Neal.F.

Black Dog wrote: Furthermore if the Supreme Court was banning abortion or supporting the "traditional" definition of marriage, you'd not hear a peep about "judicial activism". --------------- Actually you would be hearing more than just a peep... you'd hear screaming from the liberal side.

Nobody is talking about kicking someone's ass. I just see conservatives getting their asses kicked by Liberal extremists. As for abortion, it is murder plain and simple. Even a state with minimal government would want to protect its citizens very lives. As for prostitution, what may be consensual between the hooker and the John may well have devastation consequences to a family, should Mr. John contract a disease and bring it home to an unsuspecting wife. Pornography is damaging to families as well. I'd like to see it wiped out, and failing that, at least kept in brown paper wrappers, instead on in our kids faces. Drugs. Sorry, seen to much in my life to justify it as a consensual victimless crime. While I agree with you that a good act committed under duress is worth nothing, but let's get beyond the idea of victimless crimes and at least ensure that , say, Mr. John will be held responsible for his actions when he brings home the disease to Mrs. John. But by then, it may well be too late to matter. That is why I am no longer a member of the Libertarian party, for whom I ran in '88 & '93.

Defined by who? According to you, marriage is a religious matter. Fine. But no one is telling churche sto alter their definition of marriage. The issue is the legal definition of marriage, as used by the state to define civil contracts between individuals. August's chamapgne analogy is very accurate. No, you're not. Once gay marriages are recognized by the state, churches will still retain the right to refuse to acknowledge or participate in gay unions If it looks like a duck... Freedom of expression is a double edged sword. They retain the right to hld such events and you retain the right to express your distaste for such events, and to not watch them. No one is telling the churches to perform gay marriage.... Not yet... but mark my words, the moment it is legal across canada, Some gay couple or couples will launch a massive discrimination lawsuit. The two latest additions to this puked-up excuse for a supreme court and the fact that the new justice minister supports gay marriage do not give me any confidence that they wouldn't find a way to strike down the part of the constitution that protects churches from this. And failing that, look for civil suits to attack the recalcitrant churches financially. as for gay pride parades, you don't think that some standards of decency should be enforced? also one must remember that these are not spontaneous events but political ones... Ones that involve coercion too. Remember what happened to Brad Woodside (among others) former mayor of Fredricton NB, when he refused to "proclaim a gay pride day?" they want the state's stamp of approval, not just a parade permit. When a public official does make such a proclamation he ceases to represent his community, but rather sides with one element against another. And If I register my opposition to gay pride parades, my letter will likely not be published, and any public statements i make will be countered with cries of "Racist ! Sexist! anti-gay!", and I might even be charged with a hate crime. Your "duck" allusion confirms what I have said. One would think that gays would rally around the Libertarian party if freedom to live their lives as they chose in peace was the real issue. Instead the activists rally around statist parties like the Libs , NDP and Democrats, so they can have their agenda FORCED on everyone. Getting the state out of the marriage business as libertarians suggest is not goiod enough. They must have it their way, carved in stone.

The US was founded as a country where there was no state religion/denomination. NOT as a secular state in the sense that the liberal left is trying to establish today. Well, I think the forcible removal of the 10 commandments from schools and courtrooms is one good example. I could point to hundreds of others as well. I think that if you scratch the surface, the whole thing comes down to the most atrocious and irresponsible decision ever rendered : Roe V. Wade. I was surprised to learn that more US servicemen were killed in the US Civil war than in WWI or WWII. almost half a million in each conflict. However since 1973, over 40 million people have been legally murdered by abortionists in the US alone.

Separation of Church and sate is, very simply, that there shall be no established state religion. That's it, that's all. actually, no, I'm referring to the others on SCOTUS such as O'Connor, Breyer, Kenney and Bader-Ginsberg. Not to mention the circuit courts all over the country that are tsacked with liberals. Look how the democrats scotched ever Bush appointee because they were pro-life.

Cartman, I think this is getting way offbase. For one thing we are talking about a state senator in Taxachusetts, not a Canadian Senator so canadian stats are not germane to this. ince Taxachusetts brought in gay marriage, it is possible that gay couples are adopting more children in the time frame alluded to. I did not make the original post, but I can ask Ron Gray to provide the name of the Senator, and where he made the statement. These days, give the liberal Atmosphere in the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts the percentage of gays is much higher than in other parts of the country. Provincetown has always been a gay Mecca. Taxachusetts is competeing with San Francisco as the most gay friendly part of the country.

Two men come upon a tree in the wilderness. Y gets there first and sits under the shade, whhile Y starts to pick cherries.. Lets see, if the two cannot resolve the matter amicably themselves, which should not be difficult since each man wants it for a different, and non conflicting purpose, there is no reason why they cannot agree. However in the event they do not agree, they need to appeal toa mutually agreed upon independent objective arbiter. If we look at the Homsteading laws that existed in the early USA, whereby a man could lay claim to a piece of land and mix his labour with it and thus take posession of it, it would seem that the first man since he arrived first, should be able touse it for his purpose in the event of the inability to agree to share it. However, since he is not mixing labour with the land, he would not be establishing any kind of permanent claim to it, as the cherry picker would. Therefore, since one has to make a living, either through subsistence farming, or through the sale of the fruit, it would seem that the second man would have a more legitimate claim to the tree. This is why there must be some kind of minimalist government who can be deputized,whose authority is enforceable and thus universally recognized, to make enforceable decisions in such matters. Anarchy would inevitably result in a violent showdown at the OK Corral if the matter could not be resolved amicably or with one party backing down.

I think it would be a disaster if Kerry won. I really think he is a sock puppet of Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. I would not be so concerned about a future under a Democrat president if it was somebody normal like a Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden or Gary Hart. However,putting Kerry/Edwards into office would be tantamount to electing Jack Layton as president. Kerry is that far out in lala land. A good indicator is the way Michael Moore and his socialist globalist froiends are rallying around the ticket, something they would not have done, at least not so enthusiatically for Biden, Lieberman, or one of the more middle of the road Democrats. Jack Layton is a good analogy for how he would pursue domestic policy, and in terms of foreign policy, while a Kerry regime would amount to Jimmy Carter's second term by proxy.. With the Judiciary firmly in the hands of the left, Kerry could pursue a radical agenda on the home front. On the foreign side, while i am not convinced that anything would change in Iraq (to the dismay of the Moorites) I do think he would endanger US sovereignty by joining the Euroliberal International Criminal court (tantamount to abandining Israel) and subjugate the USA to the UN, and move us closer to global government. I want the Democrats to go down to a major defeat. That is the only way that they will be convinced toi do a total hosecleaning, so that moderates can regain control of the party from the radical left, and it can again become a legitimate choice for an alternative governing party. While I don't think I could ever vote for a Democrat (unless he/she was pro-life) I do think that any country that drifts toward one-party rule needs to make adjustments before it is too late. That's what it took to shake up the PCs and CA to get their act together here. The Dems need to purge the radical left to be taken seriously again.

Black Dog, I must disagree with you strongly on this. Falwell can say what he wants, but the GOP is nowhere near installing a Talibanesque religious state on the USA. IS your argument based on the fact that they seekl to protect the right to life of the unborn at the expense of the self-indulgent "right" to dispose of a life because it is the "inconvenient" result of one's own actions? Are you telling me that only people of faith believe in the right to life? What about accountability for one's actions? This sick "right to abortion" nonsense is a disgusting symptom of the "throwaway society". Disposable lighters, disposable cameras, disposable diapers, disposable babies! And now the public debate moves into the realm of euthanasia where it is becoming fashionable to talk about "mercy killing" those who by virtue of age or disability are either no longer productive cogs in the world machine, or "burdens. It's adangerous trend, and if the Christain lobby wants tonstand up to protest, it is their right, is it not? It sounds to me as if you are arguing that everybody has the right to participate fully in the political process, except conservative Christians. Granted it is your right to disdain them as it is mine to hold the Michael moore/howard Dean crowd in contempt as they attempt to impose their left wing militant secularist "religion" on the country. Hugo is correct, when he points out the fact that many unchristian acts were committed when there were established churches. We see it every day in Islam. Party politics, being what it is, causes good men to go bad, and bad men to get worse in most cases. However, Hugo, I fear you may be playing into the radical secularists hands with such a coment if you are not careful. Frankly, Black Dog is tossing out a red herring here. There is a conmstitution that says that there shall nbe no established state church, and nothing is ever going to change that. The Democratic party is NOT an inclusive organization (But then again, to the left, words like "inclusiveness" and "diversity" are usually used in connection with gay rights and to justify trampling on the rights of those who don't think that special priveleges should be accorded based on sexual behaviour.) There is a great deal of hostility in the Democratic Party toward anyone who does not agree with abortion rights and gay rights. We must also remember that the COURTS, which are stacked with left-leaningjudges, are imposing restrictions on how Christians may express their faith publicly. In a free society, the only restriction on anyone's freedom of sppeech should be where it crosses thelines of civility and incites violence, or where one group decides that their freedom of expression is to stifle someone else's view (read preople who obstruct public speeches with chants of "Hey hey, ho ho )fill in the balnk) has got to go" or the ubiquitous "Racist sexist, anti-gay"). I don't have a problem with a Chanukah display, or some kind of honoring of a Muslim of Sikh holiday. Why should nativity scenes be trashed? The basis of western law is nfound in the 10 commandments. Whay should these not be on public display? The fairest system thusfar devised by man stemmed from these, and it is these that protect the bsic rights we all cherish. People come from all over the world to live under such a system. Could it be because the commandment "thou shalt not kill" gets in the way of the desire to be able to rid oneself of an inconvenient child? Could it be because the commandments proscribe adultery and fornication, that gets in the way of hedons? Could it be that property rights are enshrined (#10) (to the chagrin of the socialists)? Nobody is ever going to establish a state religion. Get over it. However, the left is trying to circumvent the constitution by RESTRICTING freedom of religion at least the public expression of it, by enforcing militant secularism (their version of it)through an activist judiciary. At the end of the day it is up to the voters to decide. they will say to the Republicans "this far and no further, at the ballot box. They told the Democrats where to go in the recent congressional elections, with their agenda. However the Dems are just imposing their views by proxy through the judiciary, often AGAINST the will of the people. case in point: Louisiana votes 78% for an amendment banning gay "marriage" . A liberal judge overrules the people.

As I said, the only place that makes Quebec look desireable.... You know that if the likes of Svend Robinson, Hedy Fry and Libby Davies, can get elected there you have a problem.... Not to mention the crooks in the provincial NDP.... and the mafiosos in the Liberals....

It seems that once again BCs situation is not altogether different from Quebec's.... I don't think that under Jean Charest, the Quebec Liberals could be re-elected. With a new leader, they might be able to pull it off. Would that be the case in BC, say, if Campbell himself steps down in favour of a more poular underling? I pity you all if the New Democrats get back in...... BC Unity all the way! IF I am still in Quebec when the next election comes (highly unlikely) I will vote ADQ while holding my nose.

How was it determined that there is only one way to cure the snakebite? How was it determined that there is only one way to salvation? Neil, many Christians dealt with the difference between these two questions about 400 years ago. Have you? The Ad in question was a spoof, and a funny one at that... Now what Christians decided 400 yars ago that salvation did not require Christ? Don't tell me it'sthe Roman Catholics... the teaching of the RCC as found in the Catechism, is that people who out of genuine ignorance have never heard of Jesus Christ can be saved, at God's discretion, anyone who has heard of Him and REJECTS him, cannot. All other Christian Churches, until recently, anyway, taught something similar, except some fundamentalist churches who teach that anyone who hasn't heard of Him is damned. The so-called Christian (Liberal) churches who teach that all roads lead to God, and we're all getting there by different paths is alot of hokum. They are right in the sense that all roads do lead to God, only some will meet him as Judge, others as saviour...something they omit.

As for me, I'm only sorry that Harper backtracked from his initial support of the war ahgainst Terror, specifically Saddam Hussein. The motion presented by the Bloc would also appeal to many Conservative supporters who see the Feds as encroaching on provincial jurisdictions. It might even have opened up the Quebecois to look at the Conservatives more seriously. The Libs would benefit only in Metro Toronto and among terrified Quebec anglos who see the the Liberals as the only protection from those mean nasty separatists (Beat us humilaite us, rob us blind!!!!! Just as long as the PQ /BQ doesn't win!) The Tories need a breakthrough in Quebec. This would help... mostly at Bloc expense. Harper would have been demonstration he walks the talk to Newfoundlanders. remember his promise to turn over the oil reserves there to the province? Wouldn't Nova Scotia, NB, and PEI like the Feds to leave their fishing industries alone? No. the only reason the deal was cut was because nobody can afford, either finacially or politicall another election just yet, AND the people do not want one. Whoever caused it would pay.

No August. The ad was comparing the fact that there was only one way to cure the snakebite, with the Christian belief that there is only one way to salvation. Christianity IS a matter of faith, but one where making the wrong choice has serious consequences. That has been true since the beginning. Those who, not out of ignorance, reject Jesus even if they are philanthropists will be eternally separated from Him. Nobody is suggesting that we round up homosexuals and charge them, but neither should the state put society's stamp of approval on it. It is a lifestyle choice, but a wrong one, just as heterosexual cohabition is. Look what acceptance of THAT did to the family! You don't Like people who drive corvettes (well neither do I!) but I TOLERATE them. Tolerance is not approving and applauding, but living and let live. We are being asked to consider first cohabitation as equal to being married, and now we are being asked to bless homosexual relationships. And moreover to refuse to do so results in being labelled an intolerant bigotted homophobe. Ditto for complaining about lewd and lascivious parades of half naked louts (and loutesses) engaging in sick and disgsuting gestures and acts in our streets. The gay lobby likes to refer to Trudeau (the man who eviscerated the morals of this country) and his famous utterance that the state should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation. Most of us would agree with that. however, the same people who continually invoke this saying are the very ones who fling their bedroom door wide open for all to see!!!!! I will say , however, that if the definition of MARRIAGE is left as it is in the traditional sense of one man and one woman for life, there would not be an issue to discuss here.

By legalizing euthanasia, you are declaring open season on the weak, non-productive and infirm. There are many of us who suspect that by marketing "assisted suicide/mercy killing" as a compassionate humaitarian gesture the powers that be are trying to facilitate ridding society of those whose usefulness has expired, from a utilitarian standpoint. One less old age/disability pension to pay..... This line is being bought by others, namely those who help support such people financially, and who would like to rid themselves of their "burden". Let's look at the Terri Schiavo case in Florida. Here we have a case where a family is prepared to assume all costs to care for their daughter, yet theoir son in law, who has NOTHING to gain financially is fighting to have her feeding tube removed so she starves to death. We have Cathoolic Jeb Bush the Gov. of Florida fighting for the judeo-christian life ethic, while the judges side with the son in law, I believe with a view to facilitating futire cases. I think Robert Latimer should have been charged with Murder One and thrown away. The weak are a gift from God, each with theirown talents, and I might argue, some were placed here to try to help bring out the best in us. No to euthanasia of any kind for any reason. Those who participate in it shouldbe proisecuted to the fullest. Man has no business playing God.

I believe that all abortion should be illegal. It comes from the basic right to life. It must apply to all from conception until natural death (you now know my position on euthanasia too). it is as wrongto kill a baby even days or hours after conception as it is to kill someone in their 30's walking down the street. Abortion is simply killing someone for the crime of being inconvenient. Freedom of choice exists up until the moment of conception. One can choose to participate in or abstain from sex. By choosing to participate one implicitly acknowledges the potential risk , contraceptives notwithstanding that the possible result will be a pregnancy. Is it right to ask someone else to pay for one's actiosn, with their life? Isn't itinteresting that often the most virulent opponents of the death penalty for violent murderers are often the most vocal advocates for the right to murder the innocent? As for Philippe "Mengele" Couillard the "health" minister in Quebec, that he thinks it should be legalized let alone covered by the taxpayer shows how morally bankrupt he and the Qubec Liberal party are. And to think Charest was CONSERVATIVE leader at one time. His regime is a disgrace. When you have Henry Morgentaler (who i refuse to dignify with the use of the honorific Dr.) refusing to have anything to do with late term (partial birth) abortion, then you know something is wrong in La Vielle Capitale. Canadien is correct to a certain extent that most Quebecois do not see the inside of a church except for baptisms , some weddings (when they bother with it) and funerals. The Quiet Revolution in the '60s saw French speaking young people reject the church in droves and embark on a new religion: secular nationalism and socialism. The English speaking Catholic Church is very much alive and well in Quebec, however.

What do you call a media tat insisits on putting pictures from Pride day atrocities -er- parades on their front pages? and covers all gay stories more like a cheerleading squad would rather than a journalist? Explain why there are so many gay-rlated stoiries in the papers that werent there 10 years ago? Try getting an article or op-ed piece that speaks out against the homosexual lifestyle for the health hazards it entails, published and see what happens. i could go on, but I won't. Should the state force people to marry? No. Nor should they force us to recognoize as equivalent to marriage domestic arrangements that are clearly NOT marriage. Such arrangements are not restricted to homosexual couples, but to heterosexual couples who just shack up. I don't consider them "married", no matter how many years they have been together. Nobody is stopping people from whatever contractual agreements they wish to make, be it last wills and testaments title deeds or life insurance beneficiries. Nor should anybidy be forced to recognize or underwrite such contracts. Ultimately an insurance co. should set its own rates and policies. A bed and breakfast should be free to choose to enter or not to enter a contact with whomever it pleases, for whatever reasons they have. That is freedom. Nobody stops anybody, but nobody has to accept or applaud it either. But marriage is a covenant between two people and God, not a private contractual arrangement. the latter is what you call a civil union.

I disagree. Having the Cons bring down the government would be good for the ND's and the Grits as they would be able to paint the Cons as rigid and uninterested in compromise, only in attaining power. The Cons will not bring down the govt. now. After an election on June 28th, followed by BBQ season, I'm sure CP staff weren't working overtime opening all the envelopes of donations that must have been POURING in all summer /sarcasm off They will want a good few months of a fresh new fundraising campaign . I don't think they want to use recycled signs from the previous vote as the 2000 PC party did. The Bloc is sitting pretty with more seats than Lucien Bouchard got in 1993, They know that the odds are against duplicating that feat. Besides, they want the taxpayer dollars that JeanChretien so graciously offered them with his campaign finance reform. The NDP Don't want another vote either, since at this point the Liberals are dependent on them and will concede much. If the Libs get a majority or even better tossed, in a hypotehtical election, they go back to being 4th party and insignificance.

No MP's thank goodness. A pox on the lot of them. The CHP ran more candidates this time than at any other since their founding in 1988. Some candidates got 5-6% in their respective ridings, most notaly Dr. Joseph Grubb in Judy Sgro's riding. It would have been higher too, if there werent people still holding out the hope that the Conservatives would defend marriage from the homosexual assault, and innocent children from the knife and suction equipment of Henry Morgentaler (whom I will not dignify with the honorific "Dr") . There were also some who felt that to vote CHP endangered a CP chandidate from defeating a Liberal. The back pedalling that Mr Harper has done on social issues, and the way he has distanced himself from the pro-lifers in the CP caucus will just drive more people to do what they know they ought to, and wanted to. If the political correctness cancer continues to take root in the CP, to wit, the myth that if they become liberal lite, they can win, then don't be surprised to see some CP MPs sacrificed for their "radical" views. Maybe THEY might form the first CHP caucus in parliament. In my view, while the CHP is admirably the only party that stands for the principles tat gavev rise to a freer and fairer society than ever existed before, principles that are being sneered at by liberal elites, they are committing what i see as an error that will hold them back: The fact that membership in the party is reserved for Christians only, unlike the similar minded Family Coalition party of Ontario which espouses all the same values, but welcomes people of all faiths who share the bedrock pro-family, pro-life, and pro-private enterprise principles, and te desire for less government. A pox on all the mainstream parties who work on behalf of noisy radicals, and pick our pockets clean by accepting the matching funds of the Chretien election finance reform. Nobody should be forced via taxation to contribute to parties and the advancement of ideas they do not support.

I'll paraphrase an Ad by RBC ministries wherein a man is bitten by a poisonous snake and is told he has 15 minutes to live unless he takes a certain pill that is THE ONLY known cure for that kind of snakebite, and that the doctor happens to have it. The man goes to take the pill, when the wife steps in and says "I've heard about Doctors like you... You are so narrow minded and Intolerant! Imagine the arrogance of telling us there's only ONE cure. Come on! let's go get another opinion" There is no middle ground on the truth. The teachings of Christ were given out of love and His desire for us to avoid the consequenbces that follow naturally for contravening them...aka laws of nature, if you prefer.

Ron Gray, leader of the National CHP wrote that piece. he is a true journalist by trade (not a Dan Rather "See BS" style "journalist) Knowing Ron he would have researched his facts first. As for the "Choose your fire" comment. It's the truth whether you like it or not. It is not "selling a religion" Christianity is not a religion, per se, where there is a set of rules and you are judged at teh end of the day as to how well you obeyed them. it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which involves following Jesus and his teachings voluntarily, but one's salvation comes exclusively from one's decision to accept him as saviour and enter into the relationship with him, not upon any "works" "brownie points" or anything we do. However, rejecting Jesus Christ, no matter what good works you do results in eternal from Him in the hereafter, and earthly consequences due to cause and effect of one's actions.

BC is the one place in Canada where the provincial politics are less messed up than in Quebec.... If BC Unity, the Conservatives and Socreds could get together, you will get one wild Italian style legislature. However, that is unlikely so we will probably see the BC Libs getting in again, on account of the split Green/NDP vote.

I would be happy to see the NDP disappear. A pox on the lot of them. If we want a socialist conscience in parliament ( I Don't) The Bloc is at least a more intelligent bunch. I would like to see more indepnedents, and say a small contingenet of Christian heritage party members. The Conservative party does little for social conservatives. If they ever formed a minority, they'd be forced to look to the CHP to prop them up.

Cadman broke the cardinal rule of big party politics....and in so doing, he did the right thing. Nevertheless, when the nomination race was called, he would have had to sign a form when he filed his nomination papers which states that in the event that he lost the nomination, he would not seek a nomination for another party nor would he run as an independent. The Conservatives wanted him to have the nomination, but when he defied the rules, they had to apply the penalty, or risk all hell braking loose in ridings across Canada. Cadman was always seen as a constituency man, and I hoep he continues to do just that. In this minority parliament, he has a unique chance to demonstrate to all Canadians, who, judging by the turnout on June 28th, the majority of whom are repelled by the current state of party politics, that voting for an independent is NOT a wasted vote.

Frankly, Maplesyrup, I'm sick of seeing this individual traipsing around the globe in royal fashion on MY taxes. in my lifetime, there has never been a Governor General who has so abused the office and the taxpayer who foots the bill. Roland Michener, Jules Leger, Ed Schreyer, Jeanne Sauvé and Ray Hnatyshyn and even Romeo Leblanc all carried out the exercise of the office with great dignity, and restraint.