Toews: 'Free Vote' on Same Sex Marriage

[takeanumber]

Vic Toews on Politics just said something interesting:

He said that Harper has already said (really?) that should the Cons win the next election, there would be another free vote on Same Sex Marriage.

Wow!

So let me get this straight:

The Cons are going to have another vote in an attempt to revoke marriage liscenses?

What else could get onto the agenda through this free vote/private members' bills loophole?

Abortion?

Capital Punishment?

Notwithstanding clause?

With focus in the family in the drivers seat, I wouldn't be surprised.

[bigdude]

What province does Toews hail from?

I'm really surprised that anyone with these kinds of stone age ideas, actually has any chance of being elected, anywhere in our great land, unless of course he is from.................

[RightWinger]

Vic Toews on Politics just said something interesting:

He said that Harper has already said (really?) that should the Cons win the next election, there would be another free vote on Same Sex Marriage.

Wow!

So let me get this straight:

The Cons are going to have another vote in an attempt to revoke marriage liscenses?

What else could get onto the agenda through this free vote/private members' bills loophole?

Abortion?

Capital Punishment?

Notwithstanding clause?

With focus in the family in the drivers seat, I wouldn't be surprised.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes that focus on the family is a corrupt organization! Damn them for promoting good family values! I think all our kids should run wild in the streets and there truly is no age too young to learn about sex, drugs and rock & roll!!!

But seriously, I don't think that the religious right should dominate who we have representing us, because they do not speak for all of us. They should follow the rules the party has set forward and not the rules of the church. We all know how church rules have created more wars than anything else. I do believe that organizations like Focus on Family are good for some things, but they can't rule our country. In the same sentence we can't throw religion right out the window. There has to be a happy medium for everyone and I hope that the Conservatives will realize this and not let the hardcore religious groups dominate the party.

In my riding we had a vote on the new Conservative member here between 2 guys, one a 50+ yr old tax lawyer, who served in the armed forces and a 26 yr old kid who was a worker at the constituent office with little to no experience in politics. Who do you think won the vote? The 26 yr old kid. He won by a huge margin. It makes me mad that this kind of thing can happen. The kid comes from an influential religious family and his church got the whole gang in and spent a bunch of cash on advertising. So basically, his church bought this vote. I think the whole congregation was there. Plus there was only 400 people voting. It is wrong!

I voted for the minority...LOL

RW

[The Terrible Sweal]

Yes that focus on the family is a corrupt organization! Damn them for promoting good family values!

They don't promote 'good' family values, they promote 'social conservative' family values.ly

... The kid comes from an influential religious family and his church got the whole gang in and spent a bunch of cash on advertising. So basically, his church bought this vote. I think the whole congregation was there. Plus there was only 400 people voting. It is wrong!

Clearly there is a lot wrong with this party.

[takeanumber]

RW:

Sadly, the Con party is dominated at the top by people who are in with Focus on the Family and many other religious groups (mormons in particular).

And you know, it's unfair to the few economic conservatives who still fight within the Conservative party to moderate it socially and even moderate it economically.

I will take the opposite stance on religion and politics. It's always best to keep it secular. Could you imagine if a Mosque and a Christian Fundamentalist church were both contesting the same nomination.

Incidentally, since parties are public utilities, there ought to be a primary day. One day where everybody goes out and votes for that party's candidate in their riding. That would fix quite a few things.

I think it's a better fight, for economic conservatives/social liberals to head into the liberal party and fight the Corrupt Quebec Wing than to try to fight a futile battle against fanatical religious fundamentalists in the conservative party.

Face it, the fundamentalists won.

[Ramesh]

Sadly, the Con party is dominated at the top by people who are in with Focus on the Family and many other religious groups (mormons in particular).

It is obvious that there are still many people in this country who are racist. I would like to ask you first which mormons are in the leadership of the conservative party, and second why you hate mormons. Also do you hate all religions like Hindus?

[Black Dog]

I think it's a better fight, for economic conservatives/social liberals to head into the liberal party and fight the Corrupt Quebec Wing than to try to fight a futile battle against fanatical religious fundamentalists in the conservative party.

Amen. There's nothing particularily "conservative" about the family values crowd. It's sad that this once-proud label has been usurped by reactionary forces, but ther eyou have it.

Real conservatives (of the classical variety) would have little truck with the busy-bodys that make up the core of the current Con crop.

But I don't think the Liberal party is the answer either. To me they've always represented the worst of all worlds: fiscal tight-wads one minute, free-spenders the next. I also hate how they've (successfully) branded themselves as the party most representative of Canadians' values. I 'd like to think we Canucks stand for more than opportunism.

So, really the biggest losers are conservatives of the classical bent: they have no place to park their politics.

[bigdude]

All forms of displaying religious symbols should be banned from public view as most Canadians don't wish to be subjected to them. No problem in the privacy of your own home or in your temples of worship but stop with the missionary work, eh!

PS Religious symbols should be treated the same way we treat clearcuts in BC. Do your destruction if you must but cover it up with vegetation or whatever, so the public doesn't have to view it when they are passing by in their vehicles, etc.

[takeanumber]

It is obvious that there are still many people in this country who are racist. I would like to ask you first which mormons are in the leadership of the conservative party, and second why you hate mormons. Also do you hate all religions like Hindus?

I did not say, nor was it implied, that I hate mormons. (Moreover, there is no mormon 'race').

Nice try though.

I'm not going to name names.

The problem isn't that they ARE christian fundamentalist or mormon; just like the Catholics in the Liberal leadership isn't a problem.

The problem is that these Christian fundamentalists and mormons are pushing THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on everybody. THAT is the problem.

The question becomes, "Well, what's wrong with their beliefs?"

Well, golly gee, if we're going to have a religious debate in politics, nobody here can get offended as to what is wrong Christian fundamentalism, with Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons and Hutterites.

I respect their religious rights in their own home.

You bring your religion into politics, prepare to be offended and have those beliefs scrutinized.

This is why politics must be liberally secular.

--------

But I don't think the Liberal party is the answer either. To me they've always represented the worst of all worlds: fiscal tight-wads one minute, free-spenders the next. I also hate how they've (successfully) branded themselves as the party most representative of Canadians' values. I 'd like to think we Canucks stand for more than opportunism.

It's better to cleanse and purge the Liberal party than it is to try to moderate the Conservative party. If anything, it's more likely that the Liberal party will change...Chretien took pre-emptive measures...Martin is going furthur. I'm optimistic.

[Black Dog]

All forms of displaying religious symbols should be banned from public view as most Canadians don't wish to be subjected to them. No problem in the privacy of your own home or in your temples of worship but stop with the missionary work, eh!

Fuck that. It's hard for lefties to maintain any sembelance of credibility on issues like SSM or drugs, to name a pair, when there's those who think this is okay.

I don't like religion, and I certainly don't believe it has a place in public policy, but you're advocating stifling freedom of speech, which no one should condone.

Take the recent big anti-SSM protest in Edmonton, for example. I violently disagree with pretty much all the participants, but in now way believe they should be barred from making those views known. That's what freedom is all about (and besides, how can they make fools of themselves if you won't let them speak?)

[takeanumber]

Fuck that. It's hard for lefties to maintain any sembelance of credibility on issues like SSM or drugs, to name a pair, when there's those who think this is okay.

I don't like religion, and I certainly don't believe it has a place in public policy, but you're advocating stifling freedom of speech, which no one should condone.

Take the recent big anti-SSM protest in Edmonton, for example. I violently disagree with pretty much all the participants, but in now way believe they should be barred from making those views known. That's what freedom is all about (and besides, how can they make fools of themselves if you won't let them speak?)

Well, you have to be liberal about things:

Religion should be contained to the private sphere. And yes, you can have nativity scenes and such in public...that's semi-private.

When it comes to public POLICY...things that affect ALL of us...you know, it has to be secular.

You know, where SSM-opponents fail is that they cannot come up with a SECULAR reason for their discrimination and segregation.

They just can't do it.

And why?

Because their arguments against SSM are ultimately religious bigotry at its worse form.

So there you have it.

If you want to preserve religious freedom...keep it out of the public sphere; otherwise, you start making your religion subject to public debate, well, I'm all for that. Shall we go over some of the particulars of some of these religions? The religious basis for the hatred against homosexuals? Do you really want to dwelve into that?

I don't think you do. I don't think anybody wants to. So, leave religion out of it.

[Ramesh]

I agree with you Black Dog. It seems like there are many who want to take away religious peoples freedom of speech. They have as much right as anyone else to band together and have their voices heard.

Takeanumber: "I'm not going to name names."

This is because you have no names. You are caught in a lie!

"The problem is that these Christian fundamentalists and mormons are pushing THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on everybody. THAT is the problem."

Another lie. If these religions were doing this, it would be their right to do this. You also have the right to not listen to these people.

[Black Dog]

I agree with you Black Dog. It seems like there are many who want to take away religious peoples freedom of speech. They have as much right as anyone else to band together and have their voices heard.

Yes. But the government has no obligation to give their opinions any more weight than any other. In the case of SSM, most of the reasoning against it is rooted, not in practical concerns, but in religious dogma. But not everyone is religious and what we're seeing is religious groups trying to use their views to halt what has been deemd a necessary change to our legal framework. That's not cool.

[takeanumber]

Alright, let's give Ramesh a course on what it means to be Canadian, since clearly he doesn't get canadian culture.

Classical Liberalism has been applied in Canada since before confederatin because of the tensions between protestants and catholics. There are a number of instances where politicians, especially in the 1867-1880 era, sought to seperate politics from religion, repeatedly.

Canada remains a liberal country as a result of these efforts. (And we havnt' had a civil war yet.)

Canada MUST be secular, otherwise, there'll be war.

------

Takeanumber: "I'm not going to name names."

This is because you have no names. You are caught in a lie!

Flan, Morton, to name just 2.

Happy?

Call me a liar -- you've been PWNED Ramesh. PWNED!!!!!!

-------

"The problem is that these Christian fundamentalists and mormons are pushing THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on everybody. THAT is the problem."

Another lie. If these religions were doing this, it would be their right to do this. You also have the right to not listen to these people.

What about MY freedoms which are endangered by THOSE heretical, disgusting and religiously hipocritical beliefs?

No, they're not in the right for injecting religion into politics.

Do you want me to get into specifics as to why Christian Fundamentalists and Mormons are so incredibly wrong about God and the Bible?

If you bring religion into a political debate, you are subjecting those religions to an assault that will be brutal and unrelenting?

I got no problem with what people do in their own home. If they want to worship a spoon or some heretical version of Christ, they can go ahead and do that in their home.

You bring your God into politics, you're opening up a huge can of worms.

So go ahead then. If you're so convinced that your God and your Beliefs should dictate public policy, tell us Ramesh, what would YOUR God Do?

[Ramesh]

"Yes. But the government has no obligation to give their opinions any more weight than any other."

I agree with this but not the rest of your post. It is not everyone's view that this is necessary to our legal framework but undermines our legal framework.

[Black Dog]

Alright, let's give Ramesh a course on what it means to be Canadian, since clearly he doesn't get canadian culture.

I think this warrants an apology. Or is rascism okay if you don't agree with someone's position?

It is not everyone's view that this is necessary to our legal framework but undermines our legal framework.

I'm not that interested in AGMT, but how do you figure?

[bigdude]

Black dog....give it a break.

We have societal norms - people don't run down the street naked. And yes nudists don't like it. tough!

Same goes for religion. Public displays of religious artifacts are divisive and lead to violence and warfare. Nuff said.

[bigdude]

Black dog....give it a break.

We have societal norms - people don't run down the street naked. And yes nudists don't like it. Tough!

Same goes for religion. Public displays of religious artifacts are divisive and lead to violence and warfare. Nuff said.

[Ramesh]

"Flan, Morton, to name just 2.

Happy?"

Who is Flan? Isn't Morton an Alberta provincial politician. Still, I don't see how you can say only 2 people, if they are even in fact mormons, are controling the entire conservative movement.

"you've been PWNED Ramesh. PWNED!!!!!!"

I don't know what this means, but yes you are still caught in a lie.

"What about MY freedoms which are endangered by THOSE heretical, disgusting and religiously hipocritical beliefs?

No, they're not in the right for injecting religion into politics.

Do you want me to get into specifics as to why Christian Fundamentalists and Mormons are so incredibly wrong about God and the Bible?

If you bring religion into a political debate, you are subjecting those religions to an assault that will be brutal and unrelenting?

I got no problem with what people do in their own home. If they want to worship a spoon or some heretical version of Christ, they can go ahead and do that in their home.

You bring your God into politics, you're opening up a huge can of worms.

So go ahead then. If you're so convinced that your God and your Beliefs should dictate public policy, tell us Ramesh, what would YOUR God Do?"

You are a very angry and hateful person. I have many friends and neighbours from the religions you hate so much. They are wonderful people and have welcomed and embraced me and my family. They have never tried to force their religion upon me. I feel like they accept my religion to. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Black Dog]

Black dog....give it a break.

We have societal norms - people don't run down the street naked. And yes nudists don't like it. Tough!

Same goes for religion. Public displays of religious artifacts are divisive and lead to violence and warfare. Nuff said.

Yeah I know I can't walk by a church or temple wihout being seized by the urge to beat someone's head in with a baseball bat. Seeing as how I live across from a very nice synagogue, you can imagine the trouble this causes me.

And for an alleged NDP'er to argue in favour of entrenched social norms? Fuggetaboutit. Those are the same norms that once deemed homosexuality a crime. If someone is wearing a turban, a burka, a yamulke or a crucifix and minding their own damn business, how is that hurting you?

[Ramesh]

"It is not everyone's view that this is necessary to our legal framework but undermines our legal framework.

I'm not that interested in AGMT, but how do you figure?"

Thnkyou Black Dog. I think that a good society need to have some source or orgin of values to start from. Otherwise where to we start from. Who is to say what other things are wrong? Why is murder wrong? Why is it wrong to steal from someone who is rich?

[bigdude]

Black dog....give it a break.

We have societal norms - people don't run down the street naked. And yes nudists don't like it. Tough!

Same goes for religion. Public displays of religious artifacts are divisive and lead to violence and warfare. Nuff said.

Yeah I know I can't walk by a church or temple wihout being seized by the urge to beat someone's head in with a baseball bat. Seeing as how I live across from a very nice synagogue, you can imagine the trouble this causes me.

And for an alleged NDP'er to argue in favour of entrenched social norms? Fuggetaboutit. Those are the same norms that once deemed homosexuality a crime. If someone is wearing a turban, a burka, a yamulke or a crucifix and minding their own damn business, how is that hurting you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is nudity hurting you - it isn't, but we don't allow it. Get it!

[takeanumber]

I think this warrants an apology. Or is rascism okay if you don't agree with someone's position?

It isn't racism. Ramesh, along with most Christian fundamentalists, has demonstrated again, again and again that they just don't GET Canadian Culture.

They just don't get it.

Secularism goes back to confederation. Religious hatred nearly tore my province apart because BOTH side kept on bringing religion back into politics. The only time anything got better was when we ALL agreed to leave religion at HOME.

Now, you get these Conservatives, who have NO CLUE, NO IDEA of the struggles we've had in this country, they're completely ignorant of the legacy that religious hatred due to politics has left, and they want to bring it back.

They want to go back to those days.

Well, if they're going to be so insistant, let's give them a taste of what it'll be like. I have no problem, if they're going to use religion to justify their hatred and discrimination against homosexuals, I got no problem in attacking their religion.

It becomes fair game.

And what's the response from the religious right if you attack their religious beliefs?

Why, it's bigotry!

What delicious doublethink!

So it's alright to advocate religion as a method of segregating homosexuals, yet, when you question the basis of their public policy options, they get all figity.

Typical Conservative.

I don't know what this means, but yes you are still caught in a lie.

You have demonstrated your ignorance of Canadian politics yet again. Both men are in the leadership, yes, even Morton and Flan. You seem to know enough that Morton is a MLA, but don't know what his role in the Con party is. That's fine. Educate yourself.

They all get together, as the leadership, and go hunting in Alberta, along with Brodie and a few other members of the Calgary School. Women are excluded.

Think before you call somebody a liar.

You're still PWNED.

----

You are a very angry and hateful person. I have many friends and neighbours from the religions you hate so much. They are wonderful people and have welcomed and embraced me and my family. They have never tried to force their religion upon me. I feel like they accept my religion to. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I got no problem with them as people, and I'm sure some of them are nice.

However, I have a problem when they force their religion into public debate.

Public policy, in the public sphere, must be secular.

If you bring your religion into it, it will be attacked, and such attacks, have been shown in Canadian, to lead to very real, very nasty conflict.

So, if you're going to espouse hatred against homosexuals based on your religion, let's go, bring it. We'll see how well your religion stands up scrutiny.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Alright, let's give Ramesh a course on what it means to be Canadian, since clearly he doesn't get canadian culture.

I think this warrants an apology. Or is rascism okay if you don't agree with someone's position?

I would prefer as a general practice if we would avoid careless accusations of racism.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think that a good society need to have some source or orgin of values to start from. 

Does it matter to you what that source is? If yes, how do you choose?

Why is it wrong to steal from someone who is rich?

What do you mean by 'steal'?