pretty random

Stephen Harper...was already talking about repealing equal marriage for same-sex couples

You want him to keep this up! WIth statements like that it will have middle-ground Canadians (who really don't care about the matter one way or another) not wanting to go near the Conservatives with a 100-metre pole!

From:

Meh -- it just leaves us with more Liberal rule. Corruption is starting to bug me more. If only the NDP weren't so ignored, maybe.

From:

well, there's also the problem of the inherent divisions within the country. Like it or not, the Liberals really are the best party suited to lead a country of tree-hugging BCers/redneck prairie folk/uptight Ontarians/fanatic Quebecois/lazy-assed Maritimers/the other that is NF.

And regarding electoral reform, I'm not convinced it would work well for Canada, since it coule create a large devide than already present. The coalitions required can get messy and complicated, and could result in a government nobody like (take a look at what we ended up with down here for an example).

Also I think that the media has really overplayed the Gomery thing, why no furore over the 1 billion wasted on hand-gun registration?!

From:

Oh god, the gun registry! Are you sure you're not a Tory?? :-)

Seriously though, that's the exact question constantly raised by the poor overtaxed gun owners. I want to slap my dad when he constantly says "I'm gonna buy a gun and not register it" when he freakin' registers his car every year.

From:

not so much the presence of the registry, but the fact that it went 800-million over budget or something?!

of course the other thing I may be finding is that Canada in general is a little over-regulated. I've often found that I tend to like left-leaning social reforms (drug/coupling reform for instance), but economically a little more centrist (deregulation of the health sector might not be the end of the world *hides in shelter*...)

From:

Yeah, I'm finding myself fairly libertarian sometimes. I'm still figuring out my beliefs on health care, but certainly there are a lot of regulations that don't need to exist.

From:

socalledeconomy.livejournal.com

"Stephen Harper...was already talking about repealing equal marriage for same-sex couples"

He saw how well it worked for Bush... Maybe he assumes Canadians are just as prejudiced and narrow minded as americans.

From:

Polls consistently show that Canadians are happy with the equal marriage law, and over two-thirds are sick of the issue entirely. Canada's religious right is tiny and ineffective (so far), compared to the US. And 50% of the Liberals' strategy against him 17 months ago was "he hates the gays!" If there's one thing he should have grasped by now... :)

From:

Well, it's not quite "celibate for three years", it's demonstrated an aversion to the tendencies for three years. Hell, I'm sure Rcihard Simmons has been celibate for three years, but I don't see the Vatican accepting him.

I'm kinda glad Harper did what he did. A lot of people on our side were trying to decide just how far to go in making it an election issue. Now Harper's made that decision for us.

From:

Yes, I tried to find the actual document but didn't try very hard. Aversion is very shaky.

As for Harper, you're absolutely right. I just can't believe his willingness to completely ignore reality so consistently.

From:

has reality really intruded that much into politics in the past?

From:

miket61.livejournal.com

I think what they do is go into seminaries with a DVD of Meet Me In St. Louis and see who sings along to "The Trolley Song."

From:

zedinbed.livejournal.com

Actually, I like Stephen Harper's approach to it. He never said he plans on repealing the law. he plans on putting forth the idea of a referendum on the topic to the House of Coomons and if they approve of it (which they won't), then he will hold a national referendum on it. And if the polls are as right as they think they are, Canadians will say yes to same sex marriage. According to Harper, he will call the issue closed at that point.

What's so bad about any of this?

From:

First, I don't think he said anything about a referendum. I think he said he'd first ask for a motion on whether MPs wanted to re-open the issue, and if he did, he'd introduce legislation. (That's pretty much a redundant process unless you believe there are anti-SSM MPs who will actually vote--not just think, but vote--that the question shouldn't be re-opened.)

Secondly, AAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!!! A referendum on this issue would be SO VERY VERY BAD. I have no confidence that the majority of Canadians would vote in favour of SSM in a referendum. I don't really think there are clear polls indicating that. And I don't think it's fair to have the majority decide on the rights of a minority. That's sort of why we have a Charter in the first place (not that Stephen Harper has read it.)

From:

zedinbed.livejournal.com

Here's my source on my take on the subject:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051129.wgaymarriage1129/BNStory/specialDecision2006/?query=stephen+harper+same+sex+marriage

As for the whole polls thing, I don't get why supporters of SSM slam their wins in them in the faces of their opponents and then consider it too risque themselves to trust if and when a real natinal referendum on the topic does arise.

From:

I agree to some extent with your comment on polls. In politics, I guess you make whatever arguments you think will help you win the day. But the focus on polls does somewhat contradict the message that SSM is the right solution under the Charter, regardless of what the majority thinks.

From:

Good point, I shouldn't use polls and then say majority doesn't matter. So I restract my poll points. Human rights are NOT negotiable, and should NEVER be subject to a majority's whim.

From:

skeezix1000.livejournal.com

Constitutional rights should never be subject to a show of hands.

From:

I'll vote for that.

From:

Several things.

1. Human rights should not be subject to a majority vote. If they were, blacks would still be slaves, and women would never have gotten the vote.

2. He spent years claiming that Parliament should decide this issue rather than judges. And in May, Parliament finally did. Now he says that doesn't count and he wants to ask again? How many times will he want to ask? I don't believe that the issue will be closed: he has changed his story on equal marriage several times already, and cannot be trusted on that point.

3. Over two-thirds of Canadians are sick of the issue, and consider it closed, and do not want to discuss it.

4. Well over half of Canadians support equal marriage, and therefore repealing the law would actually be ignoring majority interest anyway, in favour of the small but vocal anti-gay religious conservatives and conservative right.

5. Referenda cost megabucks, and we're already spending over $210 million on this election, plus $212 million on the last one just last year. Waste of money on an issue already dealt with.

6. There are children living and dying on the streets of Canadian cities and towns. Why the fuck is he not actually dealing with something that is an actual problem, instead of wandering around in anti-gay pointless land?

Bit of a rant there. :-)

From:

mightycodking.livejournal.com

If Harper says nothing, the "secret agenda" gets traction. He is probably figuring that "I support civil unions but not marriage, but I'll allow a free vote" will damage him less. It probably won't help much with the gay vote (gee, ya think) but might be good enough for Red Tories.

From:

skeezix1000.livejournal.com

"For pete's sake, is he stupid? I mean, seriously."

Yes. He's stupid. First thing out of his mouth on the first day of the campaign.

From:

simplisticton.livejournal.com

I posted this in your other post -- I guess the two ran together in my head...

I once got the line from a Conservative staffer that the two biggest issues on the minds of Canadians are strengthening the military and same-sex marriage. Obviously, the Conservatives have some whacked out pollsters (or poll writers, or interpreters of the polling data).

Jackie said it best last night: "I can deal with politicians who are corrupt. I can deal with them misusing my tax dollars. But I don't want them messing with my rights."

From:

rostin79.livejournal.com

I read about what is going on in your government, and wondered if it would have any effect on same-sex marriages. Though I won't lie, I'm not entire sure what happened (or better, why it happened). Is that not really a concern with what's going on?

From:

SHort answer: it's not a worry. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, saying it's a right under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That means that they can't overrule it without explicitly using a rarely-used feature of the charter called the Notwithstanding Clause. That only works for five years at a time, and would be a huge fight. No one has ever removed rights like this using it.

If the Tories passed a law of any sort that did not use the NC, as they claim they could, eventually it would reach the Supreme Court and they would slap it out immediately.

From:

rostin79.livejournal.com

thanks Cam :). Makes much more sense. As for slapping it out, I wish that could be done literally. Would make litigation more entertaining.

From: