!!! Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 Rest assured the policy would only change a title to civil union. All the rights and relationship cities associated would be maintained. I don't think at this point you will find enough MP's to overturn the decision. This is about a free vote. Um...the SCC has written that the "sperate but equal" civil union option is unconstitutional and would not survive a court challenge. So that leaves us with an eventual showdown over the Notwithstanding clause, which could get ugly. Why not just get over it and move on? So the choice is a leader who does what he says and respects others beliefs and opinions or a leader who says anything to get elected and governs by polls with no clear direction for the country. Problem is, Harper's "it's about a free vote" stance is completely disingeneous. His party had a free vote on this issue already. And even if the Tories gain power, they can't force the Liberal, Bloc or ND caucuses to hold free votes. So what Harper really means is he wants a do over to get the results they want. the "free vote" line is just window dressing for the party's true anti-SSM platform. sonally I favour civil unions because I think it is important for same sex couples to be able to enter into long term committed relationships that are recognized. This recognition should guarantee access to property and representation i.e. hospital access etc. My on going concern with no legal designation or difference between same sex couple and opposite sex couples is that it will be used in courts to argue access and persecute religious teaching. The Charter that Mr. Martin speaks in defense of will be used to affect the activities of churches, mosques etc.See that is the challenge, one decision for a good reason, can have a negative impact on anther group. The law of unintended consequences. Millions of Canadians have been able to enter same-sex marriages since 2002 when Ontario and B.C. recognized them. In that time, have any of the dire consequenses you predict come to pass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted December 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 err You wrote- " I would tend to think 138 years of the same thing, would make that thing the norm... Perhaps it is you that is "abnormal". Am I the one spear heading the quiet revolution part two. Give credit to the Liberals for that one. Maybe Mr. Tucker was right the country is retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 !!! Why do you use such dire language? I told you why I would not move along. I don't think the world would end on this issue. It is not my priority and it is not the priority of the Conservative Party. It does disappoint me how people like you can’t open up there mind long enough to see the long term impact to the freedom of religions to teach based on their doctrine. My concern is cases like the two women who sued the Knights of Columbus for canceling their wedding in one of there halls and won. The fact that the first question in the English debate was on SSM brings it to the front. Reporters keep asking the question. Liberals seem to love to bring it up. Priorities are cleaning up government, justice reform, family tax deductions and improving our international trade relations. Is it news when it is not covered? The news is always were the reporters are. Why this is discussed so much? I guess because people like myself keep responding. I respect that my opinion does not match that of many others. Oh well that is life. It is not the end of anything. People will get up tomorrow and I will try not to add to this cyclical debate. What if they use the scary not withstanding clause? Would that be the end? Nothing would happen except every five years we would have to revisit the issue to continue using the clause. Gays and Lesbians would have unions and they could even get legal separations. Not much different than now. Except a distinction is made and the consistency to protect religious teaching would make me for one feel a little better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justcrowing Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 SSM has been dealt with and I for one who has been open minded about it am now sick and tired of it "in my face" every time something is debated. The rest of the country has moved on except the gays/lesbians - you got what you fought for and now move on and quit whinning about suppositions. There are other issues such as priorities in cleaning up government, justice reform, family tax deductions and improving our international trade relations and much more. Good grief, does the rest of the country not count for something and is it less important? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazymf Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 Simple answer to this. Harper is a whore who will do anything to get into power. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And your point is? Hitler was a ....... Roosevelt was a ..... Turner was a ........ Stalin was a ........ Martin is a ....... who got into power. Now it's time to get a different whore in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speaker Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 No , actually we need someone who isn't willing to whore themselves, the only way to do that is to vote in individuals who will be responsible for their own riding and to Canada. vote for the best person , have done with all the money squandering, vote buying schmucks. Canada can't be viable with a loose federation of provinces or regions. Our country needs a strong Federation and that requires a strong federal government. Weakening that national unity will only leave us divided. Having a strong federal government requires a strong public choice at election time. Don't vote for the Hacks, vote for the most decent candidate available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkman Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 Who is this Stephen Harper anyway? He certainly has seen the writing on the wall and will say just about anything to appear middle of the road. That's smart politics for sure as his old message was rejected resoundingly by the majority of Canadians. But is this man the real Stephen Harper or was the former Alliance Leader, Reform worker or lobbyist for the NCC the real Harper. Guess if he's making all these liberal promises he will have to keep them if elected PM, being the ethical man he says he is. Wow, that old Reform/Alliance base is going to be some teed off to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 The only thing Harper could get from making inroads in Quebec is a Liberal majority. At this late stage, he's never going to win seats. He's just going to chip away at the Bloq's federalist anti-Lib vote until the Libs have enough votes to sneak up the middle and win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy Posted December 23, 2005 Report Share Posted December 23, 2005 Have you ever heard of the Luddites? Times are a changing and for the better. Father does not always know best and it is time the vote buying Liberals had their allowance cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.