CanPol: Thread of the Year Edition

[November Adam]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What would the problem be with saying that man and woman can 'marry', and that same sex couples can 'unite', if both have the same legal rights and priviledges?

Oh damn, there's churches wanting to marry same sex couples.

Tell you what, why not get the fed out of the business of marriage and simply recording all the various 'unions', no matter how each denomination sees the combinations?

Thats what I've always thought. I'm personally against gay marriages, but thats from a personal moral perspective. There should just be civil unions between 2 people for the government. Then if anyone wants to get married through their specific religious beliefs they can. It's as simple as that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by November Adam
Thats what I've always thought. I'm personally against gay marriages, but thats from a personal moral perspective. There should just be civil unions between 2 people for the government. Then if anyone wants to get married through their specific religious beliefs they can. It's as simple as that.

I agree.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You're English is good

You're an ass.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You're an ass.

Correction: Your'e is a ass.

Dan Quayle (ed.)

[Peter Triggs]

Re: NYE and November Adam's posts:

Yeah, it's so obvious isn't it? To me, marriage is an essentially religious concept, and to coin a phrase :

The state has no business behind the pulpits of the nation.

OTOH, the government has every right - and indeed an obligation - to regulate the legalities that attach to a putative lifelong contract between any two people.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You're an ass.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber
I can't see the rights violation of having a different defined term for essentially the same thing. (maybe xage and yage)

I don't think that would stand up to a charter challenge. Seems to me it is still segregation on the basis on sexuality,

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by November Adam


Thats what I've always thought. I'm personally against gay marriages, but thats from a personal moral perspective. There should just be civil unions between 2 people for the government. Then if anyone wants to get married through their specific religious beliefs they can. It's as simple as that.

And the people who are not religious? If can they get married in a civil union and would that union then be recognized legally as a marriage? If you say no, then there is discrimination against people who are not religious. If you say yes, then there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage so the government, by deciding on what constitutes a legal marriage, and all the legal obligations that come with it, is deciding on what constitutes a marriage.

It is rather preposterous for Conservatives to day that gays and lesbians can get married, but they can say that they can't call themselves a married couple.

Let's face it. Harper is saying anything he can, promising anything he can, just to get votes. He would make a good Liberal.

[notyoueither]

Harper hasn't said squat (except that the NWS clause is off the table). This is a discussion on the internet about how the gordion knot might be split.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Tingkai


And the people who are not religious? If can they get married in a civil union and would that union then be recognized legally as a marriage? If you say no, then there is discrimination against people who are not religious. If you say yes, then there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage so the government, by deciding on what constitutes a legal marriage, and all the legal obligations that come with it, is deciding on what constitutes a marriage.

It is rather preposterous for Conservatives to day that gays and lesbians can get married, but they can say that they can't call themselves a married couple.

Let's face it. Harper is saying anything he can, promising anything he can, just to get votes. He would make a good Liberal.

I'm saying that a civil union would be the equivalent to what is now considered a marriage. So instead of being married you would be in a union. For those who the word "married" is important to they can have the marriage ceremony preformed by whom ever. It doens't even have to be registered, as it will be a personal ceremony. The civil union is the actual legal part. This would help in that it would at least be a compromise, and something that both parties can at least be happy with. Alot of this is based on peoples personal definition of "marriage", if the government just backs off of it and says that marriage is to be defined by the participants then no one can argue against it, as it will be a personal choice, which is what most of the gay-marriage proponents are saying anyways. It may be symantics, but often you have to at least show all sides that you can be resonable (which is often lacking in politics).

The only way Harper would be a good Liberal is if he promises any thing he can, and then turns around and renegs on it. It's not the promises that the Liberals make but the forknowledge that they are not going to follow through.

[notyoueither]

Who needs attack ads?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/17/martin051217.html

Martin says Harper has 'no business' becoming PM
Last Updated Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:13:43 EST
CBC News
Liberal Leader Paul Martin returned to the campaign trail on Saturday claiming victory in Friday night's debate over Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

RELATED: Canada Votes 2006

Paul Martin (CP photo)
At a rally with Liberal candidates from the Lower Mainland, Martin portrayed Harper as lacking what it takes to be prime minister. "Stephen Harper last night said this was a phoney war of words, well let me tell you something, I don't think there's anything phoney about defending jobs in Canada."

Martin made no mention of NDP Leader Jack Layton. He devoted his entire speech to contrasting the Liberals with the Conservatives - on national unity, child care, handguns and the importance of protecting minority rights.

"In my view if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no business trying to become the prime minister of Canada," said Martin.

Liberal strategists insist that highlighting these distinctions will win over undecided voters. They also believe Martin's performance in the debates, along with the passion he shows for the country and being prime minister, matter to voters.

At a news conference Martin said his Conservative rival is simply not up to the job. "Mr. Harper's problem is that on the one hand he does not appear to be prepared to defend Canada's interests, and on the other he's playing catch up on how one does support communities and Canadians."

[Ben Kenobi]

Did most of the Western provinces ever pay when they were created?

We aren't the ones arguing that it is our land to keep. If the federal government wanted to create a whole new province they could easily do so.

[notyoueither]

You're on crack, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

It shows his political beliefs and those beliefs are not in line with the majority of Canadian who are not conservatives.

And neither are Martin's ideas in lines with most of canadians who are not liberal.

When a leader has hard rightist views then the chances of people in the middle of the political spectrum voting for him are greatly reduced.

Stating that Canada is a socialist welfare state is indicative of a hard right position? Many fiscal conservatives have no problem agreeing with him.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're on crack, Ben.

There's no reason for them to ever create a province out of pieces of other ones, but I don't see what would prevent the federal government from creating one. Is there anything in the constitution that fixes the number of provinces at 10, and their borders to their current areas?