Brokeback Parliament
Canada’s next Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has vowed to revisited the issue of same-sex marriage:
OTTAWA (CP) — Stephen Harper says he wants to move quickly as leader of a fractious new Parliament to reopen the same-sex marriage debate.
The makeup of the new House of Commons suggests the prime minister-designate knows there’s a good chance such a motion will be rejected.
It would not be a total loss, however. In fact, an honourable defeat on equal marriage would satisfy obligations to Harper’s most right-wing supporters while defusing a politically explosive issue. [More]
Funny, I used to be a Conservative and was heavily involved with the party for about a year until I attended the annual CPC Convention held in Montreal in March 2005. At that time, I was able to see that Harper’s true ambitions had nothing to do with the party members’ views. Even before the vote on whether the CPC would support a re-definition of marriage to be “between a man and a woman”, Harper swore in a speech to the delegates that he would outlaw same-sex marriage if he won the election.
Well, check it out. He’s won the election.
Harper is a threat to the rights of the people. Sure he may have sugar-coated his platform by saying he would reduce taxes, but the CPC likes to sneak policy in through the back door (not unlike the current Bush administration).
Although our government voted for same-sex marriage last year, we’re going to have to communicate with our local representatives to try and urge them to keep the law into force by voting against the re-definition of marriage this year. What a waste of time, money and human rights.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Hi dear
I simply can’t see you as a conservative, as hard as I try …
and I’m quite hard for that matters …
Love from Sweden, keep up the good work!
January 28th, 2006 at 11:46 am
He’s Bush’s Mini-me.
My political knowledge/awareness is lacking but one thing I do know is that we’re truly fucked
January 28th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Now… I for one am not against gay marriage… but Marriage has historically been a religious thing… and the purose for marriage has been for procreation.. and correct me if I’m wrong but gay couples cannot concieve children through natural methods.. sure there is artificial insemination for lesbian couples… but then they need a donor.. and adopting is always an option.
If they are marrying for financial benefits.. then by the same rights shouldn’t two people regardless of “love” who live together be able to share those same rights?
So to me there is really no reason to get married… except to have that big bash… and have everyone acknowldge their love..
January 28th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Spiklos- So why do we allow old people and infertile people to get married?
January 29th, 2006 at 3:22 am
Excuse the obvious response but:
Spiklos,
So you think that committed relationships do not have value to society inherently. Your point is that only procreation is of interest .
Therefore you would abolish marriage of couples that are infertile and couples past child bearing age.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:46 pm
well I do believe I said I am not against gay marriage. I was just stating how historically and religiously marriage started, and how if we were to change the definition of marriage, it shouldn’t be because we feel gays have been left out of it.. it should be changed to include all types of long term relationships.
I just don’t see gay marriage has a huge deal. If love is the tying bond between two people then marriage should have nothing to do with it.. in fact I don’t believe in marriage period… why? because people are fickle. all the legality of “loving” someone is crap. Marriage should actually be done with… screw it entirely.. and I’m saying this because divorce is on increase.. pre-nuptual agreements provide a distrust with partners in the begininning of the marriage. and if marriage is till death do you partt then you should honor that.. and not many people do. with marriage dying. I don’t see a reason for it..
If you can provide me with a reason why gay marriages are allowed other than love. maybe I would change my mind. But it seems to me that gay marriage is a bandwagon idea set forth by liberals to gain favor in parliament, the same as decriminalising marijuana. it serves no real purpose, (although I am glad that possession will only net me a fine… to a certain point.)