FastNed

Hi Lost, I mentioned quite some time ago that based upon comments from our people fighting in Afghanistan, the Princess Pat's are great troops - but are on a starvation diet from your government. No question, the "Pat's" represent the best of the Canadian traditions. I believe there are 4,000 Canadians in Kabul now but I am not aware of their Command Authority (US or UN) or what R.O.E. is in place for them. But unless they are hobbled by Command Authority or restrictive R.O.E., I expect they are doing a good job. Why is there little or nothing in your Media about their performance? As for the UN in Iraq and even though the "Hooper" killed was (I suspect) a 3rd or 4th cousin from the California Branch of our P.E.I. Family, I must admit to a large feeling of Schadenfreude for it is an eternal truth that as you sow, so shall you reap. The UN like the Eurocrats has been in bed with terrorists for years; they assumed that because they had paid them off and supported them, they were immune. They just learned that terrorists are every man's enemy. At last, they can begin to feel what the People of Israel feel every day and what American's have felt since 9 - 11. And candidly, no, I don't believe this will mobilize "world opinion" (if there is such a thing) because the vast majority of the World could care less unless and until it is their loved ones killed. World Opinion and a buck may buy you a cup of coffee - but don't look for change!

No Lost, what you mention is our strength - the strength of democracy. Religious Freedom means exactly that - subject to generally accepted rules. Symbolic sacrifices, or the fatted calf, or even a rooster may p1ss off PETA but are within the parameters of what we find acceptable religious practice. Human sacrifice, the eldest son or the virgin child is not. I have a friend in California who attends a "Black Mass" on a regular basis - and yes, I think she is sick and yes, I have a few weird friends but so long as the rules are not violated, it fits under "religious freedom". So if some denomination or religion allows "Gay Marriage", that is their version of morality and so be it. Their moral code is their business so long as they don't try to force it down my throat and make me follow it. I long ago accepted that the only body I control or have a right to control is mine; likewise, for my bed. I happen to be an unashamed, unabashed, confirmed heterosexual who believes God's greatest gift to man is woman. But because I believe this, it does not mean others must. As I said above: "We expect and require that our legislators find common ground so that we may live together in the richness of our different viewpoints and faiths. This truly is the secret of our success as civilized Nations." To be quite candid, I do believe that Gay people should be careful of what they wish for, they just might get it. Welcome to the world of divorce lawyers!

There is little we can do to prevent elevation of this crisis - that card is held by Krazy Kim. Without Chinese support, he's all done immediately and he knows it. In addition to the potential of a nuclear war at their side door, the Chinese face the possibility of a nuclear armed Japan. Visions of an aggressive Japan cause nightmares all through-out Asia. If NK is not prevented from producing nuclear weapons and disarmed, Japan will have no choice but to arm. We certainly will not continue to guarantee Japanese security if they do not. It's hard ball time. We know that if nukes leave NK, they will be used here in America and, to put it mildly, we find that unacceptable. The World should learn to fear the American Street because if a nuke is used against us, large areas of the World are going to become radioactive slag. I have said this before, for the first time in our history 80 % of Americans are willing to use nuclear weapons against an enemy. And our government will do so or we will replace it with one which will. If WMD are used against us, the World will then live under a Pax Americana or die. Those are the choices. Those we do not attack will surrender all nuclear weapons or the survivors in those countries will live in the radioactive remains. I have absolutely no access to government plans but I do know Americans - if WMD are used on us, all restraint will be gone and the World will suffer our rage unrestrained. If you don't like that scenario then you had best get your butt in gear and assist us in putting down these terrorists and those who support them before we are forced to that point. We will not go quietly into the night.

Exactly what is it you think they should be doing, that they are not? First of all, there should be no question but that everyone involved in this understands that the second we believe that a nuclear weapon has been sold outside of North Korea, the hammer comes down. Full scale nuclear war. South Korea may well become an island nation with a large radioactive hole to its north. China and Russia now comprehend that continued support for Krazy Kim means nuclear war on their border and that any miscalculation, any error could bring them into it placing their country at risk. It has taken a while but the message has finally gotten through.

You know, Canadians of all people should be the first to acknowledge that what really motivates Americans is the simple desire to give someone a hand. If someone has a serious problem, as a people we are always ready to help out. It's an essential part of our national character. Those that seek all kinds of evil in our actions say more about themselves than about us. So be it, we could care less. In the aftermath of 9 - 11, we took a long hard look at our priorities and our relationships around the world. What we saw confirmed what some of us had suspected - we were being suckers. Every big mouth in the World would declare there was some sort of a problem and America had to fix it. Lot of people long on talk but damn short on pitching in to help fix things. So we Americans reached a cusp: "The Sheriff has left the building!" We are through being policeman for the World. You say there is a problem, well then show us what you are doing about it; when you put your money where your mouth is, then ask us for assistance. If you are not willing to step up to the plate and take your turn at bat, we are not going to let you or anyone name us the designated hitter! The sheriff really has left the building so get used to it. As Liberia is demonstrating, we have even tougher standards for involvement of our military. Our youth are not going to be sent in harms way, to kill or be killed on some feel good mission. If you believe Americans should go into situations like this, exactly how many Canadians are coming with us, side by side? If your answer begins with "Well" or "But", then take a couple of aspirin and get a life!

Call me a cynic, but "legislative morality" is an oxymoron in my opinion. But let's take a more christian view and presume (a leap of faith) that such a thing does exist. At a minimum, we expect such people to have a system of ethics and morality and those who have a religion, one would expect to hold the moral views taught and expressed as part of that religion. Each religion (most?) has someone at the peak who speaks with authority; for Catholics, it is the Pope, for Church of England, the Archbishop of C. and so forth. When that authority figure speaks on a question of morality, that then is or becomes the moral view of that religion. We can not wish those in legislative positions to be amoral so we should expect their ethics/morality to be a part of their experience and something to be considered before they establish public policy or pass a law. They are there to represent us - to enable us to adjust our different moral views and social views so that we can live together in a peaceful and civilized fashion. Here in North America we do not and will not have religious riots with members of one faith killing another, neither do we have clan or tribal warfare. We expect and require that our legislators find common ground so that we may live together in the richness of our different viewpoints and faiths. This truly is the secret of our success as civilized Nations. This issue of gay "marriage" has the potential to put us at war with each other and we can not allow that to come to pass. I myself have no idea if being gay is genetic although there does appear to be a lack of peer reviewed evidence to support such a position but even so, the strength of our way of life is that we do not force a minority of us to agree with majority opinion. We do not have a State "Religion" or "Morality Code" to which all must comply, we North Americans made that choice long ago and we are better for it. There is also no question that under our legal systems (Canada & America) the status of "Married" creates a multitude of legal rights and establishes legal certainty in areas such as Inheritance, Real Property, Living Wills, Divorce and so forth. Two groups lack legal certainty in matters which flow from their relationship: gay couples and couple who elect to live together (and sometimes have children) without marriage. The latter group gets little sympathy as they elected to forswear marriage. Their choice, their problem. Which leaves us with the question of gay couples and their desire for a "legal" relationship. The issue is not going to go away, we must find some solution which allows us to continue to live in peace together so let's accept the fact that three percent of us have a different moral position than ours and reach a compromise with which we both can live.

Arnold is bucking a stacked deck - the Legislative Branch is Democratic and Veto proof and it is difficult to visualize a scenario where he can accomplish much of anything against Democratic opposition. If he is to win, and then accomplish anything before the next general election, he is going to have to select just a few high profile issues (real, not symbolic) and fight tooth and nail, head to head to attempt to get them passed. It may be impossible for him to make substantial progress on California's problems by himself but if he can define the issues, make them real to Cali voters and then specifically target the opponents, he may convince the electorate to 'throw the bums out'. It's rare that American voters get mad enough to take this option, a great many have decided that the system is so one sided that they just don't bother to vote anymore. If Arnold can convince those people to come back and vote, watch out California!

Nicely said, Widowsmite, Welcome to the Forum.

Hi Scotchneat & all - Marriage is a Judeo-Christian religious concept and relationship. If I have Googled correctly, this is year 5764 in the Jewish calendar so we have had this as a religious concept and relationship for at least six thousand years. While the acceptance of homosexuality has varied at different times and places, marriage has always been something for a man and woman only. I suggest that traditional marriage is an essential part of our lives, our culture and our civilization. Let us not be too quick to discard six thousand years of a relationship which has worked well. Our Laws acknowledge this relationship in many ways; real estate, pensions, health insurance, inheritance law are the main ones mentioned and each would be changed with Gay marriage. There are massive religious, social and economic considerations involved with this issue but the majority of debate has centered around the concept of "Rights" with little or no discussion of the legal consequences and financial costs of such a change. There must be such a discussion. I do not see any justification for any Court, in Canada or America, to suddenly discover a Charter right , Human right, Civil right or Constitutional right to gay marriage which contradicts some six thousand years of tradition and law. Gay people are said to be somewhere between 3 and 10 percent of our population and that is a substantial number. If gay people wish a legal relationship equivalent to marriage then the legislative process should be used to achieve this end. Each jurisdiction (State or Province) has a different body of interrelated laws in all of the areas mentioned above and these interrelationships must be considered. Should a Gay "common-law marriage" be allowed or mandated in "common-law" jurisdictions? If my memory is correct, if a man and woman spend a week-end together in Florida, that can be sufficient to establish a "common-law marriage". What about "community property" jurisdictions? When a married person inherits property, their partner automatically has an interest (often 50%) in that inheritance, should this be extended to gay marriage? There are many significant legal issues which are not being discussed or considered and they should be, before the fact not after!

Scotchneat, as someone new you obviously are not aware of the protocols of this Forum. We discuss issues, we do not get into flame wars or personal attacks and the issue of someone's sexual orientation is not a subject of interest or a fit subject for discussion unless and until that person makes disclosure and invites a discussion. Candidly, we try to keep matters somewhat higher than the kindergarden level. New members are welcomed and are evaluated, as we all are, by the content of their postings. Please take note or our Moderator will be removing the "Welcome" mat rather quickly.

I think you state it well, Tigerbait, and those who disagree are not confused by it, they just do not wish to agree with it or be limited by it. There has long been a philosophical/theological discussion or dispute about "absolute" morality and there are real life circumstances that put these issues in sharp focus. How do you "honor" a father who is a vicious abuser or a pederast? A mother who is trailer-trash or a thief? How do you observe the Commandment against "killing" when you are a policeman or a member of the military and are the first line of defense of our civilized way of life? It is easy not to "covet" your neighbor's wife when he is single but when he has one and she is attractive and exciting and gives you a look, what then? And vice versa! We appear to be going in a direction where there is a sharp distinction between public and private morality and perhaps it must be that way or perhaps, it always has been that way. I can see the problem, but I can't see the answer.

I don't know about you, but my B.S. Detector is going off, I'm hearing loud bells and seeing flashing "TILT" signs! When the politicians start pointing fingers and claiming "It's Canada's fault, no it's America's fault" then the only thing I'm sure of is that there is a real problem and the politicians are attempting to shift the blame. Let's cut through the political B.S. and Corporate "CYA" and take a look at what we do know. And let's skip the technobabble and jargon and talk about it in English (sorry Quebec) which we can understand. We know our safety systems work pretty good. Our circuit breakers worked because we did not have transmission lines melting in the air; our neighborhood transformers and sub-stations and our power generators did not short circuit and blow up or melt down. Like that GFI plug you're supposed to have in your bathroom, when something went wrong, the circuit tripped and disconnected. When that first domino went over, the load shifted up a step and when it became too much to carry that also tripped. So within about three minutes about a third of the Canadian American Power Grid automatically disconnected. That is exactly what it is designed to do and we owe large thanks to the professional power generation people because a small electrical problem did not burn down our interconnected house. Yea but - but me no buts about the fact it takes time to bring everything back up and working. This is not Murphy's Law, International, Canadian or American Law at work it is rather the law of physics/electricity. It takes a lot of power to get from zero to sixty, lots more than just cruising at sixty in overdrive. So when they attempt to power back up, every refrigerator, every lightbulb, air conditioner & motor is screaming "GIMME POWER" and wanting to go sixty MPH. The power generators have to be cranked up fairly close to MAX to handle zero to sixty in a nanosecond! And the longer power is out, the longer they have to deliver that max peak power until the fridge gets the food chilled, the AC cools the house and all your light bulbs heat up and coast at sixty. Oh, did you forget your TV and stereo were on when the power went out? Ooops, more power needed. It does tell us, though, that we need to pay more attention to our local area networks. We need better planning, as difficult as that may be, so that as our local and/or regional power disconnects, we kick back on in our local/State or regional areas while disconnected from the interstate/international grid. Well, you never can tell if your disaster plans work until you have one and we are fortunate that this was an inconvenience, albeit a large one, but still and all only an inconvenience. We know a few other things as well from this: as in so many other things, we are and will remain interconnected and interdependent. The border and Canada and America are lines and colors on a map and have no validity where our quality of life is concerned. We now have an international task force looking at what occurred; Energy Secretary Abraham from the US and Canadian Natural Resources Minister Dhaliwal from Canada. There is one problem with this obvious from the start. Dhaliwal was one of the Canadian Politicians running off at the mouth and bad-mouthing America. Bureaucrats being bureaucrats, everyone on the American team will be well briefed about this and candidly, expecting more of the same from him. So this task force has a built in short circuit before it even begins. Does not give me a warm feeling that they are going to play well together.

Lost, they did a poll in the media before the last Presidential Election and 97 % of the votes were cast for Al Gore. Draw your own conclusions. You had asked about Gore - last year he stated he was out of politics, a decision I believe was forced upon him. A good many Democratic Party activists believe the last election was his to win and he blew it. Doubtful if he can come back into the political scene on a national level. One of the reasons the "elite" have been pushing for U.S. involvement in Liberia is the hope of a misstep or major error or, that they will be some sort of occurrence which can be made into a political issue. Patriotism is alive and well among people of color, it trumps racial politics and the democrats fear that unless the focus is back upon racial matters, they will loose this group in which case they are toast. Democratic strategy is high risk, very high risk. They have gone far left for funding and support from Party activists whose votes are critical in Primaries. They believe they can shift back to the center for the main campaign - which has worked in the past on domestic issues but there is a great deal of doubt they can pull this off with national security issues. The more they attack Bush on national security, the more they remind people of this issue. I think they are following the left wing off a cliff.

Hi Lost & AF - First, in reading this you must consider the source. Buchanan is so far to the right of the Republican Party that he fell off the edge and is no longer considered a Republican. Main Street republicans have disowned him and he's considered to be the 'religious right'. I regret to say the Catholic religious right - that's part of the cute business with the ACLU, he is being sarcastic! Understanding his bias, the article is quite informative and Pat is a highly intelligent and informed man so there is a good bit of info there. He remains very well connected because he's a great guy BUT don't get him started on religion because he's over the edge - like that good friend you can't mention sports to or he'll never shut up with the statistics! Couple of things - Willie Wanker Clinton can not run for President again (never!), our Constitution imposes a limit of two terms XXII (that's the F.D.R. Amendment, for you historians) so the only way he can move back in is if Hillary can be elected. I believe she will end up being a candidate in 2004, if not she is toast. Perot and his party have come and gone and are an historical footnote. Money drives politics in America (if not everywhere) these days so to understand what is happening, you have to follow the money. President Bush has a Re-election Fund reportedly of 27 Million and while it's counter-intuitive, the majority of it is in $25.00 - $200.00 contributions. The Democrats, in contrast, can't tap into the big Union funds in any significant way until they have a candidate so they are all chasing the liberal donations for the primaries - the liberal people with a "cause" who kick in million dollar donations like you or I pay for a tank of gas! This is the left wing "elite" of the Democratic Party and to get that funding, they are running like lemmings off the left edge of the political spectrum in America. They are all attempting to run to the left (for funding) for the Primaries and believe the survivors can swing back to the center for the main event. This is quite comfortable for them for the truth is, they are part of the post-modern elite. America's PoMo Elite lives on the left of the Democratic Party. Asking if Americans are patriotic is like asking if the Pope is a Catholic - everybody knows that answer and it is what is driving the Democrats to desperation. Their base in Middle-America and among people of color is highly patriotic, this trumps all other issues which drives the elite crazy! This is why there is a constant campaign to convince people there was deception on why we went into Iraq and why the media keeps calling it a quagmire - well, it worked in Vietnam. Unless the public can be re-focused away from the war on Islamic terrorism, the Democrats are dead.

Tigerbait, we have already lost that argument, see: ABORTION. This follows that as night follows day, and it is now official that there is no morality in politics! Believing as we do, several conclusions follow: a Higher Authority than you or I will judge those who participate in such acts, we can trust in that Judgment. Judeo-Christian morals and principals are under unending attack from the post-modernists so we must (1) preserve and protect our religious institutions from any further encroachment and (2) ensure that Judeo-Christian morality and beliefs are taught to our children. If we are unable to stop public education from teaching acceptance and belief of homosexual activity as "moral", we must concentrate on home-schooling and Charter Schools and sustain existing religious schools to insure our children are not brainwashed into immoral beliefs. Above all, remember we hate the sin but not the sinner. After you look us over, please consider becoming a member. This is a fine forum with some extremely sharp people and while we often get very passionate in our postings, we try our best not to get personal. Please join in, new voices are welcome.

Black Dog, you are incorrect. Specifically, a Jew can be married in a Catholic Church as can members of christian faiths. Yes, they must jump through the hoops of the RC Church, agree to raise their children as Catholic and on and on but I have a sister-in-law married in the Church to a fine gentleman who is Jewish so I know it can be done. The point, BD, is that such decisions must be made by the Church involved not the State. We have watched while Laws passed to insure fairness and equality have been turned into weapons by extremists, time and time again. We have watched while laws passed to insure civil rights have been turned into weapons of racial politics. We have seen the feminist movement create a new right wherein if a woman changes her mind after the fact, her consent is cancelled ab initio and what was a mutual sexual act thus becomes rape. We have witnessed the same with laws on disabilities, on sexual harassment. We have learned our lesson well. Not this time, Brother, not with our religions! Fool me twice, shame on me! Depending upon which figures you wish to believe, our Gay population is somewhere between three to ten percent of us. The numbers are sufficient to require some legislative accommodation to their desires. As an attorney, I am very aware that for a gay couple creation of a legal relationship equivalent to that of a married couple is both time consuming and expensive. It can be done and the degree of difficulty varies depending upon the jurisdiction. Candidly, I think they should have been careful of what they wished for because they are now going to get it. Welcome to the world of divorce lawyers! But we have learned some bitter lessons from the experiences mentioned above, we are not going to give them something which extremists among them may use to attack our religions. Not in this lifetime.

There is a truism that one never accepts a question from a Jesuit because the wording of the question mandates the answer. And that is what you are posing here. What is the specific problem? What motivates 30 different corporations to begin research? And what is the knowledge, background and motivations of the 3000 scientists? If directed research worked, the Soviet would have left the West in the dust.

Quite candidly, while reluctant to do so, I am ready to write Africa off as a lost cause. I say this because of the actions/reactions of the present leadership of that continent to the situation in Zimbabwe. Racial politics are alive and unwell in Africa. From Mbeki in South Africa (and add in Mandella's comments) on up, they are all protecting Mugabe because he is black - and after all, he is only killing white people. I feel deja vue and see Berlin & Germany of the 30's all over again. I have friends in South Africa and while they are Anglican, I am suggesting they think like the Jews of Germany in the early Hitler period. Look at the handwriting on the wall, take what you can get while you can and get out. I wish I were wrong but I don't think so.

Black Dog, Marx and Lenin are dead! After 75 years and at a cost of millions of lives, the Soviet is gone. They couldn't compete with freedom, democracy and capitalism. Like it or lump it, it don't work!

Black Dog, your world view is so naif and misguided that were it to prevail, we would need to begin to study Arabic and prepare to convert to Islam. You state: Radical Islam is engaged in a religious war with the West. A central orientation of the Arab world is the tribe/clan so it is no surprise that there are multiple organizations such as A.Q., Hamas, Hezbollah, etal. Their culture mandates this clannish approach and, indeed, this is one of the things that will allow us to defeat them in detail. Add to this mix the politics of the Arab States, from the theocracy of Iran, the Su-uni fanatics of the ibn Saud family, the Nazi Ba-ath parties of Iraq and Syria and the dictatorships of Egypt , Libya and others and you can recognize one common theme. They all hate America. They hate America not for anything we have done but for what we are. You speak of the "unease" in many followers of Islam and that's good - they damn well should be feeling uneasy! Since 9 - 11 we have listened to those who say they are the "moderates" in the world of Islam and who claim that the majority of the Islamic World does not share the beliefs of these fanatics and does not support them. Bluntly, our jury is still out on this question and they have true cause to be uneasy if we are forced to conclude we are at war with Islam, not just a fanatical element thereof. Islam has a choice - reform or die. I have listened and read all the bullsh1t about the "Arab Street" with a great deal of humor. It's like the May Day Parades of old, staged events with a great deal of sound and fury but no substance. No-one speaks of the one street that can dictate the actions of its government: the American Street. We Americans have the one government that is of the people, by the people and for the people. This is why the European elite join the Arab governments and Islamic fanatics in hating us. We are the common man and we do not and will not bow or kneel to anyone. We select our leaders and choose who to follow. No "elite" rules us or dictates our actions. We are the culture of the common man and that is why our culture spreads throughout the World - and the "elite" rulers hate us for it. And all of this is why they should fear the American Street. There was a survey last year and very few people paid attention to it, but they should have. For the first time in our history, more than 80 % of the American people are ready to use nuclear weapons. That should have made the Arab Leaders, the Islamics and the Europeans sit up and take notice but they have such a blind spot where America is concerned that they continue to think of Americans as sheep like their own subjects. This is a fatal error. Fear an enraged American Street! Briefly, your insistence that terrorism is a law enforcement problem indicates to me that you lack real life experience with law enforcement. While terrorist acts are criminal, they are also acts of war which our law enforcement agencies are neither designed or empowered to control. I do not understand how you can reach this conclusion so would you explain how you define and differentiate between a criminal act and an act of war?

You know folks, we should not need to have Greg step in as Moderator to remind ourselves that we have here a fine forum for debate. Most of us hold strong opinions on some subjects and are interested in learning more about them; we also are open to informed opinions on subjects with which we are not familiar. This Forum is a rare example of an open forum which remains civilized but allows passionate exposition of our beliefs and opinions. It can only continue to be so if we remember this is a forum, not a fight club. I have had to step back a time or two when I accepted that I was pushing the limit or, in fact, had exceeded it. I attempt to make my posts pointed but not personal. To preserve the Forum, and to encourage new participants we need to remain civil with each other.

Hi Ronda, it is rather sad but what I see here is the same evolution as occurred with "racial" politics. 'Normal' Gays, 'straight' gays, 'non-extreme' gays (pick one) find the positions taken by the extreme gays to be more than a bit off the wall but because of a feeling of group solidarity, do not speak out against them and their extreme positions. The problem with this is that over time, the extreme voices are the only ones heard. And when these extreme demands go far beyond any reasonable common ground, they create far more opposition, encourage the growth of homophobia and reduce or eliminate opportunities for reasonable compromise. The majority of us today understand that it is OK to hate the 'sin' but not the sinner. We understand that we have a right to our moral standards but that others are not obligated to share our views and/or morals. And we understand that the only body we own and can or should control is our own. What others choose to do in the areas of sex and reproduction is their choice limited only by questions of consent and adult status under our social compact and laws. A basis exists for a common ground where we can agree to disagree but can live and let live. To have this work, both sides must control and stifle their extremist elements. Our bibles and religious works have defined homosexuality as a sin for several thousand years, they constitute the basis of our morals and lives and we will not accept attempts to define their content as Hate Speech. Neither will we accept or allow attempts to change our religious rites to force us to perform gay "marriages". To us that is the equivalent of our nut fringe that wants homosexuals burned at the stake. But if the Gay Rights movement continues to push to have our religious tracts defined and prosecuted as Hate Speech and our churches de-consecrated by the performance of gay "marriage" ceremonies, then perhaps our appropriate response is to unleash our extreme elements and begin to pass the kindling wood. We can find a common ground and live in peace or have warfare. Pick one!

Lost, there is a very significant difference between common everyday speech about being "married" and the legal status of "Marriage". We must right at the beginning make a legal difference between a religious marriage and a gay union or you will see Courts, Human or Civil Rights Commissions attempting to dictate to religious groups about what they must do. Plus, if there is not a clear legal difference, this will be fought tooth and nail! I do not care who lives with whom, what they do in their bedroom and if six people and a goat are what float your boat, then row away! But based upon prior experience with this "rights" business, if this is designated as "marriage" eventually some damned government functionary will walk thru the doors of my Church and tell us that the "Law" requires that we perform a "Gay Marriage". By the doctrine of my faith, marriage is a sacrament granted to a man and a woman and no government will change that. Now the government can force me to separate my trash, tell me how fast I can drive on the highway and shake me upside down to take my last cent in taxes and I have to go along with that. But they can not dictate my religious practices and they had best stay out of our Church! Civil disobedience is the least they can expect if they attempt to proceed on this basis.

The problem, Tony, is that this issue does intrude into the religious sphere - quite deliberately so in some cases. Currently, in Ireland, Gay groups are threatening Catholic Priests & Catholic Civil groups with prosecution under "Hate Speech" Laws if they speak, publish or disseminate the Pope's latest Statement on Catholic Dogma on Homosexuality. Here you have a religious leader restating a 2000 year old position, based upon "Old" and "New" Testament positions on Homosexuality. It's the old joke: "Is the Pope a Catholic?" Well then, who better to restate the position of the R.C. Church than the Pope? And that's "Hate "Speech?" Can't happen in Canada - sorry, you are wrong! Google under "Gay" and "Sask..." and you'll come upon with the story of the Saskatoon something or other newspaper. In 1999, this paper (which prints some ads for 'gays seeking gays') accepted and printed an ad which cites biblical quotes against homosexual activity. Three gay guys decided this was hateful and filed a "Hate Speech" complaint with the SK Human Rights Commission. Yup, the Bible is hate speech! Well, guess what - The Human Rights Commission decided that quotes from the Bible are "Hate Speech" in SK! They fined the person who placed the ad and the paper that published it. Do you still wonder why many of us are up in arms about protecting our religious rights? Have you ever read AndrewSullivan.Com? You can find him HERE He is a fine writer, and is openly gay with an arrested case of AIDS. He is also a devout Catholic and in his blog you can experience the agony of someone who leads a life that is a "sin" by the tenets of his faith. His agony is real, as is his faith but this can not change the dogma of the Catholic Church. Not now, not ever. So you see, there are gays who wish religious acceptance. The State can not be allowed to interject itself into religious dogma under the guise of "Human Rights" or "Hate Speech". Yes Lost, in my only experience of Marriage, I had to obtain a State License and provide that to the Priest before he would perform a marriage ceremony - he was responsible to complete the section at the bottom and return it to the License authorities to certify that it had been done. Let's look at those steps again - (1) the State issues a license (2) You decide if you wish a religious or non-religious ceremony (3) Someone marries you and certifies this to the State. Let's just go ahead and create a "Civil Union" status, equivalent to marriage, and establish the criteria State by State or Province by Province and this would resolve the issue.

I'm 100 % with you on this one, Black Dog, the Bishops and Red Caps were so busy and concerned about protecting the "image" of the Clergy of the Church that they neglected to protect the Children of the Church. For a number of reasons, I'm not sure any great credence can be given to this survey. First, there now has been a statement from the Pope on this very subject to remind them of the tenets of the faith. Second, we have no knowledge of the wording of the questions which produce these results. I rather doubt they were asked: "Should Gays have a right to receive the sacrament of marriage on the altar of your church?" I suspect there would have been different percentages were that the question asked. Last, there are many people (like myself) quite fed up with intrusive survey takers. If we can't stop them from bothering us, we most certainly can mess up their results by giving false data.