Is this the bomb?

[betsy]

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

They're talking about this at M Duffy Live....the Liberals will use this as a wedge. Martin already brought it up apparently in his campaign.

One gay Cabinet Minister already announced that he had to speed up plans to marry before Monday comes.

M Duffy conferred with guests and all agreed that it will take years to take effect should Harper does open up the issue for votes in Parliament.

M Duffy wondered out loud why would a Cabinet Minister cause the gay community needless worry and panic? He thinks the Minister was being irresponsible.

BTW, M Duffy guests were scratching their heads when Martin showed up at a campaign bringing up this Same Sex issue...indicating that anyone who is against it is a neanderthal. Well, the Liberal candidate in that riding where he's campaigning (who was standing next to him on stage) was among the Liberal MPs who was against it.

[geoffrey]

Bad strategy for the Grits. The votes they are desperately holding onto now are made up of a sizeable chunk of recent immigrants, especially relgious muslims and the such. This is the one issue where the Grits aren't on the same page with these people, and bringing this up, will likely shift anyone to the CPC who was on the fence from this group.

There hopes in Toronto to hold their seats will be hurt by attempting movement on this issue. The only place where they would gain from this is Quebec, and that doesn't look likely this election.

[YankAbroad]

It's nauseating that people in both big parties in Canada are playing poker with the lives of gay and lesbian Canadian families in order to get themselves some power.

[shoop]

Nauseating? Hmmm, that is an interesting way to talk about a serious policy discussion.

Are any Canadians who oppose your views allowed to exercise their democratic rights? Or does that idea nauseate you as well?

It's nauseating that people in both big parties in Canada are playing poker with the lives of gay and lesbian Canadian families in order to get themselves some power.

[YankAbroad]

There's nothing particularly "democratic" about denying basic rights under the law to a permanent minority. It's a bit like arguing for Alabama in the 1960s to put desegregation to a popular vote and then tell blacks "sorry, but the democratic decision is to deny you entry to state universities and put you in separate schools, deal with it."

If Canada is such a free and accepting society which values individual liberty and human rights, it shouldn't be "democratically debating" removing or depriving rights from any permanent minority of law-abiding citizens who experience popular hatred from people like yourself.

[Boru]

There's nothing particularly "democratic" about denying basic rights under the law to a permanent minority. It's a bit like arguing for Alabama in the 1960s to put desegregation to a popular vote and then tell blacks "sorry, but the democratic decision is to deny you entry to state universities and put you in separate schools, deal with it."

If Canada is such a free and accepting society which values individual liberty and human rights, it shouldn't be "democratically debating" removing or depriving rights from any permanent minority of law-abiding citizens who experience popular hatred from people like yourself.

When new groups are fighting for their rights, there will always be a period of conflict and turmoil. But make no mistake, no matter what some extreme Conservatives desire, gay rights aren't going anywhere. It would be very difficult for Harper to reopen that issue without shooting himself in the foot. He has bought disillusioned Liberal votes under the pretext of being a progressive Conservative. He won't forget that when he is in power, not if he wants to hold onto any seats outside of Alberta come next election.

And as for you, yank abroad, who are you to criticize Canada? In some states, the population still has trouble accepting racial miniroties.

Alongsiode the Stars and Stripes, Canada will always be a shining beacon of tolerance and understanding, and that's the truth.

[geoffrey]

And as for you, yank abroad, who are you to criticize Canada? In some states, the population still has trouble accepting racial miniroties.

Alongsiode the Stars and Stripes, Canada will always be a shining beacon of tolerance and understanding, and that's the truth.

Especially with how we treat our Native population right Boru?

[YankAbroad]

as for you, yank abroad, who are you to criticize Canada? In some states, the population still has trouble accepting racial miniroties

Where did I criticize Canada?

I criticized the idiots in the Liberal and Conservative parties who are playing politics with gay people's lives.

I have similar contempt for the Republicrats in the USA who do the same thing.

[Boru]

And as for you, yank abroad, who are you to criticize Canada? In some states, the population still has trouble accepting racial miniroties.

Alongsiode the Stars and Stripes, Canada will always be a shining beacon of tolerance and understanding, and that's the truth.

Especially with how we treat our Native population right Boru?

Like I said, an ongoing, and uphill battle. But, while there is room for improvement, I will go back to my point of comparing to the United States. Who, Geoffrey, treats their native peoples better? Canada or the United States? That was my point.

I didn't say we were perfect, Goeffrey, I simply compared Canada favorably to the United States. You simply ignored that and spun my comment out of context. A poor job of it too.

[betsy]

It's nauseating that people in both big parties in Canada are playing poker with the lives of gay and lesbian Canadian families in order to get themselves some power.

If there is anyone playing poker with the lives of gay people, it is none other than the party who nobly purported to protect them. The Liberals are scaring the pants off the gays and lesbians, using them in a cheap trick just like they used the military.

The Conservatives had stated their stance regarding the issue in the past, and future should Harper becomes PM. He said he'll bring it up as an open vote and if it gets defeated....he'll let it rest.

I don't see anything wrong with being open and honest.

[betsy]

Bad strategy for the Grits. The votes they are desperately holding onto now are made up of a sizeable chunk of recent immigrants, especially relgious muslims and the such. This is the one issue where the Grits aren't on the same page with these people, and bringing this up, will likely shift anyone to the CPC who was on the fence from this group.

There hopes in Toronto to hold their seats will be hurt by attempting movement on this issue. The only place where they would gain from this is Quebec, and that doesn't look likely this election.

They brought out an interesting analysis on M Duffy regarding Same Sex issue. It could be this very issue that might be working against the Liberals. That due to politcal correctness, people are not being open to pollsters in indicating why they are turning against the Liberals. An MP candidate said that that's a big issue where he's campaigning when he goes door-to-door.

They even said that Liberal MPs who are opposed Same Sex marriage might be the ones who'll be able to hold on to their seats.

I know that for me, it is a big issue. It is in the way that Martin did this that I feel so strongly now about the Liberals.

[Hicksey]

Why is this such a bomb?

The only difference between what is and the Tory idea of what should be is what 'gay marriage' should be called. So, gay rights isn't the issue. Conservatives such as Harper, and I, think that tradition should have been respected and 'gay marriage' should have been legalized under the banner of 'civil unions' and the traditional definition of marriage should stand. We both believe that gays should have every right a hetero couple has in a relationship. But to call that relationship a 'marriage' we believe is an insult to 2000 years of recorded history and tradition.

Even Mark Elliot, a self admitted homosexual, from 1010 CFRB in Toronto admits this--and did again tonight on his program.

There's no bombshell here. Martin's looking for WMDs that aren't there, a little like Bush to our south did. The war Martin's looking to start over this is likely to take as much hold in the world as Bush's did too.

[Boru]

It's nauseating that people in both big parties in Canada are playing poker with the lives of gay and lesbian Canadian families in order to get themselves some power.

If there is anyone playing poker with the lives of gay people, it is none other than the party who nobly purported to protect them. The Liberals are scaring the pants off the gays and lesbians, using them in a cheap trick just like they used the military.

The Conservatives had stated their stance regarding the issue in the past, and future should Harper becomes PM. He said he'll bring it up as an open vote and if it gets defeated....he'll let it rest.

I don't see anything wrong with being open and honest.

Of course. Conservativism = 100 % honesty, responsible government, evangelical

Liberal = lying turds.

I can't, for the life of me, understand how people like you can complain aboutLiberal vote getting tactics...

Who accused the Liberals of supporting child pornography? Hmm... nope, no scare tactivs there. Complete and total honesty.

Honestly,pull your head out of your ass. All 3 of the major parties are using scare tactics to get votes.

[shoop]

Your anger is telling and a little misplaced.

I think it says something that you had to pull out an example from 2004.

How about something from *this election*? You know, the one in which the Liberals are heading towards a historic loss.

Of course. Conservativism = 100 % honesty, responsible government, evangelical

Liberal = lying turds.

I can't, for the life of me, understand how people like you can complain aboutLiberal vote getting tactics...

Who accused the Liberals of supporting child pornography? Hmm... nope, no scare tactivs there. Complete and total honesty.

Honestly,pull your head out of your ass. All 3 of the major parties are using scare tactics to get votes.

[Leafless]

YankAbroad

You wrote- " It shouldn't be democratically debating removing or depriving rights from any permanent minority of law abiding citizen's."

Maybe you don't understand what the real issue is in Canada concerning SSM.

That issue is concerning the word "marriage" and whether it is applicable to gays concerning the traditional definiton which marriage is only applicable between a man and a woman.

NO ONE ever did ban gays being married it's just that they have to abide by the rules of society like everyone else and marry a person of the opposite sex.

But alternatives would have been offered concerning important concessions involving basically benefits and this was rejected at the time and the rest is history.

It is still a controversial issue one in which the gays simply don't recognize they ARE NOT heterosexual when it comes to marriage.

[Liam]

And as for you, yank abroad, who are you to criticize Canada? In some states, the population still has trouble accepting racial miniroties.

Alongsiode the Stars and Stripes, Canada will always be a shining beacon of tolerance and understanding, and that's the truth.

Is the only way to defend Canada ripping apart the US? YankAbroad was not being critical of Canada, just of politicians who play games with the GLBT community. The same could be said of countless politicians here in the US. Please learn the difference between criticising a politician and a people.

[shoop]

How is allowing the GLBT community to have civil unions denying them of their *rights*?

btw, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue in Canada...

There's nothing particularly "democratic" about denying basic rights under the law to a permanent minority. It's a bit like arguing for Alabama in the 1960s to put desegregation to a popular vote and then tell blacks "sorry, but the democratic decision is to deny you entry to state universities and put you in separate schools, deal with it."

If Canada is such a free and accepting society which values individual liberty and human rights, it shouldn't be "democratically debating" removing or depriving rights from any permanent minority of law-abiding citizens who experience popular hatred from people like yourself.

[betsy]

And as for you, yank abroad, who are you to criticize Canada? In some states, the population still has trouble accepting racial miniroties.

Alongsiode the Stars and Stripes, Canada will always be a shining beacon of tolerance and understanding, and that's the truth.

Is the only way to defend Canada ripping apart the US? YankAbroad was not being critical of Canada, just of politicians who play games with the GLBT community. The same could be said of countless politicians here in the US. Please learn the difference between criticising a politician and a people.

I agree with you Liam. Such a shame that for all the chest-beating at how "understanding and tolerant" we are, that treatment clearly do not extend to our closest neighbor and trade partner.

Credibility flies out the window. It only mirrors the kind of credibility the Liberal has.

[shoop]

Understanding and tolerance is not an overarching philosophy of the Paul Martin Liberals.

Like anything else it is only applied when it can be expected to mazimize electoral gain for his party.

Sad, sad, sad Mr. Dithers...

I agree with you Liam. Such a shame that for all the chest-beating at how "understanding and tolerant" we are, that treatment clearly do not extend to our closest neighbor and trade partner.

Credibility flies out the window. It only mirrors the kind of credibility the Liberal has.

[Hicksey]

I, personally, believe that way is the best way to respect everyone. Why can't tradition and gay relationship rights be respected concurrently?

How is allowing the GLBT community to have civil unions denying them of their *rights*?

btw, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue in Canada...

There's nothing particularly "democratic" about denying basic rights under the law to a permanent minority. It's a bit like arguing for Alabama in the 1960s to put desegregation to a popular vote and then tell blacks "sorry, but the democratic decision is to deny you entry to state universities and put you in separate schools, deal with it."

If Canada is such a free and accepting society which values individual liberty and human rights, it shouldn't be "democratically debating" removing or depriving rights from any permanent minority of law-abiding citizens who experience popular hatred from people like yourself.