knn

One of Stephen Harper's big mistakes is demanding that he "approve" his MP's speeches, but he's neglected to have anyone "vet" his own speech!

This is what makes Harper, and others like him, such a timebomb for the Conservative party. The huge outcry about Harper's speech is his playing minorities against each other, and digging up "ancient history" which has angered many organizations. Harper playing minorities for "political points" is certainly not winning any for him or his party: "A director of the National Association of Japanese Canadians said in a news release it was "wrong-headed" of Harper "to try to play politics with an ancient historical wrong. "By raising the issue of Japanese Canadian internment, Mr. Harper is resorting to cheap political shots ... rather than facing the inconsistency of his position on human rights," said Professor Audrey Kobayashi of Queen's University. Pat Case, chairman of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, said it was "simply embarrassing" to see Harper try to score political points with the issue." HARPER STIRS OUTCRY

Of course it will still exist. Marriage can still be the union of a man and a woman. Nothing is being "taken away". It is adding the right that a same sex couple may also have a "CIVIL marriage", but it does not "take out" marriage for a man and a woman. Ditto as above. Your quarrel doesn't seem to be about marriage between a man and a woman. That can and will still happen. You quarrel seems to be hung up on the fact that a same sex couple MAY ALSO have the right to marry! Ditto as above. It won't "be gone". Some people actually look upon it as enriching marriage. Puts more couples in a commitment to each, more stable relationship, rather than living "in sin."

Once again, Stephen Harper’s attempts to use political ruse has landed him in deep trouble. He has unleashed a storm of protests from people and organizations all over the country. Harper, who wrote his own speech, was "so busy vetting his MPs speeches, that he forgot to check his own." “A range of groups responded yesterday with fury, saying Harper went too far. A flurry of outraged news releases descended on media offices from the National Association of Japanese Canadians, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, the Canadian Buddhists Civil Liberties Association, the World Sikh Organization, the British Columbia Unitarian Church and the Muslim Canadian Congress.” "Pat Case, chairman of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, said it was "simply embarrassing" to see Harper try to score political points with the issue. “A director of the National Association of Japanese Canadians said in a news release it was "wrong-headed" of Harper "to try to play politics... Stephen Harper seems to be a political lightning rod for doing the wrong thing, saying the wrong thing, and stepping in more cow manure than he knows what to do with. Isn’t it time for Harper to quietly move aside? HARPER STIRS OUTCRY!

In what way are married people feelling that the "meaning is being taken out of them"? Same sex marriage have taken place now for nearly two years? Do you feel less committed, less married? Has your marriage changed? If so, how? But a CIVIL marriage is a legal formality! If you want a deeply RELIGIOUS marriage I would expect you to be married in a Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple of your choice.

To say that marriage has become more meaningful, "in modern times", is somewhat disingenuous. In the last century the breakdown of marriage has become almost rampant, with divorce reaching a peak of nearly 50 per cent.

Sorry yvestart, but I can't locate the exact web site I got from Google. There are literally thousands of sites on marriage and no two seem to agree entirely. Here's another one: "Roman marriage originally was reserved as a privilege for men who owned property; its purpose was to insure a legitimate heir. With the legitimacy of heirs as the only concern, the monogamy of men was not important while married women were subjected to the same restrictive laws as slaves. Scholars have asserted this is the basis for today's "double standard" of sexual mores." That comes from an interesting website labelled Intrigues, Scandals and Christianity. http://www.moondance.org/1997/summer97/non...on/religion.htm Also, came across this one, which gave me a chuckle: "Wedlock The word "wedlock" has changed greatly in meaning. "Wed" is cognate to modern German "Wette" and to the English word "wager". Its original meaning was "pledge" or "bet". "Lock" is an obsolete word for "game" which also appears in the word "deadlock", a "dead game" or stalemate. So wedlock originally meant "a game of chance", "a game involving a bet"."

I don't think that "marriage" is a "religious" term. It originated more as a term of a contract for legal ownership. "Marry entered English in about 1300 as marien `to give in marriage.' This came from Old French marier, from Latin maritare `wed, marry,' from maritus `married man or husband.' (Sorry ladies, marriage is just another chauvinist institution after all. The wife was merely considered "property" of the husband.) Marriage also entered English about 1300 as mariage from Old French mariage. That was formed from the verb marier plus the suffix -age. That suffix is used to form a noun from a verb. It comes from Old French - age."

I don't think that Canadians "hate Americans." We may dislike or disagree with many of their policies, their so-called values, views on capital punishment, gun use, their unjust treatment of Canadians in trade matters (even after the world courts have agreed with us over and over again.) etc. But Americans are our neighbours. We have the longest undefended border in the world. Many of us have friends in the U.S and vice versa. It's America's policies that upset most Canadians. And very often with just cause!

"Get rid of the word marriage altogether".?? But why? Why does it "concern" you? You haven't stated one logical reason to abolish the word "marriage"! There is already a distinction between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. What more do you what?

I can guarantee that nobody gives a rat's behind about this issue. It will fade faster than yesterday's newspaper. The opposition parties like to think that every small gripe they have in sync with their "consitituents". Sadly they waste so much time and energy on dragging things out on petty concerns that their consitutents become frustrated when they don't get on with more important matters, such as health care, the economy. etc.

The only way that the federal government could stop same sex marriages would be for them to use the "notwithstanding clause", carving out an exception to the Charter of Rights; something not even the Conservatives are willing to do.

Do you ever read anything that might bring you up to date on a subject which you seem to know nothing about? Same sex marriage is currently LEGAL in seven provinces and one territory. That's covers 87% of Canada's total population, who have the right to a same sex marriage. Even if the current federal bill is defeated, those LAWS will not change! You are so out of it. Your rantings about all sorts of issues which have NOTHING to do with the proposed bill is astounding. Have you read any of the Court's rulings; or even any LEGAL position on what this is all about. Obviously not!

Harper and Polls...(click here)

Oh, for heaven's sake. Read the Supreme Court Ruling and come up with something that makes sense!

Absolute rubbish. No reason, no logic. Telling people to be happy with what they have, and don't dare ask for equality! How pathetic to accuse someone else of "prodding" a minority, when all they are doing is pointing out an unjust and discriminatory law! It amounts to telling Blacks to be happy they can even ride a bus, as long as they know their place and sit in the back! Shame. The "lie" is denying a minority a human right by saying that they should be happy "celebrating their diversity" and be satisifed with discrimination and a "right" that the Supreme Court of Canada says must be allowed to them. Personally, I don't blame Black Dog for being upset with somelike like you!

While, it’s true that back in 1981 there was some opposition by the Charter’s drafters to include sexual orientation in Canada’s supreme law, it was never entirely ruled out. At the time, then-Federal Justice Minister Jean Chretien testified before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada that s.15’s wording was sufficiently open-ended to allow future courts to include sexual orientation. (Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, November 1980, Minutes of Proceedings, Jean Chrétien, January 1981, 36: 14-15.) And indeed, The Supreme Court of Canada eventually agreed, 14 years later in Egan v. Canada, ([1995] 2 S.C.R. 513.) that sexual orientation required constitutional protection. The Supreme Court ruled that equality rights protected sexual orientation. The SCC had set the stage for Egan in its first decision regarding s.15, Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, by ruling, as Chrétien had suggested, that the enumerated grounds of s.15 were not exhaustive. This was largely common sense—there is nothing in the wording of s.15 to suggest that only people belonging to the enumerated groups should be protected; rather, it reads “every individual is equal.” But which individuals, and when? Laws treat people differently all the time: rich people pay a larger proportion of their income in income tax than poorer people; agricultural subsidies only go to farmers; we don’t let children drive cars, and so forth. In short, when is differential treatment “discrimination,” and prohibited by s.15? The Court’s answer in Andrews was that s.15 protection can be extended when a legal distinction causes harm to (or evidences prejudice against) an “analogous ground”—a characteristic similar to an enumerated ground. This means that the group must be clearly defined—such as a “discrete and insular minority”—and be “historically disadvantaged.” As Chrétien’s comments indicate, sexual orientation was recognized as a probable analogous ground even at the time of the Charter’s drafting in 1981.

Harper's attack on the Charter and minority rights is backfiring. His party is now slipping in support and is the only one of the big three to decline... "OTTAWA—The federal Liberals are within striking distance of majority government, according to a new Toronto Star poll. The poll, conducted by EKOS Research Associates, shows the Liberals at 40.2 per cent support nationally, up from the 36.7 per cent they obtained in last June's election. The increase seems to be coming at the expense of the Conservatives, whose national support slipped back to 26.5 per cent..." EKOS POLL RESULTS - Click Here

No, I wouldn't throw a "tory victory party" yet... Latest poll by EKOS Research, out today,shows an increase for the Liberals and the NDP, and sharp decline for the Conservative party. "Liberals within range of majority OTTAWA—The federal Liberals are within striking distance of majority government, according to a new Toronto Star poll. The poll, conducted by EKOS Research Associates, shows the Liberals at 40.2 per cent support nationally, up from the 36.7 per cent they obtained in last June's election. The increase seems to be coming at the expense of the Conservatives, whose national support slipped back to 26.5 per cent..." EKOS POLL RESULTS - Click Here

Gads, eureka, you're either becoming a, {gasp} socialist, or you're a store owner who's been hurt by the competition!

"Recognizing same-sex marriage won't damage the fabric of society — but not recognizing it will, a former Supreme Court of Canada judge says. Canadians need to shed whatever remnants remain of the notion that family life is reserved for one particular group that is "deemed to be appropriate," says Claire L'Heureux-Dubé...." http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1107989413206

Yeah, well, if Civil marriages reflect "religious attitudes" to you, then I guess there's not much trust one can put in the rest of your dissertations. Enjoy your legerdemain!

Many straight couples don't, or can't, have children either. Do you want to ban them from marriage as well???

You “know a couple of gay men who are very strongly opposed to ssm”...!!! What on earth does this have to do with anything??? I’ve heard there are millions of heterosexual couples who don’t get married and even live common-law! Do you want to abolish marriage because of this little tidbit too!!

Oh, there something “very odd” indeed in saying that the FACT is civil marriages are “only for men and women...” I see you like the “separate but equal” theory! ”They can ride on the bus, as long as they know their place and sit in the back.”