Gay marriage is a charter right. I don't know if a charter right is automatically a human right but that's not the point here anyway. Martin declared that he was instinctively reluctant to accept this broader definition of marriage. He clearly pointed out that he had a traditional Christian background and he had a difficult time reaching a decision about what he should do. But he concluded that this wasn't really about his own personal feelings. As Prime Minister of Canada, he felt he had a duty to uphold the laws of the land and act in accordance with the charter, especially since this section of the charter has been tested numerous times all the way up to the highest court in the land.loveasian said:
Very good point - a little stronger leadership for the Tories and you guys would be in deep doo doo.zydeco said:
[Not jumping down your throat, but jumping up and down] Wrapping a comment in a compliment doesn't redeem its racist root. Ascribing characteristics to all of a so-called race, describing those people as if they held membership in a monolithic group (the Jewish people) and attributing behavour to that group (I do hope you weren't implying a conspiratorial sort of "control") are all racist in my book. Only documented scentific evidence and statistics that can be examined and whose proofs can be tested can excuse such statements. But, as I accept Harper's copping to the "no slur intended" plea, so I accept yours. I expect no better from him, but from you Goober,…Goober Mcfly said:
The impending nuptials [just don't call it marriage] of the Prince of Wales and his intended cast a sickly light from the self-styled 'moral' side of the debate. Both are divorced. There was a time when the Church of England—of which Charles will one day be the head—would not countenance the marital union [just don't call it marriage] of divorced people. Agin God's law doncha' know. In fact the present Head of the Church refused her sister permission to wed [don't call it marriage] the divorced Group Captain Peter Townsend, and broke poor Margaret's heart, so they say.Coach said:
If Harper simply stated his opposition to gay marriage, he wouldn't get much criticism from anybody. It's his political ineptitude that is so noteworthy. Many Canadians still know very little about him. The more he pretends he can prevent gays from getting married without having to use the notwithstanding clause, the more people realize what a wally he really is.langeweile said:I find it rather interesting that you guys rip on Harper for stating his opnion on gay marriage.
While at the same time nobody mentions Paul Martin's dumb and stupid remarks on Syria and Lebanon. Some things are the same here as they are in the USA. A conservative says something that might have been out of line, everybody get's their knickers in a twist. A liberal says something really stupid " Oh well he just made a mistake". Liberals are so predictable...as papa waould say...YAWWWWWWNNNNNN....
Very true Coach. The trouble arises when people confuse their personal opinions—which are not grounds for dictating to others—with what is right or wrong. It's a lot harder to know what is right for all, and harder still to prove it's right to those others you want to abide by those dictates. When you're expressing an easy opinion, best to always attach a disclaimer to that effect. And to keep in mind that today's eternal moral truth is tomorrow's anachronistic relic. Remember when an Act of Parliament was required to get a divorce in this country? I do.Coach said:
But straight couples have acquired through common-law just about all those rights and privileges, and I remember bitterly what it was like before. Common law is the law made by court decisions; all Parliament is about to do is codify it.Coach said:
