Mr. Harper and Social Conservatism
One thing that both Stephen Harper’s supporters and opponents probably agree on is that he is a very intelligent prime minister. He is clever, and repeatedly he has surprised the media with his political savvy.
His very cleverness, though, makes it impossible to write off the failure of his government’s marriage motion as some kind mistake due to lack of political acumen. In fact, his already demonstrated political acumen is leading an important segment of what were his supporters to suspect that the motion’s failure was actually planned, or at least welcomed by the Prime Minister.
A great many social conservatives, who were already looking askance at his stand on social questions, now feel they have been taken for a ride. Technically, he can claim he has fulfilled a promise by putting before parliament the motion worded "That this house call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions, and while respecting existing same sex marriages.” But the fact that the motion dragged in the matter of civil unions and affirmed existing same-sex marriages gave an out to those Liberals who claimed to support traditional marriage but did not wish to vote against their party.
The fact that Conservative members failed to turn out in decent numbers for the debate on the motion, and the fact that discussion was ended so soon, suggests that the government was anything but enthusiastic about reversing the Liberals’ endorsement of same-sex unions as “marriages.”
Mr. Harper’s statement that the marriage-definition matter is now resolved permanently as far as he is concerned reminds us of his statement that the matter of abortion is not a live issue (or words to that effect).* Where has Mr. Harper been? Does he really underestimate to that extent the determination of those who would defend marriage? Perhaps he also underestimates their intelligence and thinks that they will still regard him as an ally.
The immediate political effect of failing to present and back a viable motion for the restoration of the traditional definition of marriage may be to Mr. Harper’s benefit. He can now carry on with measures of fiscal conservatism and not have to defend any highly controversial and politically-incorrect socially-conservative measure. But the long-term effects may not be so favourable to Stephen Harper. It is true that many social conservatives may feel they have nowhere else to go but the Conservative Party. But, as a Conservative Party worker remarked to me, Mr. Harper may not always be the leader of the party; and he is not the whole party. One strategy that socially-conservative members of the Party may adopt is to cut off as much as possible their financial support for the national party and direct that support towards the re-election of those Members of Parliament who have stood up for social-conservative principles. Then too, there is the option in the future of working for the nomination of Conservative-Party candidates who will support those principles which have been foundational to our society, enabling them to replace those who have ignored or undermined those principles.
Then there is the other—unfortunate—effect of people dropping out of the process altogether. This would be unfortunate for Canada, but the result may also be unfortunate for Mr. Harper. He may see a large segment of his party lose their enthusiasm for supporting a government which fails to support much of what they stand for.
There are those who will work actively for other options: for example, joining the Christian Heritage Party, which they may never have seen as a viable alternative, but which has always supported moral principles. In the long run, there may even be a split in the Conservative Party, bringing the situation full-circle to one where we have two “conservative” parties, as when we had the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform and then the Alliance.
Mr. Harper and others who have ignored the social conservatives in the party may think they have been clever, but in the end they may find that this kind of transparent cleverness has negative consequences. Those too often taken for granted may well decide that they do have options, and options which may not be to the taste of Mr. Harper and those who are supporting him in his present course.
Ted Hewlett, December 8, 2006
Endnote:
* See “Conservative Leader Harper Vows to Shut Down Abortion Debate in Canada's Parliament,” LifeSite, January 17, 2006, at
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06011707.html
posted by Ted Hewlett | Post Page
22 comments
22 Comments:
This article, written before the vote, was submitted by Stepeh Gray and is published with his permission as summing up his view of Harper's position as shown in the staging of the recent vote.
No Faith in the “never” Man
By Stephen Gray
"Same-sex marriage is not a basic human right.
"(It) does not appear in any recognized human rights document. It's not in the Charter of Rights. It's not in the Canadian Bill of Rights. It's not in the European Convention of Rights, It's not in the American Bill of Rights.
"It's a social experiment, and I personally think it's a dangerous social experiment."[1] Ted Morton
I believe, the so-called “free vote” on the same-sex marriage issue this fall, is a Con job. So-called “same-sex marriage” was never in the Charter and P.M. Harper knows this or should know this. Yet, people are being suckered into believing that this vote is a sign of Mr. Harper’s commitment to the democratic process. And even if this vote passed, which is highly unlikely, the issue would have to pass in the Liberal dominated Senate or the Obscene Court oops I mean the Supreme Court of Canada which if it runs true to form would find a way to make this nonsense of same-sex marriage “legal” just like the lower courts did. (And what makes this farce even worse is that the Bloc Quebecois which is in favour of “same-sex marriage” is a party that wants to separate from Canada, and does not want to be CANADIAN, yet it will be allowed to vote on this so-called “same-sex marriage” issue for Canadians. Does it get any crazier than this?) The only way to rid the country of this abomination is the use of the notwithstanding clause. Unfortunately, P.M. Harper is on record as saying on same-sex marriage:
"I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue," Harper said. [2]
I believe Mr. Harper is being wishy washy on this issue. People are being fooled into believing that this silly vote on nonsense will somehow give Harper credibility. Let’s face it, this vote, is a vote on a lie, and all it is doing is giving credence that somehow this lie is votable. I believe it is a Con job (no pun intended) designed to give a sop of hope to the “true believers” who cannot see they are being conned for the sake of their votes. And even suppose by some miracle that the politicians did do the right thing for a change and vote against same-sex marriage, this nonsense would still be with us. For P.M. Harper is on record as saying:
"Even if members decided to change the definition and bring it back to the traditional definition, we have to respect same-sex marriages that already exist,…" [3]
So there you have it straight from the political horses mouth, “we have to respect same-sex marriages that already exist,…” Is that a nice mealy mouthed politically correct, liberal answer or what from Harper? Harper says he is in favour of traditional marriage, but wants to “ respect same-sex marriages that already exist.” Is he talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time on this issue?
And on the issue of “two gay” Mounties marrying each other, a Canadian press story had this headline: “Prime Minister's Office muzzles MPs on wedding of gay Mounties” the story went on to say: “The Prime Minister's Office has warned Conservative MPs not to comment on the marriage next month of two gay RCMP constables.”
“The gag order went to all MPs but was aimed at "the small minority who might say something stupid," said one caucus member.” [4] So there you have it, Mr. Harper, the man who was opposed to “gag laws” appears to be gagging his own followers. Is this hypocrisy from him on an important moral issue?
And on another great moral issue of our time, the killing of the innocent child in the womb, what is Mr. Harper’s stance on that? This news story had this to say:
“Meanwhile, Harper was emphatic Wednesday he would defend the status quo for abortion on demand.” The story quoted Mr. Harper as saying this:
"A Conservative government will not be bringing forward, will not be supporting, and will not be debating the abortion laws in this country.
"I've been clear on that and, frankly, I think that's put the matter to rest." [5]
There you have it again, a nice liberally correct answer that the killing of the innocent child in the womb will continue under a “conservative” government. What a callous comment from a supposedly intelligent man!!
I believe on these two important moral issues of today Mr. Harper and his “conservative” government are failing society. How can Mr. Harper say he “respects” this lie of same-sex marriages that already “exist,” when he is supposedly a supporter of traditional marriage? And how can Mr. Harper say the abortion issue has been put “to rest?” When the innocent child in the womb is carved up, cut to pieces, suctioned out, poisoned by a saline solution and sometimes born alive and left die. Nobody in their right mind would call these barbaric acts carried out on the innocent child in the womb as putting “the matter to rest." The man may be a “policy wonk” but, on the important moral issues of today, I believe, his policies are wonky.
Note: to see the truth about abortion go to: http://www.AbortionNo.org
Note: For more detailed info on Mr. Harper see these Lifesite Reports Below:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06062702.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/060627a.html
Stephen Gray
August 27, 2006.
graysinfo@yahoo.ca website http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Endnotes:
[1] http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060825/n082569A.html
[2 ] http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=881b5ba3-252b-4aba-920b-d63a466b8977&k=4449
[3]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051216/ELXN_harper_sam_sex_051216?s_name=&no_ads
[4] http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060525/n0525117A.html
[5] http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=b467d30e-a5af-457d-bf21-132c621ccbcb
In my opinion, Stephen Harper should explain to us why this happened in the way it did. He had won the trust of many pro-lifers While we may accept the fact that politicians in power sometimes have to take unexpected action, Stephen has two questions to answer;
1. What action did he take referring to the New Brunswick attempt to restrict abortion in their own province, and why did he take it?
2) Did he know beforehand that the same-sex marriage vote would be lost? If he didn't know, he should have known, because he has more access to information than we have.Why was he not present when the debate commenced?
Pro-Lifers have sustained two body blows. Some are angry and may remove their party support. The many branches of the movement should consult together before taking any action. Give him a chance to answer the whats and the whys.
I do not think it wise to call for a referendum on the matter until we get some idea from polls how it would fare. A lost referendum would make matters much worse.
There are other issues, such as the school curriculum that are equally or more destructive than same-sex marriage. The danger is that if we oppose one single issue, others will be slipped across without our noticing. This is why I believe we sould consult together, act in unison and choose our strategy carefully
Well old friend, you know who I am and what I believe. For once I agree with you. Harper is smart enough and unethical enough to pretend to believe in something in order to get elected, but in the end like most politicians will do almost anything to stay in power. He knows perfectly well that the majority of Canadians are not against abortion,and homosexual marriage, or they are indifferent to the matter. Let's face it, what percentage of the population even votes. Furthermore not all Christians agree with social conservatives and take a radical different stand: i.e. the United Church of Canada, the Anlican Church and many liberal Christians in other denominations. Youand your social conservatives are fighting a lost cause. Our parliament and even the courts are against your view having reviewed the charter of rights, and come down on the side of abortion and gay marriage. We are a country of laws. WB
Yes, WB is indeed an old friend, and maybe I could say an ancient opponent. Welcome, WB, and welcome to all others of good will, allies or opponents.
It may seem like deliberately choosing disagreement on one of the few things we appeared to agree on, WB, but I am not willing to say that Harper is necessarily guilty of pretending to believe something he did not. It may be that he simply does not care enough about these things--does not recognize the importance of things like abortion and same-sex unions being declared marriages.
As for social conservatives fighting a lost cause, I have some doubts that you, WB, as a person of good will, will like the results of same-sex marriage: the indoctrination of students, with or without their parents' assent, with a view to having them approve of same-sex unions, and the possible loss of the right of free discussions such as we are having, thanks to the totalitarian ideology of many of those who are pushing same-sex marriage.
By the way, you should know that there is no mention in the Charter of Rights of same-sex marriage being one of those rights.
Regardless of the outcomes of those votes and or Harper's political acumen, the problem still exists. What are SoCons to do? The CHP is hardly an option as that is precisely what the Liberals want and expect us to do. The NDP are a hopeless case as their support is disappearing into Liberal votes. The Greens and their leader Elizabeth May are gaining some ground and credibilty.
If we want another 15-20 years of Liberal rule in Canada, then by all means stay home and wash your hands of the situation. My advice is to join the Conservatives enmasse. Tell your friends to join. Sign up your fellow church goers. Go to their policy conventions, take leadership roles in their party, run candidates who reflect more closely your agenda. There is only one way to have any significant impact in Canadian politics and that is from the inside.
Harper is not the be all and the end all for hope in changing Canada. He also can not be expected to run rough shod trying to fix all the problems created by previous Liberal governance.
I wonder if we SoCons will ever learn that this is a war we are in. Every skirmish is not the last stand. Lick our wound and lets get back to the front lines. I am reminded of the kids on the playground (taking the bat and going home) when I hear people advocating we leave the Conservative Party.
Folks, the last policy convention in Montreal came within 3.5% of endorsing a pro-life position for the Party. If we can't move this party 3.5% in our direction why in heaven's name would we be attempting to move the entire population of the country to our way of thinking.
My advice is to get back to the task at hand, lick our wounds and start again. Nothing is lost by continuing to work our buns off. The only alternatives is abandonment of the battle and for me that is not an option. Times are changing. Society is slowly coming around as things continue to get worse. We need to show that we are patient and hard working members of the Party who won't take "no" for an answer.
Interesting srory from the Geen Party Leader comes from The Alberta PL News last week. QUOTE
Green Leader Says She’d Never Have an Abortion But …
Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May was caught on tape last month during a London, Ontario by-election telling a group of Roman Catholic nuns that she would never have an abortion and had even talked women out of having an abortion but she just couldn’t support making it illegal. “If we make them illegal, women will die,” she said. She said she didn’t like the idea of abortions being done for “frivolous” reasons and then went on to talk about “strategies” and “programs” to reduce the number of legal abortions. There were no media people at the meeting and Ms. May did not know her comments were being taped until they showed up on the blog of one of her supporters. The comments were later posted on the CTV website. You can read the blog report of the meeting at www.danbaril.com .
Reprinted with permission from Alberta Pro-Life’s E-update
Dear Anonymous No. 2:
Your advice to Conservative Party members makes sense. One thing seems certain to me: There is no good argument for social conservatives abandoning the fight. Our duty to the children and youth of this country--the future of this country--demands that we keep on keeping on.
My 11:45 comment was meant to follow the 10:30 one by Anonymous No. 2 in the comments on this "blog."
The following is in response to the Anonymous No. 3 comment at 10:46:
Dear Anonymous No. 3:
I would expect both the Liberal and NDP to have stated similar positions to that of Ms May. Still, it is important for pro-lifers who might otherwise be attracted to her environmental position should know her stand. By all means let's have strategies to decrease the number of abortions. One might be to defund abortions for a start. But it is strange how some environmentalists (I can't say for sure about Ms May) are willing to be absolutist about the enviroment but respect for human life does not rank so highly with them.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stephen Harper’s skill as a political choreographer in the latest stage-play in the Commons about marriage brings to mind Churchill’s famous description of democracy. One is tempted to describe Harper as the worst of prime ministers, except for all the others who have been tried from time to time. But one does not do so. Nothing is to be gained by turning the crew against the only navigator who has a working compass, even if he sometimes uses the wrong chart or puts the glass to an eye blind by calculation. The alternatives continue to be worse, and there is no sign that better alternatives will present themselves any time soon.
Notwithstanding the comments, do you really think Harper can do anything at the moment with a minority government? I am sure it would be a different story if he had a majority.
In response to "Anonymous" ("Notwithstanding the comments . . .), I agree that Harper is severely limited as to what he could do to bring in such socially conservative measures as he might want to bring in. I do not blame him for not doing everything now, but rather for apparently closing the door on future moves. When he says he will not use the "Notwithstanding" clause to restore the traditional definition of marriage, or states that the abortion issue is closed, he is limiting his future action on crucial social conservative issues. Still, I should perhaps write a piece acknowledging specifically some measures that he has taken which are positive from a social conservative point of view.
Mr. Grey's argument at the start of this thread does not work. Of course, same-sex marriage is not a specifically named human right, no one says it is. However, equality is a named right.
Marriage is something that the government regulates. It has been for centuries. Only the local aristocrat could sanction a union between two of his lieges or his property(people). Churches got involved because the priests were the only ones who could keep records.
But regardless of histroy, today it is a government licensed event and government cannot, according to the charter, discriminate. We, or others, have been down the 'seperate but equal' path and it does not work. Therefore the government and court is doing the right thing in upholding the real Canadian value of equality. Even if they do lead public opinion. That is why we have a charter in the first place, to make us honor our values even if we don't want to.
Wayne Fowler
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:
"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
In reply to your last post dealing with Stephen Gray's comments: Wayne, do you really think that this means that everyone is allowed to do the same things? For example, is a child of twelve allowed to be married at his or her own will?
If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandates same-sex marriage because of the equality clause, surely it is logical to argue that it mandates polygamy, and incestuous unions being declared legitimate unions.
Your theories about the involvement of the state are interensting, though I am not sure that they are rooted in history. But are you arguing that the government should necessarily have the powers of a lord of the manor? I understand that in medieval times the serf was bound to the lord's estate, but no-one suggests the government today should limit our place of residence. Governments over-reach themselves and if they abuse their powers, people in a democracy have the right to limit them. It may be time to re-think the powers of government regarding marriage.
No I don't want Lord of the Manor government. Once again I simply like to point out that the government regulates the definition of who can do so and this has evolved to a state where they are bound by The Charter in modern Canada. This is the best guarentee we have to stop government from "over-reaching themselves and abusing their powers". This is a historical truth that runs counter to the politically correct marriage defined by church myth.
As for the marriage of 12 year olds, our rights are not absolute. As I'm sure you know our rights are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Part 1 section 1. I think restricting the right of marriage for someone who has not attained the required maturity to make such a major decision is an easy argument.
Incest, can be dealt with based upon potential harm to children. This harm is proven, unlike your belief about same-sex adoption.
Polygamy may be harder to stop because if a mentally capable, adult person wishes to chose a marriage like that I'm not sure the current law could stand a court challenge. I personally think the practice is based upon exploitation or low self worth of at least one partner but the law isn't about my, or your, likes and dislikes but upon principles and if we say equality we may just have to live up to that commitment. We can't even try the "it was never done that way" argument here because it has been fairly common.
As for limiting the power of the government in this area, what would be your basis? I was never married in a church and I'm not letting social conservatives take that from me or anyone else if I can help it.
Considering religionous faith is based upon belief without proof I don't think it should have the currency it does have. Let government marry people. Let churches bless those who seek blessing. If you guys want to call them clerical unions be my guest.
Wayne Fowler
Well, Wayne, we have actually had some meeting of minds. You agree that equality before and under the law does not and should not mean that everyone should be allowed to do the same things. Hence the government, can legitimately forbid certain actions to some that it allows to others, and one of them, as your argument acknowledges, is marriage. You argue against the government allowing marriage when marriage might be harmful. Well, there are a great many who think homosexual marriage is harmful and say the government should not have given it a stamp of approval. (That's what official government recognition of homosexual marriage is--as stamp of approval.)
You, on the other hand, have argued that the government should give its stamp of approval, because you do not think homosexual "marriage" is harmful. In other words, you are asking that government give its stamp of approval to your notion of what is right.
It can be argued that since giving official recognition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman is offensive to no-one and giving such recognition to single-sex unions is offensive to many, government should stick to recognizing only man-woman unions. An alternative would be for the government to get out of the marriage-recogniton business entirely and leave it to other bodies (not necessarily churches) to decide whether marriage is legitimate. But those promoting same-sex marriage insisted that government use its power to recognize their views officially. So it is interesting that it is those considered "liberal" who are insisting that the government extemd ots authority and use its power in opposition to a large section of the nation.
Actually, Ted, there are a lot of gay people and some hetro's like myself who find the 'man-woman only' definition offensive. It discriminates without reason and I always find that offensive.
The problem is, Ted, that you just don't get some fundamental aspects of human rights. It doesn't matter how many people find something offensive. If it is a universal human right, and equality is just that, then we are obligated to accept the action that allows equality.
Of course, as I said before that is "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
And as said before, harm is a key reason in declaring that those resonable limits have been reached. However this doesn't mean that government has a choice between what you call my belief and your belief, or in fact any other belief.
Those that want to apply a limit have to demonstrate there is a reason to create one. I don't want to place gender as a limit on marriage so my belief is irrelevant. You want to impose the limit so you have to show that there is actual harm or potential harm not just a belief in harm.
So far all I really see is the cry that this offends my religious values. That has never passed muster in the courts as a strong enough harm to warrant limits on rights.
'It goes against my religious beliefs' is not a reason a government can use to withhold someone else's rights. You know seperation of church and state. This does not interfere with a religious person's rights as they are not forced to do something against their wishes and neither can their church be forced to do something against its wishes.
So, Ted, what is the harm that legitimizes withholding someone's rights in the case of same gender marriage?
As for government extending its power to do what most don't want, you are ignoring the history of this change. The government wasn't going to act, the courts forced them to. Individual rights are how democracies have answered the problem of 'dictatorship of the masses'. The government acted only when same gender marriage had become a court enforced fait de compli. (This is why we have courts and our democratic government is how that system came into being)
Stephen Harper took the easy way out of his commitment to social conservatives because he knew to do otherwise was political suicide. The polls show that the Canadian public, whether they like it or not, thinks this issue is a done deal. Harper knew nothing he wanted to do would make it through the courts. Why waste their time and redebate an issue most people don't want reopenned? I think it is the social conservatives that want the government to extend its authority into something most people don't want any more, not liberals. And finally, social conservatives are pretty much stuck with a protest vote or the Conservative Party. Just like real lefties are stuck with the NDP or a protest vote. So why would Harper spend political capital to please you.
Wayne Fowler
I believe many homosexuals and many heterosexuals like myself were offended by the last marriage definition. It denied the basic principle of equality and that is always offensive.
Why do you conservatives want the government to impose its power and deny two people who love each other and want to make a life long commitment the right to marry?
Ted, you seem to confirm my belief that conservatives don't understand the concepts of individual rights. The basis of true democracies has been the protection of individual rights from the power of government. (and of course the ability of the people to hold government accountable)
Now, as we have both agreed above,
Canadian rights are not absolute and are subject to limits. But this is not about my opinion or your opinion and certainly it is not about how many people are offended. The courts have ruled that the last definition of marriage was a violation of the right of equality. Since you wish to limit that right it is up to you to show that that limit is
"demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Your opinion, my opinion, the outrage of any number of people is irrelevant. The evidence given for harm to society has not convinced the courts as they have denied the government the ability to limit this right in this case. And as time goes by fewer and fewer Canadians disagree with the court in this case.
I know you have me pegged as a liberal ,I'd put myself left of that, but I often don't like the courts decisons either. To me courts are generally too conservative. However the courts are the best defence against a government that doesn't respect the individual.
You talk of basing rights on how many individuals are offended. That is the tyranny of the majority. Interning Canadians of Japanese decent in WWII was a gross violation of human rights but if you'd done a poll the vast majority would have supported it. The same goes for stealing land from native people and forcing their children into residential schools. Simple majority rules is not democracy. It certainly isn't the kind of place that will allow you the freedom to believe what you want. Unless, of course, you are in the majority, which, in this country, is to a large extent you Ted.
Ted you accuse me of wanting the government to intervene or interfere. To an extent I do but I want it to do so to protect the individuals right to choose based on their own morals. You seem to want the government to regulate according to your personal morals.
I won't make you marry another man if you don't want to, but you wouldn't let me marry him if I chose to. Why do you have to make everyone live by your rules?
Wayne Fowler
In response to your message immediately above, all definitions discriminate in the sense of making a distinction. If they fail to make a distinction they are not definitions. Of course I realize that by “discriminate” you mean make a distinction between people, and you say that the traditional definition makes a distinction without reason. But there are very good reasons for making a distinction between homosexual unions and heterosexual marriage. Among other reasons, the social consequences of heterosexual marriage are quite different, more frequently resulting in stable unions and frequently resulting in children.
To show that the government is withholding a right one has to establish there is a right—and marriage is not a universal right. (You do not really believe that marriage is a universal human right, because you have indicated that you yourself do not believe—for one thing--that incestuous marriages are a human right.)
You acknowledge that harm is a reason for denying the right of marriage. Well, a lot of us would say that harm will result from the government officially recognizing homosexual “marriage’ and thus putting its stamp of approval on it. You do not seem to have noted the argument that because the law is a teacher, recognizing such unions as marriages is teaching the young to view such unions favourably. If, as many believe, homosexual unions are harmful, teaching the young that they are commendable teaches the young to look favourably on harmful behaviour. Why are such unions harmful? Well, for one thing there is the matter of physical health. Those engaged in homosexual behaviour have on the average markedly shorter lives than those who are heterosexual. Then there is the matter of psychological health.
The arguments above are not arguments about offending religious values. However, if a government action offends the religious values of a large section of the population and there is no need for the government to take that action, then the government should refrain from doing so. In the matter of marriage recongnition it might have been possible for the government to get out of the marriage-recognition business, thus avoiding pronouncing on the matter. But pro-homosexuality activists were not satisfied with this and demanded the government take their side of the argument.
You are incorrect in saying that the Canadian government had to recognize same-sex "marriage." The Supreme Court of Canada had not pronounced upon the question, and even if it had the government had the option to use the "Notwithstanding clause"-- a oower that is needed to curb the law-making propensities of unelected judges.
True the supreme court didn't pronounce, but numerous court decisions at the provincial level had pretty much made a supreme court ruling a given. The government of the day saw the writing on the wall and did the right thing. The Harperites also knew any law would not stand so they took the easy way out and manouvered around their pledge. No serious party will take on the issue now.
Remember no one has claimed that marriage is a universal right, as I said numeous times before, the challenges regarded lack of equal treatment. Homosexual lovers did not have the same government supplied options as Hetrosexuals so they were being discriminated against.
As for your non-religious arguments...
We could easily find types of hetrosexuals who were more likely to produce unstable unions or who were unlikely to produce children if we searched for them. Shall we deny them marriage too?
You claim there is a harm involved. Even if I agree to the health risk argument would you deny marriage to smokers or extreme mountain bikers because they may have a reduced life expectancy?
You're grasping at straws Ted. None of the reasons given hold water. Under the old definition I could have married a woman who was going to die the next day, or at least gone to Vegas and done so. We might never have known each other and may never have wanted to have sex or children. Social conservatives may have thought it was wrong but they never went balistic over it. You can't just drag out these arguments now.
And I'm not so sure you really want government out of the marriage game. I know I don't as I'm an athiest and was married by a justice of the peace. I wanted to make the commitment. I have lived the commitment for 25 years. I didn't want, what was to me, a meaningless blessing from a religious organization. Is your traditional definition really man-woman in a church?
If government does move out of defining marriage then the word is just out there for all to use. Who could stop the human saying they had married an animal or plant for that matter. Poligamy definitly becomes legal. And homosexuals would absolutely be free to call their unions marriage. In this country only the government makes laws that can be enforced. Just because you say marriage means this why would anyone else be held to that same definition? Or are you saying we live in a country where churches make rules that apply to all people?
And finally I like my judges appointed and independent. The last thing we need is to turn our judges into politicians like they are in the USA. How many guilty but popular people do we want to set free? How many innocent people do we want to convict in order to satisfy public opinion before the next election? We already have enough of that as it is.
Wayne Fowler
We now live in a Politically Correct liberal,Darwinian Humanist society where values are inverted. Moral relativism is considered an absolute value and absolute values are considered relative.This is due to our Humanist Education Establishments where our leaders,teachers and the rest of our society is educated.
What is the difference between a relativist and a person who admits she has no morality at all? There seems to be none.
How does a relativist make a moral decision? He decides for himself whatever he thinks is best.
How does someone with no morality know how to act? She decides for herself whatever she thinks is best.
Even those people with no scruples whatsoever can be said to have their own morality.
This illustrates the problem now with our society precisely! From the Law professor to the judge,and from the university professor to the school teacher to the media to the man / woman on the street and everyone.
Now the Gay related bowel syndrom is a collection of bowel deseases that lead to the mechanical disfuction of the lower bowel tract. This is ENDemic in the homosexual population. Then you have the Health Canada HIV and AIDS in Canada Surveillance Report for April 2006 and on page 60 we read that 85 percent of AIDS in Canada is in males who have sex with males!
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this lifestyle is dangerous to our society. Yet our liberal-minded politicians,judges,professors,media,and teachers impose it as healthy and normal. They can't seem to see the truth before their eyes!
How can anyone make sence of a relativist morality at all?
If a thing cannot be distinguished from its opposite,then the distinction between the two is meaningless!
Hello people, I just registered on this great discussion board and wanted to say hey! Have a magnificent day!
Post a Comment
<< Home