Harper's long walk off a short pier?

[JBP]

I hate everything about something like the Green Party, but if I thought it would get the scumbag, cheating, elitist, condesending, POS, LIEberals out of power, I'd probably vote for them. Hell, I'd probably vote for Uncle Joe, if he'd put all the other bastards against the wall within 24 hrs! We could worry about him AFTER we culled the bloodsuckers.

I couldn't agree with you more... That is basically exactly what I've been telling people, who CARES if you don't like ALL of the Conservatives policies! Let's get those damn monkeys (Liberals) back in thier cage before they break something!!!---> Canada (EG>Province splitting...)

I think 80% of Ontario simply votes for whoever thier Dad does/did... Or they just really have no bloody clue... This past week I've also talked to 3 different middle-aged adults that haven't voted in at least a decade!!! 

Why even live here then????  :-\

 

[George Wallace]

All I can say is it is not the Canada that I knew when I grew up.   By the way, who decided it needed to be changed anyway?  

True deau?

 

[Reccesoldier]

Now I don't want to turn this into a Gay Marriage discussion but...

We were discussing this at work and I think we came up with a viable solution. Take the word marriage out of the constitution.

The rationale behind the move is this, Marriage as an institution was created by religion long before it was given any civil component. As a religious institution it is (or should be) beyond the power of government to define, legislate, condone or condemn.

Having said that though there has been a significant civil component attached to "marriage" by the modern welfare state, such as survivor benefits, inheritance, dissolution and the subsequent division of property etc, etc, etc. However none of these necessarily impacts the religious institution.

So if we were to eliminate the 3(?) references to 'marriage' in the constitution and replace those with the word 'union' and appropriately define union as being "between two persons to the exclusion of all others" and let the various religions define their criteria for marriage within that broad definition then the problem would be effectively removed from the legislative sphere and returned to the religions where it belongs.

Yes it would be well within the rights of any two persons to be 'unioned' but any allowance for "marriage" would be decided by religion within their framework of norms, traditions and practices.

 

[Thirstyson]

Yes it would be well within the rights of any two persons to be 'unioned' but any allowance for "marriage" would be decided by religion within their framework of norms, traditions and practices.

Churches already define and conduct marriages within their own framework of norms, traditions and practices. I wasn't married in a church, does that mean I should only be considered as 'unioned'?

 

[Reccesoldier]

Churches already define and conduct marriages within their own framework of norms, traditions and practices. I wasn't married in a church, does that mean I should only be considered as 'unioned'?

Yes.

 

[Thirstyson]

Well, I'm just going to have to take that as an insult (in the same way people are offended in including gays in the term marriage).

 

[Reccesoldier]

Well, I'm just going to have to take that as an insult (in the same way people are offended in including gays in the term marriage).

Well, that is your right of course ;D but I would ask that if being "married" was so important then why would you go to a non-religious institution in the first place?

The whole premise here is to get the Government out of the bedrooms of the nation. It has no reason to be there, it can not stop people from living together in whatever capacity anyway so why invoke half measures and create problems, which in turn obscure the nature of the legislation which exists by using terms that invoke religious connotations.

 

[muskrat89]

You mean I can't go to the courthouse to get baptized? 

 

[Zipper]

So your saying Recce that marriage is simply a word used by the religious community to define a relationship? Now considering how long "marriage" as a definition has been been around, who is to say when it was "religious" (pagan or otherwise) and when it was civil? Because as we all know, the idea of marriage (if not the term) has been around a lot longer then any of today's organized religions.

But here is a further problem. If you only allow marriages as a religious binding? Then do you also get all the same civil (tax) benefits as someone who is "unioned"?

I think the true problem is just the term marriage itself. Its simply a word to explain a situation between two people that you had to pay for.

 

[Reccesoldier]

So your saying Recce that marriage is simply a word used by the religious community to define a relationship? Now considering how long "marriage" as a definition has been been around, who is to say when it was "religious" (pagan or otherwise) and when it was civil? Because as we all know, the idea of marriage (if not the term) has been around a lot longer then any of today's organized religions.

But here is a further problem. If you only allow marriages as a religious binding? Then do you also get all the same civil (tax) benefits as someone who is "unioned"?

I think the true problem is just the term marriage itself. Its simply a word to explain a situation between two people that you had to pay for.

Yes, a marriage would automaticaly grant the same benefits as a union, after all people, would still have to register themselves to receive them.

That is what I'm trying to do... get rid of the term marriage in the constitution.

I dare say when Grunt and Squeek were 'married' by the local witchdoctor neither one of them ever received any social protection or perks from the 'state'. Hell in feudal England there was no social governmental component of marriage, no survivor benefits, even divorce was handled by the church. I think it is safe to say that religious marriage existed long before government got into it.

 

[Zipper]

The curious part of me would be rather interested in how it was handled in Rome, Greece, and even back to Mesopotamia. Considering how the Greeks and surrounding area were back then, its anyones guess as how they would have handled the same sex marriage question.

 

[George Wallace]

But here is a further problem. If you only allow marriages as a religious binding? Then do you also get all the same civil (tax) benefits as someone who is "unioned"?

I think the true problem is just the term marriage itself. Its simply a word to explain a situation between two people that you had to pay for.

An extreme analogy would be:

You go to a Chev dealer (Church) and buy a car (marriage), while your friends go to a Toyota Dealer (Court House) and buy an Accord (Civil Union).   In both cases you still have to pay Sales Tax (except in Alberta of course) and GST.

What is your point?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

MODERATOR NOTE
Back on to the topic, please. We have a rather long thread on gay marriage somewhere else in the political forum.
Thanks

 

[Zipper]

I guess my point is that marriage is simply a term. So to lock it into simply religious or civil is rather silly. I myself had a civil ceremony and prefer to think of my "union" as "marriage". To call it anything less because it is not "religious" doesn't make sense to me.

Either way I still think Harper is a goner. How's that Bruce? ;D

 

[PeterLT]

Wow...What a great read this is! ;D

I find that as I get older, things become a bit more clear. You young boots will understand in due time. it seems to me that there are two things to consider here before drawing any conclusions about who one should support and vote for:

1. Given that a party is corrupt and deceitful, known to be so and can reasonably be expected to remain so in the near future. And that most Canadians (certainly those here) are honest and hard working; why would they wish to be in any way associated with them? To be so would imply guilt by association and as some of us who have been to DB know, one of the first things learned is, "shoulda known better".

2. If upon careful examination, one discovers that the "reasons" one is suspicious or afraid of any change is primarily based on information supplied by the party in point 1; how would that fear be justified as being true and warranted?

I have found that the hottest commodity coming from the Liberal government is fear. If you vote Conservative, Quebec will separate. If you vote Conservative, Heathcare will collapse and clothes hanger abortions will be mandatory for both men and women. If you vote Conservative, homosexuals will be forced to to relinquish their constitutional rights and sell hot dogs at the Saddledome. If you vote Conservative it will be pandemonium! Dogs sleeping with cats, for heaven's sake! Can any adult actually believe this? Especially without any evidence except that supplied by the Liberal government that this would be true? My goodness, Mr. Harper sure is one powerful guy, maybe he should be PM!

The future will bring what it brings, but ultimately Canadians will get the government they deserve.

Peter

 

[oyaguy]

Wow, I should not have thrown gay marriage in to the mix.

1. Given that a party is corrupt and deceitful, known to be so and can reasonably be expected to remain so in the near future. And that most Canadians (certainly those here) are honest and hard working; why would they wish to be in any way associated with them? To be so would imply guilt by association and as some of us who have been to DB know, one of the first things learned is, "shoulda known better".

2. If upon careful examination, one discovers that the "reasons" one is suspicious or afraid of any change is primarily based on information supplied by the party in point 1; how would that fear be justified as being true and warranted?
Peter

To point one. Agreed.

Point 2, is mostly Harper's fault in my mind. The Liberals branded him but they didn't brand him for the fun of it either. Harper has made statements, and has associates that might give a person pause, and throw in the Liberals connecting dots {which may or may not exist} in the minds of people of who Harper is and what he stands for. Harper's responses, and those associates of his {one of whom I've mentioned before, Randy White} sometimes shot themselves and the Conservative party in the foot.
As for the Harper Brand, Harper hasn't really done anything to make people think anything otherwise, beyond the usual denials of intent. When people look at Harper, all people see is a charisma-less policy wonk, who's mum on the policy. Whatever he does during the rest of this Parliament, he cannot run a campaign with the banner of "Don't Vote For The Liberals", if he hopes to became Prime Minister. Reining in any of the yahoos in the CPC would also help. I can't name many after Randy White, so on the front Harper is improving.

 

[canadianblue]

I can't name many after Randy White, so on the front Harper is improving.

What did Randy White do again???

If its over his comments on using the notwithstanding clause for same sex marriage, remember that some Liberal MP's supported that position as well, but since their Liberal they aren't extremists :. As well how many people in Canada believe in using the notwithstanding clause if necessary for gay marriage, they should be silenced in this democracy in the name of political correctness. My biggest beef with the same sex marriage debate is that it wasn't the elected bodies which made the decision and pushed ahead gay marriage, it was the unelected courts who in my mind overstepped their bounds. We might as well get rid of parliment and have the courts run things if they are the end decision makers for all of our public policies.

 

[Zipper]

As far as Harper and the "Conservatives" are concerned, it matters little to me what the Liberal's say about them. As a once proud PC supporter (greatly shaken by certain years in the 80's which we do not talk about at parties...) it is the fact that Harper comes from what I see as the, further then I'm comfortable with right wing, of an upstart party (reform) which had some not bad ideas but had some very scary ones as well (breath). His ideals back in the day and which I seriously doubt he has forgotten or left behind are very much along the extreme right wing of the western (Alberta) ideal and quite honestly I disagree with much of them.

So while I would love to see the Liberal's get their asses handed to them in a sling, I cannot ignore the past and basic ideals of where Mr. Harper (and much of the new/old conservative/alliance/reform members) comes from. So until Harper (and friends) leave and the more moderate/PC ideals (aka. MacKay) once again begin to return to the conservative party, I find myself in a difficult place. Stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[canadianblue]

it is the fact that Harper comes from what I see as the, further then I'm comfortable with right wing, of an upstart party (reform) which had some not bad ideas but had some very scary ones as well (breath). His ideals back in the day and which I seriously doubt he has forgotten or left behind are very much along the extreme right wing of the western (Alberta) ideal and quite honestly I disagree with much of them.

And these "scary" ideals are???

Listen Alberta isn't that bad of a place to live in, we can't be doing that bad we have no PST and are debt free. As well I think were doing substantially better then the rest of the country. Now this is my own opinion. But if you talk about "scary" ideals tell us about them, I believe that Harper was in face more of a libertarian in the Reform party with regards to abortion and social issues, etc. But if you got this info from CBC then of course they can't be wrong, as we all know the media will always paint a fair and accurate picture of events :

 

[Acorn]

My biggest beef with the same sex marriage debate is that it wasn't the elected bodies which made the decision and pushed ahead gay marriage, it was the unelected courts who in my mind overstepped their bounds. We might as well get rid of parliment and have the courts run things if they are the end decision makers for all of our public policies.

The courts did not overstep their bounds. They merely applied the wishes of the people through Parliament in the form of the Charter. Parliament had the option to enact legislation defining marriage, or (the easier route, legislatively) allowing same sex marriage (which has been around for a while anyway). The issue is not whether something that was once the sole province of religion needs to be modified, but whether the secular laws that have since accrued to it (marriage) are applicable to same-sex unions. I'd say let them pay the taxes and such, as well as get the "benefits" of divorce law and death taxes, that the rest of us get.

Where the line in the sand needs to be drawn is in forcing religious bodies to sanction same-sex unions. This is an interference of the State in Religion, the reverse of which would not be tolerated (as the Conservative/Alliance/CRAP has yet to seem to discover).

Acorn