First decriminalization, then plural marriages

normanchateau · April 10, 2009

Free vote my a$$. Jackboot Layton whipped the Dippers, Martin whipped his cabinet. Both those scumbags lost good people over it.
The Bloc was also whipped, Harper was the only one to allow the "free" vote

On what planet was the TV you were watching?

Martin whipped his cabinet? :lol: :lol:

Perhaps you failed to realize in your haste to condemn Paul Martin that in December, 2006, Stephen Harper was Prime Minister.

noahbody · April 10, 2009

Nonetheless, it was Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, who introduced the motion to take away legislated human rights granted previously by "revisiting" the issue.

Did he? I don't recall him ever introducing such a motion.

How about a citation?

85RZ500 · April 10, 2009

Martin whipped his cabinet? :lol:
Perhaps you failed to realize in your haste to condemn Paul Martin that in December, 2006, Stephen Harper was Prime Minister.

Martin forced his cabinet(shadow) to vote in favour of ssm, period.

Remember the cabinet minister who was fired for blabbing classified stuff on a plane? Andy Scott was his name, sent back to the benches,

FF to the Justice Committee on the definition of marriage. It wasn't going well for the Liberals, so Courchon yanked two committee members and replaced them with known ssm supporters. One of whom later stole an expensive ring for his boyfriend.

A vote was called to end the committee after the three Ontario judges approved SSM. It didn't look good for a yes with the liberal Lee supposedly against ssm and the deciding vote. Suddenly he was called from the room. They wouldn't wait for his return and the tie vote was cast. The chairman cast the deciding vote, and the ssm side won. Two seconds later Lee entered the room ansd said aw shucks.

The chairman was non other than Andy Scott and for his good work was awarded another cabinet posting.

Stomach turning Liberal hypocrisy

Smallc · April 10, 2009

Martin forced his cabinet(shadow) to vote in favour of ssm, period.

That's right. He did so because it was a matter of human rights.

benny · April 10, 2009

Martin forced his cabinet(shadow) to vote in favour of ssm, period.
Remember the cabinet minister who was fired for blabbing classified stuff on a plane? Andy Scott was his name, sent back to the benches,

FF to the Justice Committee on the definition of marriage. It wasn't going well for the Liberals, so Courchon yanked two committee members and replaced them with known ssm supporters. One of whom later stole an expensive ring for his boyfriend.

A vote was called to end the committee after the three Ontario judges approved SSM. It didn't look good for a yes with the liberal Lee supposedly against ssm and the deciding vote. Suddenly he was called from the room. They wouldn't wait for his return and the tie vote was cast. The chairman cast the deciding vote, and the ssm side won. Two seconds later Lee entered the room ansd said aw shucks.

The chairman was non other than Andy Scott and for his good work was awarded another cabinet posting.

Stomach turning Liberal hypocrisy

There is not much difference in between the financial sector's lobbying to allow bank mergers and the homosexuals' lobbying to allow gay marriage, they both give rise to this kind of maneuvering on the part of MPs.

Edited April 10, 2009 by benny

fellowtraveller · April 17, 2009

That's right. He did so because it was a matter of human rights.

Yet oddly enough, Martin, Chretien, Dion and nearly every Liberal had voted exactly the opposite, against SSM, on two occasions.

Was it not a human right then?

tango · April 17, 2009

Yet oddly enough, Martin, Chretien, Dion and nearly every Liberal had voted exactly the opposite, against SSM, on two occasions.
Was it not a human right then?

They represent the people and the people's attitudes were changing.

Why waste so much energy on silly partisan politics?

boooorrrring!

Smallc · April 17, 2009

Was it not a human right then?

The Supreme Court had not yet ruled it as such at that time as far as I remember.

normanchateau · April 17, 2009

Martin forced his cabinet(shadow) to vote in favour of ssm, period.

Last time you claimed it was his cabinet! Suddenly you remember he was out of power.

normanchateau · April 17, 2009

Yet oddly enough, Martin, Chretien, Dion and nearly every Liberal had voted exactly the opposite, against SSM, on two occasions.

Yet oddly enough, in 2003, Harper opposed the Canada Health Act. In 2001, he urged Ralph Klein to drop out of medicare. But in 2005, he stated exactly the opposite and attacked Preston Manning for stating precisely what Harper had previously stated:

http://www.tommydouglas.ca/research/200504

Apparently Harper supporters have no problem with Harper changing his position on an issue.

benny · April 17, 2009

"Plural marriages" seems a contradiction in terms because marriage is a protection against what may be too exciting about sex.

Edited April 17, 2009 by benny

ToadBrother · April 17, 2009

Yet oddly enough, in 2003, Harper opposed the Canada Health Act. In 2001, he urged Ralph Klein to drop out of medicare. But in 2005, he stated exactly the opposite and attacked Preston Manning for stating precisely what Harper had previously stated:
http://www.tommydouglas.ca/research/200504

Apparently Harper supporters have no problem with Harper changing his position on an issue.

Since the Conservatives have now overtaken the Liberals for naked ambition and willingness to subvert any and/or all elements of their platform in the maintenance of power, is it any wonder?

normanchateau · April 17, 2009

Did he? I don't recall him ever introducing such a motion.
How about a citation?

Here's the motion:

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/mot061206.htm

Had it passed, it would have respected the legality of same-sex marriages existing prior to the December, 2006 vote. However, it would have re-opened the question for future same-sex marriages.

benny · April 17, 2009

How about any secular democratic society, since the winner-takes-all ethic that polygamy inspires is antithetical to principles of equality.

Our democracies where a simple majority allows a political party to vote laws without listening to opposition is also a kind of winner-takes-all political system.

normanchateau · April 17, 2009

Martin forced his cabinet(shadow) to vote in favour of ssm, period.

Martin's shadow cabinet? :lol: :lol: :lol:

When Stephen Harper decided to "revisit" the issue of ssm, Stephane Dion was leader of the Opposition.

benny · April 17, 2009

Sauna could become a place to celebrate polygamous ssm!

Edited April 17, 2009 by benny

normanchateau · April 17, 2009

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?sect...6&article=2

benny · April 17, 2009

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?sect...6&article=2

"The connection between prohibiting polygamy and protecting women is over-inclusive because, as a study by McGill law professor Angela Campbell revealed, not all polygamous relationships subordinate women. The connection is also under-inclusive given the host of circumstances where monogamous women’s choices may be suspect as subject to coercion yet we do not even question, let alone invoke the criminal law (for example, remaining at home and raising children rather than entering the workforce, undergoing plastic surgery or marrying someone from the same religious community). In addition, monogamous wives living in isolation behind the closed doors of single family dwellings may face domestic violence and even death at the hands of individual husbands who are psychotic or socialized to believe they are superior beings. "

fellowtraveller · April 17, 2009

The Supreme Court had not yet ruled it as such at that time as far as I remember.

Can't be a right until the SC recognizes it.

Smallc · April 18, 2009

Can't be a right until the SC recognizes it.

No, but it can be wrong to not do something after the supreme court recognizes it.

benny · April 18, 2009

No, but it can be wrong to not do something after the supreme court recognizes it.

Imagine the anarchy if the SC was not composed of only a very small uneven number of persons!

normanchateau · May 1, 2009

In the end, it may be legal bills that sink the polygamists. It appears that they don't have the funds for their Supreme Court challenge.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Life/legal+bil...2644/story.html

benny · May 1, 2009

In the end, it may be legal bills that sink the polygamists. It appears that they don't have the funds for their Supreme Court challenge.
http://www.vancouversun.com/Life/legal+bil...2644/story.html

It seems that for males to attract more females, their forests should be more productive than the forestry sector.

normanchateau · May 1, 2009

It seems that for males to attract more females, their forests should be more productive than the forestry sector.

For decades it has remained a mystery as to who authored the "clever" prose found in fortune cookies and how the author amused himself when he had time on his hands. The mystery will soon be solved.

benny · May 1, 2009

There is no doubt in my mind that forest private owners would not be rich enough to have several wives if the Canadian government would capture decent (i.e. much higher) stumpage fees (royalties).