fellowtraveller Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 We've hardly heard a peep about this since the campaign began, when Harper flatly stated that he would hold a free vote in Parliament on the subject. I have a theory on Harpers strategy for this election and beyond....hs hidden agenda... forget the notwithstanding clause, it won't be needed or used, he is telling the truth but not the whole truth..... At least half of Canadians in general are opposed to SSM. More than half of the supporters of Harper are opposed, but much of this opposition is soft. There is however a significant and vocal minority in the Tories grassroots who will not let it die. They are loud and influential enough that they cannot be ignored forever by the Tory leadership. Harper wants and needs the issue to die. In political terms, it is a big big loser for the CPC and him personally. Same for abortion. Harper cannot be more clear or explict when he states repeatedly that he will not do anything with or about abortion. Many MPs are also opposed to SSM, but any way you count them - SSM is here to stay. A vote to repeal SSM would fail in Parliament. Harper has counted and knows this. He risks little politically by just throwing this dead fish on the order paper, has a free vote, and walks away..... He gains much internally, in that he can go back to the hardcore anti-SSM and say - 'You've had your day and then some. be quiet, it is over". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 From the sounds of things the issue pretty much has died. The moderator for the debate tomorrow night said they were going to be asking *new/different* questions tomorrow night. Which sounded like they wouldn't ask about SSM again. Your analysis is dead on. They have to let the anti-SSM types have their day. It will fail. The issue will have no effect on the rest of the campaign. Harper wants and needs the issue to die. In political terms, it is a big big loser for the CPC and him personally. Many MPs are also opposed to SSM, but any way you count them - SSM is here to stay. A vote to repeal SSM would fail in Parliament. Harper has counted and knows this. He risks little politically by just throwing this dead fish on the order paper, has a free vote, and walks away..... He gains much internally, in that he can go back to the hardcore anti-SSM and say - 'You've had your day and then some. be quiet, it is over". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 From the sounds of things the issue pretty much has died. The moderator for the debate tomorrow night said they were going to be asking *new/different* questions tomorrow night. Which sounded like they wouldn't ask about SSM again. Your analysis is dead on. They have to let the anti-SSM types have their day. It will fail. The issue will have no effect on the rest of the campaign. Harper wants and needs the issue to die. In political terms, it is a big big loser for the CPC and him personally. Many MPs are also opposed to SSM, but any way you count them - SSM is here to stay. A vote to repeal SSM would fail in Parliament. Harper has counted and knows this. He risks little politically by just throwing this dead fish on the order paper, has a free vote, and walks away..... He gains much internally, in that he can go back to the hardcore anti-SSM and say - 'You've had your day and then some. be quiet, it is over". Nor should it...well put guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Miss Trudeau Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Nor should it...well put guys. Nonsense. Any leader that is even willing to entertain the notion of denying rights to a minority is not fit to lead. The denial of rights ought to be an election issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Nor should it...well put guys. Nonsense. Any leader that is even willing to entertain the notion of denying rights to a minority is not fit to lead. The denial of rights ought to be an election issue. Marriage, as I see it, is a religious institution. The issue of SSM is NOT an issue of minority rights... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Marriage is a religious and a legal institution. Lots of people are married in completely secular ceremonies. And it's only where it is a legal institution that the issue of rights comes in. I've always considered it a rights issue because I pay into Blue Cross at work and my spouse benefits. It simply isn't fair to disallow that to others because you don't like them. Anyway, I agree that the issue is dead. A free vote isn't going to amount to anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Marriage is a religious and a legal institution. Lots of people are married in completely secular ceremonies. And it's only where it is a legal institution that the issue of rights comes in. I've always considered it a rights issue because I pay into Blue Cross at work and my spouse benefits. It simply isn't fair to disallow that to others because you don't like them. Anyway, I agree that the issue is dead. A free vote isn't going to amount to anything. I agree with you that I don't support a free vote. But I maintain my position that marriage is a religious institution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I was married by a marriage commissioner in my back yard in a service that didn't mention any higher power. Would you say I'm not married then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I was married by a marriage commissioner in my back yard in a service that didn't mention any higher power. Would you say I'm not married then? Who did the marriage commissioner represent? The way I was raised (Catholic), marriage is an institution that is religious and authorized by a priest. I understand that there is a new definition where the state can perform marriage. This is not my personaly position, but I am entitled to the traditional definition of marriage, aren't I??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Naturally. You're entitled to think however you like. My marriage commissioner was licenced by the province. Legally, it's a marriage like any other marriage. But do you think adultery wouldn't count then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Naturally. You're entitled to think however you like. My marriage commissioner was licenced by the province. Legally, it's a marriage like any other marriage. But do you think adultery wouldn't count then? Of course adultery would count... If I was Prime Minister, I would not have a "definition" of marriage. Because is marriage is a religious institution for me, the various churches would have to define it. My personal views would be irrelavent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Damn. I was going to tell my wife "TML said it was OK." But there has to be some sort of legal definition. Otherwise it gets very messy come divorce time or death time or tax time (et cetera). You could get into the whole civil union argument, but that's just semantics (one term as opposed to another). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I agree with you tml, but only insofar as that the government should treat marriage exactly as they treat abortion - with no laws at all. The only role for government should be to register domestic arrangements of any combination of genders, really just for tax and estate purposes. If the people involved choose to have some sort of religious or civil ceremeony, they are free to do so and call it a marriage, a civil union or a ham sandwich if they so choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Don't they just register domestic arrangements for estate and tax purposes now? What's the difference, other than the word "marriage?" Or is that it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Estates are handled through wills. Domestic arrangements are handled through government defined marriages performed by civil and church ceremonies, domestics are also defined by prenuptial agreements, and common law m,arriages which may or may not legally define the rights of each partner and children involved. Now we have a whole new body of law related to same sex marriage, in its infancy and a surefire profit center for law firms. Its a hodge-podge, a mess that lawyers just love. I'm suggesting that the ONLY government involvement should be to maintain a registry of any legal contract brought to it. There is no NEED for the government to define marriage at all. If your church or ethnicity or personal preference requires that you have congress only with men, only with women or with a variety of same - it is not govt business, not my business and has no need of anybodys involvement. What is required is that the involvement of each party be defined, and especially how any offspring are treated in the contract. The word 'mariage' carries so much freight/baggage for so many that it has become an area where govt just needs to get out of the way. We have many instituions in society to take it from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Honest Politician Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 You are missing the bigger picture. First you tell these people they can't marry because they have different sexual orientaion than the majority. Then where do you stop? What happens when another minority is doing something else you don't agree with? Do you remove their rights as well? Where does it end? Forced sterilization of those with hereditary diseases, or mental illness? The first time you remove a minority's rights, you have made it an acceptable option for every circumstance that follows. Harper cannot be allowed to govern this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 You are missing the bigger picture. First you tell these people they can't marry because they have different sexual orientaion than the majority. Then where do you stop? What happens when another minority is doing something else you don't agree with? Do you remove their rights as well? Where does it end? Forced sterilization of those with hereditary diseases, or mental illness? The first time you remove a minority's rights, you have made it an acceptable option for every circumstance that follows. Harper cannot be allowed to govern this country. I'm not missing the bigger picture, it is you that misses the point entirely. It is a common failing of a certain generation, this endless reliance on govt to be involved in every aspect of our lives. The government insisting on defining marriage continues to cause dissent and harm to all. They have wisely refused to legislate abortiion, and that has worked out just fine. I'm not telling 'these people(???)' anything, anything at all. What are you banging on about 'rights', what I have suggested provides equal and complete rghts to absolutely everybody, regardless of gender or combinatioon of genders. How much more fair or inclusive can you be than that? What I am suggesting, again, is that the role of government is simply to register any contractual domestic arrangement that you choose with any adult of any sex. If you choose or choose not to have a religious or civil ceremony after that - feel free. There will be no govt involvement in it, your choice. You don't actually read other peoples posts, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Honest Politician Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I think religion is a buch of hog-wash and I don't want to have to get some stupid civil union because "marriage" is a religous institution. If the state can marry people and the state says it is a basic freedom in this country to be able to marry, then religion can go copulate with a hat. The fact Harper has enlisted Religious leaders to preach from there pulpits about the wrongness of SSM makes me sick. Religion and State are supposed to be seperate. The idea that a religious group is having the opportunity to have its agenda forced on me and my country, by the conservatives is plain wrong. The basic point is if two people want to marry they should be allowed to MARRY. Not be segregated to some second class level of CIVIL UNION. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the conservatives idea of "HAVES" and"HAVE NOTS". You are allowed to marry, and You are not because I don't agree with you. How pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 We've hardly heard a peep about this since the campaign began, when Harper flatly stated that he would hold a free vote in Parliament on the subject.I have a theory on Harpers strategy for this election and beyond....hs hidden agenda... forget the notwithstanding clause, it won't be needed or used, he is telling the truth but not the whole truth..... At least half of Canadians in general are opposed to SSM. More than half of the supporters of Harper are opposed, but much of this opposition is soft. There is however a significant and vocal minority in the Tories grassroots who will not let it die. They are loud and influential enough that they cannot be ignored forever by the Tory leadership. ...... Harper has counted and knows this. He risks little politically by just throwing this dead fish on the order paper, has a free vote, and walks away..... He gains much internally, in that he can go back to the hardcore anti-SSM and say - 'You've had your day and then some. be quiet, it is over". Let's just pack it up in the Trojan Horse and shut up about it. .... for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketRocket Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 (Quote from title bar of thread) Sane Sex Marriage Was this a pun or a typo??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Personally I don't give a darn about SSM or abortion, they are not issues that I base my vote on. I'm more interested in ethics, gov't accountability, democatric reform and financial issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 I think religion is a buch of hog-wash and I don't want to have to get some stupid civil union because "marriage" is a religous institution. If the state can marry people and the state says it is a basic freedom in this country to be able to marry, then religion can go copulate with a hat. The fact Harper has enlisted Religious leaders to preach from there pulpits about the wrongness of SSM makes me sick. Religion and State are supposed to be seperate. The idea that a religious group is having the opportunity to have its agenda forced on me and my country, by the conservatives is plain wrong. The basic point is if two people want to marry they should be allowed to MARRY. Not be segregated to some second class level of CIVIL UNION. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the conservatives idea of "HAVES" and"HAVE NOTS". You are allowed to marry, and You are not because I don't agree with you. How pathetic. That is the second lenghty, dishonest and off topic reply you have provided. You are ascribing religious and conservative views to me that are simply not valid or accurate. I am not suggesting discrimination or segration of any kind. I'm proposing a completely egalitarian and fair posiition from government to everybody. Your argument does not adress my proposal, you are posting strawmen. Lets keep it simple. Why you think that governments at any level should be involved in marriages or civil unions of any kind, for any sex? Re: thread title - it is a typo, I hadn't even noticed it until you pointed it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Honest Politician Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 I think religion is a buch of hog-wash and I don't want to have to get some stupid civil union because "marriage" is a religous institution. If the state can marry people and the state says it is a basic freedom in this country to be able to marry, then religion can go copulate with a hat. The fact Harper has enlisted Religious leaders to preach from their pulpits about the wrongness of SSM makes me sick. Religion and State are supposed to be seperate. The idea that a religious group is having the opportunity to have its agenda forced on me and my country, by the conservatives is plain wrong. The basic point is if two people want to marry they should be allowed to MARRY. Not be segregated to some second class level of CIVIL UNION. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the conservatives idea of "HAVES" and"HAVE NOTS". You are allowed to marry, and You are not because I don't agree with you. How pathetic. That is the second lenghty, dishonest and off topic reply you have provided. You are ascribing religious and conservative views to me that are simply not valid or accurate. I am not suggesting discrimination or segration of any kind. I'm proposing a completely egalitarian and fair posiition from government to everybody. Your argument does not adress my proposal, you are posting strawmen. Lets keep it simple. Why you think that governments at any level should be involved in marriages or civil unions of any kind, for any sex? Re: thread title - it is a typo, I hadn't even noticed it until you pointed it out! What you are proposing is not being proposed by any of the parties so it is meaningless. Please show me where I was "dishonest"? I love how everyone who disagrees with a conservative is a liar. You may not be advocating discrimination but the CPC sure is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Personally I don't give a darn about SSM or abortion, they are not issues that I base my vote on. I'm more interested in ethics, gov't accountability, democatric reform and financial issues. I'll give you that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 What you are proposing is not being proposed by any of the parties so it is meaningless. Please show me where I was "dishonest"? I love how everyone who disagrees with a conservative is a liar. You may not be advocating discrimination but the CPC sure is. The dishonesty is implicit in your lengthy rants that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Please do not continaully introduce strawmen in my threads. I have no problem with your disagreement, but get pissed when you argue against things I have not stated, suggested or implied. Get it? I also note that you have refused twice now to answer this simple question: "Why you think that governments at any level should be involved in marriages or civil unions of any kind, for any sex?" And I don't care if none of the major parties have endorsed or not endorsed an idea. Is that a criteria for your thought process, that others must have or endorse an idea before it is valid? I can assure you it does not apply to me. So step away from your rigidity for a moment, abandon your ideology, and answer the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.