85RZ500

I for one was not opposed to the coalition, in fact I would have loved it. Imagine Layton, Duceppe, and Ignatief trying to agree, get along, etc, etc. Would have lasted a month, maybe two, then imploded in a big messy way. Harper missed the boat on that one, should have let it happen. And the Bloc, financed by the country that they would like to tear apart. And speaking only one language in ther HofC when they insist on a bilingual country. A hypocritical blight on a beautifull province.

PT, go look at the Canadian Charter and read the first couple of lines. Or call your god, the Convenient Canadian and have him change it.

Yep, it reminds me of Adscam

I really get a kick out of folks saying that the state or province approved the changing of the definition of marriage. In Ontario, 3 unelected and unaccountable judges changed society for 13 million people. In the other provinces it was one of them. The SCofC did not rule on the issue, they sent it back to the HofC to be voted on. That vote was skewered, whipped by the Libs, Bloc, NDP under the guise of a supposed free vote. Michael, there's a Pakistani Muslim fighting with the state right now because he has four wives and wants to migrate here. SZ he will only bring two of them, tell that to sweeny.His lawyer sz because of his religious beliefs he will win his fight. The freedom of religion thing is as I said, used by different folks with different strokes. Inconsistent is the operative word. Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: CCofR

I think Mercer wants to go skinny-dipping with Iggy. They'd make such a sweet couple, LOL Bobby Rae could make it a threesome.

LOL, $27K is what the CBC spends on coffee for the month.

Yep the Convenient Canadian has decades of experience in Canada, or is that the UK or the USA?

LOL,You sir are dreaming in technicolour

Another double post.

The income tax form has a Marital Status section. It lists six subs with check boxes. Married, Divorced, Living Common Law,Seperated, Widowed ,Single.... check one. Common Law seems to be defined differently from province to province but it can be generally said that there is a specified minimum time limit to quallify. Also the issue of children within the "marriage" There does not appear to be any division of assets specified as in traditional marriage. Quote: The legal definition of marriage is meaningfull in matters of law, not 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." OK, but the unlegal/legal definition is very meaningfull in "life". And yes any get together of two beings could be called marriage, common law, shacking up, whatever. But for a lot of people tradional marriage means an official ceremony and registration of the union. And BTW, LOL, the old guard will always think in terms of two people, a woman and a man.

LOL, just noticed the start date, July 1,2010, o I can imagine it will take some time to rearange the mechanics of it all but there will be a ton of flack in that time period. This abomination can be manipulated, as to dropping off items that would be newly taxable. Sort of like union bargaining, ask for 10%, accept 7 which is what you wanted in the first place. MooooGuinty can let us stew for awhile then drop some items off the taxble list to make us love him once more. Back to the gas thing, at todays prices thats an additional 31cents a gallon. Times what Ontarionans use in a month, that's a veritable tax windfall for the scumbags.

Sorry randy, you've got it wrong. Both factions are using freedom of religion to serve their beliefs. The printer has got it right , the polygamists are in the wrong. LOL, you and I are at opposite ends of this issue, we can agree to disagree.

If you want a good chuckle go to the Toronto Sun site and read the comments on the budget story. The people are livid, the Liebarrel ears are burning. I can just imagine the e-mails roaring into the Liberals sites, ouch. Two things, this budget has to be voted on and I've heard that there will be yet another tax on gasoline. The vote should be interesting and another 30cents added to a gallon of gas is not what the economy needs.

Molly I agree that "marriage would carry on as ever" Now, woud it have to be defined? would parameters need to be set? Who would you have carry out those funcrions?

LOL, Hyperboyle balderdash. And sorry, if someone dosen't want, or appear IMHO to not want my business, I can and will go elsewhere. Hey they're free to live by their religious beliefs to practice polygamy but not to refuse to print offensive literature. Gotta love it

LOL, double post, no delete?

Smallc, it has been in the news many times and those incidents are reported on the net, I've looked them up before and am not going to repeat. "I run a successfull printing business, a gay group comes in and wants me to print their literature which, because of my religious teachings I find offensive. I decline their business. " That's just one example, that guy was raked over the coals and there's more like him. Someone said it's a slippery slope, I agree.

The state has flip-flopped on that issue so many times since the definition of marriage was changed. The change was made with the guarantee that people were free to live by their religious teachings. Many people have been persecuted for doing just that. It's part of the hypocrisy of the whole issue, a blight on the Liberal party who engineereed it.

And Nortel pensioners have just hired a gunslinger law firm to try to get their pensions paid. This is one screwed up country.

Yep, I caught a radio newstype spouting off about the merger. She called Petro an "iconic" Canadian company, damn near drove off the road.

Michael, it will be allowed, watch and see, this is Canada, remember.

LOL, Gotta love this stuff. "Tolerant" and now "reasonable limitation". The traditional man/woman definition of marriage has been struck down. Those defending the polygamist cause will undeniablly use that to argue their case. And it will be a powerfull argument to put forth. I do not wish them luck but I believe they'll suceed.

You'd have to pay me $1100 to be in the same building with him. That goofy smile would make me lose an expensive dinner.

Actually I agree with the first sentence. What could be used to determine that fact? But they jam the Charter up front real quick. and this is it's first sentence. "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremecy of God and the rule of law" One could argue that they go hand in hand, and have /will be used on both sides of various issues.