obliged to provide additional benefits to a new spouse, yet this is exactly what happened with same-sex marriage. I still can't see any legal reason why polygamy can't be allowed." Different premises entirely, Michael. The state can't discriminate between citizens on the basis of gender. If folks can have A spouse recieving benefits from the state, the state cannot say 'unless they are x gender'. It's all the same as the state being unable to specify 'Women (wives) can recieve survivors benefits but men (husbands) can't, or 'Women can get student loans but men can't'. That consistency is the states own over-riding rule. There is no such over-riding rule that would prevent the state from restricting it's liability to 1 to a customer. Now if the charter also listed 'marital status' as a basis for non-discrimination, there might be a problem....

Michael, clauses for dissolution, and/or for changing partners already exist within a 'legal marriage' contract. But, since there are additional parties obliged by 'legal marriage', limiting those benefits to one is a reasonable limit. Nothing at present prevents side agreements, through which (a single unit of) benefits and entitlements could be shared, but the state- an effected third party- cannot be forced into greater obligation than that single unit.

Johnny-come-lately to this thread but... I see Canada as the SET, and French Canada as one of many subsets... and 'English' Canada as pretty much mythical, a handy term used almost exclusively by French Canada to mean 'not us'. The question of finding the common thread that applies to the set, excluding a single subset, is ... well ... sort of dumb. It presupposes a duality that really doesn't exist for anyone outside that single subset.

"an act permitted by the state that is subject to conditions." Call me myopic, but I still reject that, even as a nicely worded description. The state does not 'allow' marriage. Marriage existed long before the state took notice of it. The state merely defines what marriage means TO THE STATE, in its role of provisor of some benefits, and arbiter when the (co-signators) are in dispute. 'Legal marriage' is agreement to the terms set out by the state. Other arrangements, other terms, are freely available to anyone, in the past, present and future.... 'Marriage' and 'legal marriage' are not the same thing. Failing to qualify for 'legal marriage', or not wishing to accept the 'legal marriage' (contract) does not mean being disallowed from 'marriage'. So... 'banning' polygamy is outside the states pervue-- no business in the bedrooms of the nation, etc. It functionally cannot be 'banned', and there is great doubt whether the attempt would even be desireable (except where other laws are broken).

You have to admit that the gun control movement is very much like the anti-smoking movement. The proponents are not interested in -- don't believe it is possible for there to be-- sensible, sensibly-controlled use, and so eradication is the true goal. Because of that, no tactic is petty enough, nor rationale unreasonable enough to be set aside. 'Reasonable accommodation' is just not on... If 'reason' and 'reasonable accommodation' were part of it (and not just harrassment for harrassment's sake) then the long gun registry would have been tossed on the heap years ago.

"It's just a shame we couldn't lock up some of his tormentors with him." Hear, hear.

Michael... I can't see it having anything to do with either or both spouses being able to make reasoned decisions-- if they are adults, the decisions are deemed reasoned-- but rather with the multiplication of obligations and entitlements that also impact others who are not consulted. The state has added a great number of obligations and benefits to spouses, and is entitled to limit the recipients of such benefits to one person. Sponsorship of one spouse upon immigration is one aspect, but a spousal deduction on your income tax, and survivor benefits on your pension are others. Many other non-state obligations are based on special benefits to/from a single spouse. It's a property contract.

Legislating morality never has worked, never will, isn't even desireable.... and frankly Randy's views are hardly 'extreme'. They are simply realistic. The only reason 'marriage' is of concern to the state is because we've legally defined a contract (of marriage), and then based some property obligations on it. It's a property contract so far as the state is concerned, not a morality contract.

Glad you wrote that. I read (the rest of the way) to the end of this thread just to see if anyone had replied appropriately to Argus' proposal that he had been bullied. Argus, if you can chalk your treatment up to being 'skinny and nerdy', and claim to never having thought of killing - just about everybody around you- then you are highly unlikely to have been bullied. If you don't live in a state of post-traumatic shock, you almost certainly were not bullied. Everyone who walks has felt awkward, and everyone who has had contact with other humans has taken a few slights, and maybe even pointed cruelties... Diminishing the massive cruelty that is visited upon a few, by claiming to be bullied when what you really experienced was semi-regular hassle from a handful of jerks, is just one more offense against those who did/do have the real thing to deal with. At best, it's unconstructive.

Cars that don't go on public roads don't require registration.

First off-- I challenge that 67%. Easily half of it, however derived, is without doubt, an uninformed, knee-jerk "I know nothing of guns but I don't like them." response. A LOT more nuance is in order- like ways of having the same, or better, more accurate information available at a small portion of the cost. Like separating this particular law from what it replaced, and actually looking at what was changed. The arguments in favor of it are generally arguments in favor of what went before (unbeknownst to the one doing the arguing), and don't even touch on the actual registry. Secondly... the notion that gun deaths are more common where guns are present, is hardly news. --Vehicular deaths are more common where there are vehicles present; drug deaths are more common where drugs are present; avalanche deaths are more common where there are avalanches. -- Registration or not, in some places, they will be present. I sympathize with the death of your aunt-- but consider: would it have been prevented by this legislation? I, without knowing the exact circumstances, seriously doubt it. If you can show me how it might have, fair enough... but ... well... show me.