The new Tories, sleeping with Belinda Stronach

[Ben Kenobi]

Because the goal is to limit government involvement and still give everyone equal rights.

So then it's not just about small government.

How are homosexuals in Canada denied provisions available to everyone else? No one stops them from marrying a woman of their choice, should she also desire the marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are some things that no religion is allowed in what we collectively consider to be a civil society.

Own goal.

By this provision, why should a society allow some religions to marry homosexuals and not polygamy?

Secondly, who decides what constitutes a civil society?

[cinch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi If you argue that Canada's civil definition falls under religious freedoms, then we have to allow for muslim men to have 4 wives.

Yes, we do, and we should allow them to.

(As long as it's consensual.)

Simple as that.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by cinch


Yes, we do, and we should allow them to.

(As long as it's consensual.)

Simple as that.

As long as it's not just polygyny, I am fine with polygamy. However, AFAIK, no one is actually pushing for it, so whatever.

[cinch]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by cinch


Yes, we do, and we should allow them to.

(As long as it's consensual.)

Simple as that.

As long as it's not just polygyny, I am fine with polygamy. However, AFAIK, no one is actually pushing for it, so whatever.

Oh, of course: I'm only for polygamy if it includes both 'gyny and polyandry, and it's all consensual.

And I know it's not really a "hot topic" issue at the moment, but hey, why not? Get it out of the way before it becomes one, I say.

EDIT: PLUS, it takes away an arguing point for the homophobes.

[Shi Huangdi]

What's her position on Abortion?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Own goal.

By this provision, why should a society allow some religions to marry homosexuals and not polygamy?

Secondly, who decides what constitutes a civil society?

We all do, Ben. We do it collectively through our laws and customs. Those laws and customs change over time. You are no longer allowed to be wed to multiple people, because that is, or was, exploitation of women. In other words, society put the protection of a group above the religious practices and customs of some citizens. That is what society is allowed to do, just as we prevent the stoning of Muslim women and other harsher measures of Sharia, although we will recognise Sharia among Muslims in some civil cases.

Now, some time ago we collectively decided that homosexual unions should be recognised by the state. That was the bubble; it was the redefinition of society. Now we are speaking about their right to have religious ceremonies recognised by the state. That is religious freedom in a matter that is already allowed by the state, to me anyways.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
What's her position on Abortion?

I'll be surprised if she is pro-life. The odds are against it, but it is possible. After looking her up, I'd say the odds of Ben liking her will be very long indeed.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1074600294320_100///?hub=TopStories

Acknowledging she's new to politics and may have to struggle against "a learning curve," Belinda Stronach has announced she is entering the leadership race for the Conservative Party of Canada.

"I am as new to this as our party is new to Canadians," Stronach told supporters in her home town of Aurora Ont. "I am not a professional politician. I am a mother, a business person and a proud second-generation Canadian."

"I will make this new party work, build support and win.''

Rather than focusing on her massive fortune and her rapid rise within the ranks of the company her father founded, Stronach emphasized that she is the daughter of immigrants who grew up with small town values.

"I went to public high school, I didn't grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth, so I feel that I can relate," she told reporters.

"I feel I've been fortunate in my life, I've worked hard for it. I would like to put to work the experiences I have had in running a global corporation to benefit Canadians."

Stronach also announced she will also run to become the new member of Parliament for Newmarket-Aurora. To that end, she has quit as president and CEO of auto parts giant Magna International Inc. Her father, Frank Stronach, will become Magna's interim president while a new CEO is found.

The political unknown then revealed a litany of campaign promises, ranging from scrapping the gun registry, to opposing the decriminalization of marijuana, to supporting a stronger military. At the same time, she wants to end big government and high taxes.

CTV Ottawa bureau chief Craig Oliver says the press conference that followed Stronach's speech proved to him that she doesn't have much of a chance to win.

"Frankly, she's way out of her league. I felt she was answering with memorized answers, her speech... was read in a very flat way. It was generalities, cliches, and one doubted she had the understanding of what she was saying.

"She kept saying she's not a professional politician. Someone should have told her that politics -- especially at the national level -- is not a game for amateurs.

"I wish she'd back out. I think she's going to be embarrassed and humiliated by the time this is over."

The other confirmed candidates in the running for the top job of the new Conservative Party are former Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper -- widely acknowledged as the front-runner -- and Tony Clement, the former Ontario health minister.

Leadership rival Harper took a shot at Stronach Tuesday, saying her obvious strength is her ability to write a cheque for her campaign. He says he's got to raise it from tens of thousands of donors.

He pointed out that he speaks French, unlike Stronach, has national experience and is more prepared to fight a general election.

Prime Minister Paul Martin was more generous, telling reporters Stronach has "great intelligence" and "brings a very different experience than the other candidates."

Although she's never run for office, Stronach was a key back room player in the recent merger between the federal Tories and the Canadian Alliance.

Former Ontario premiers Mike Harris and William Davis are endorsing Stronach's leadership bid, and she has sought advice from everyone from Alberta Premier Ralph Klein to former prime minister Brian Mulroney.

The vote for the party leadership will be held March 19-21.

And I note the knives are already out.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now, some time ago we collectively decided that homosexual unions should be recognised by the state. That was the bubble; it was the redefinition of society.

1 supreme court justice does not constitute a collective decision, and up until now, this is all we have seen.

I'm all for a referendum. Let's get the voice of the people involved, rather than the elite.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm only for polygamy if it includes both 'gyny and polyandry, and it's all consensual.

Sorry boys. Only if a religious group performs polyandy, could we consider such a change.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1 supreme court justice does not constitute a collective decision, and up until now, this is all we have seen.

I'm all for a referendum. Let's get the voice of the people involved, rather than the elite.

The average Canadian is not screaming in the streets about it. AFAIK, most citizens are fine with it.

btw, I was under the impression that Parliament passed legislation that added sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act. As far as I can see, there was then another act of Parliament to give same sex unions recognition to agree with Supreme Court rulings.

Now we are walking the final mile, but that journey began when Parliament prompted it in 1996 with an ammendment to the Human Rights Act.

[Ben Kenobi]

AFAIK, most citizens are fine with it.

Again, it's not enough to rely on our limited knowledge. Something this important needs to go to the people. AFAIK, the only party that would support such a binding referendum would by the new Tories.

added sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act.

Problem is whether marriage necessarily falls under the provision of the human rights act. This question has not been resolved, although the courts recently came out by upholding the appeal of a gay man in Ontario, and the provinces each refused to invoke the Notwithstanding clause, leaving the matter to the Federal Jurisdiction.

It is also unclear whether marriage falls under the provision of the Charter, because marriage predated the charter, and previous considerations have all treated the federal government as the custodian of marriage, rather than the determinent of marriage. It is not clear that they have the authority to redefine marriage in this way.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

It is also unclear whether marriage falls under the provision of the Charter, because marriage predated the charter, and previous considerations have all treated the federal government as the custodian of marriage, rather than the determinent of marriage. It is not clear that they have the authority to redefine marriage in this way.

Yet marriage is not formally defined by society at large in any document that I am aware of. Aside from religious texts and practices (which not everyone subscribes to and aren't binding for society as a whole) marriage is only defined by the state. It is therefore up to the state to determine whether to update that definition or not.

[notyoueither]

Every aspect of government and how it treats different groups of citizens falls under Human Rights Act(s) and the Charter, Ben.

The government took the step of adding sexual orientation to the federal Human Rights Act. The Supreme Court told them that gays must then be allowed the benefits of unions under federal laws. The feds complied with another act. That is two acts of Parliament, Ben, not just the courts.

Now we are seeing the next steps of that first recognition of rights. That a religious ceremony be recognised as a union whether those wed are gay or straight.

It isn't the feds redefining religious marriage, Ben, it is individual churches and sects which are. The feds are in the unenviable position of being asked to referee the brawl.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

It is also unclear whether marriage falls under the provision of the Charter, because marriage predated the charter, and previous considerations have all treated the federal government as the custodian of marriage, rather than the determinent of marriage. It is not clear that they have the authority to redefine marriage in this way.

Hmm... I guess since slavery pre-dates the Charter, there'd be no problem in bringing that back too.

[constitutional rant] The thing about the Charter is that it supercedes existing laws, and provides the minimum standard for all subsequent legislation (the notwithstanding clause, erm, notwithstanding). Now, if the Alberta Reich wants to use the clause to weasel out of it, bring it on. But I think even Ralph "I done drunk the whole dang thing" Klein knows that he'll forever be branded a bigot for doing it. Not to mention the boost it'll give to Bloc Quebecois, who have argued all along that the constitution doesn't apply to them, since Quebec never signed it. If any other province invokes notwithstanding, they can't really complain the next time Quebec does, now can they? [/constitutional rant]

Back to the poll... wasn't there a Seinfeld... ah yes, I found the quote (google is your friend):

"Did you see the way she was looking at me?"
"She's a Nazi, George, a Nazi!"
"I know, I know. Kind of a cute Nazi, though."
- George and Jerry, in "The Limo"

jon.