Apparently, 15,000 people rallied in Ottawa yesterday to voice their opposition to same-sex marriage. As of 7:46pm on Sunday evening, as near as I can tell, neither the Toronto Star nor the Globe and Mail have reported one. single. word. about them. In fifty words or less, compare and contrast with the breathless, drooling coverage afforded by both outlets to protests involving equal or smaller numbers of people when the subject of the protest is, oh, to pick one random example, opposition to the war to liberate Iraq.
Emulating the New York Times. May their circulation figures be equally rewarded.
Typical response when it comes to lefty MSM. That's why more and more people are following blogs. We need the truth dammit.
What amazes me is how the media's agenda is more important to them than the basic matter of survival. The lefty media reader/viewership is dropping and it's only a matter of time before they're forced out of business, and Fox has never been more successful.
If nothing else, you'd think their shareholders would revolt.
Check out the CBC's reporting of its own poll.
52% opposed to extending the definition of marriage to same sex couples and 44% for. The CBC reports that "almost as many people are for as against" Geez, any poll I have ever seen that has an 8 point spread is pretty decisive, especially when one side is over the 50% mark.
However, part of the poll breakdown lists that 65% of "New Canadians" oppose the extension of the defintion of marriage versus only 44% of Canadians born in Canada. Now to be difficult for a second, isnt that "racist", to break out the poll that way. I mean what right do "these people" have to bring traditional religous values to this lovely paradise....
Look, polls change and this is one of those issues that really custs across politics, religon and ethnicity....but I just find that kind of reporting to be revealing a bias. Must be the new math, 44%=52%
For all the hand wringing of the libertarian sect of the Conservatives (which I have more in common with than the socons), the complaint that they have to act like Liberals and do what it takes to get elected is being taken seriously in this instance, and it's not compromising the party platform to do it.
First and second generation immigrants have long been Liberal party bedrock. To identify where these culturally diverse groups have uniformly and profound religious differences with the position of the Liberal party on same-gender marriage, and use that as a wedge issue to break them away is smart politics.
In the US, they call it "Rovian".
Couldnt agree more Kate. Nothing wrong with a little wedge politics, but only if it matters. The worry is that these groups are so wedded to the Liberal Party that their allegience will override the other issue.
However, I dont believe that and that CBC poll politically justifies Harpers position.
Additionally, opposition to extending marriage defintition has a Libertarian argument behind it. Essentially, why is the governement getting into social engineering, when civil union grants ALL legal and contractual snaction and support there is only one reason for adding the defintion.....social sanction. This is something governments should be generally staying away from, as opposed to guaranteeing rights and responsiblities of individuals.
Opposition to same sex marriage need not anti gay or pro religon, and in fact shouldnt be.
BTW I had forgotten to add the link to the story, interesting result, bad interpretation on the CBC's part
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html
Once the gate is opened on the definition of marriage, then,because of the charter of rights and the supreme court, you are going to be amazed at the people who apply and thier so called spouses.Numbers,gender,age and species will all be eligible because of the above and the hate laws are already in place to stop dissent.Personally,I am going to marry my adult children of both sexes for inheritance purposes and maybe my male dog to prove a point.
It has taken close to ten years for the internet to begin breaking the gate-keeping strangle hold that mainstream media has held on news coverage in Canada.
Last week was the watershed time as the blogging community made the difference thanks to some bold Canadian sites who linked to a helpful American site.
Now that conservative bloggers have bludgeoned the conciousness of the lefty Canadian media it's time to assault their bias directly on a persistent and continuaing basis as they continue to manipulate the news with left leaning spin.
Joseph molnar,
I couldn't agree more and I couldn't have said it better. (And that's saying a lot.)
"Personally,I am going to marry my adult children of both sexes for inheritance purposes and maybe my male dog to prove a point."
FYI, it's not official until it's consummated but something tells me you've already given that part much thought.
Listen, you people can whine and have tantrums over Canada not being like the US all you want but the reason that the polls on gay marriage don't matter one bit is because of something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you have a problem with that then by all means lobby to get rid of it. Then we can force the Catholic Church to marry non-Catholics and the divorced, we can put the Chinese Canadians back to work on the rails and get those Sikh Mounted Police proper headgear.
The polls show that most of Canada is against gay marriage? Who cares. It's already done. You've lost.
From the "say no to gay marriage" side, I always hear specious arguments about "protecting family values". Whose family? Whose values? And who says gays can't have children (for those who say that marriage is for the purpose of children, and gays, by definition, cannot procreate)? I know a few gay couples who have children of their own genetics. Being gay does not mean you can't procreate. Will someone please wake these fundies up?
Justin,
Win/Lose are probably not the right terms here. But the "Its the Charter Stupid" argument actually doesnt stand up.
The Supreme Court did NOT say that you must allow people of the same sex to fall in under the definition of marriage. At least not yet. What they said was that it wouldnt be illegal or unconstitutional to do that. They punted on the third reference.
Here is the irony, and where I actually have some admiration for the court. Subsequent governments never appealed the initial decisions, hoping the court would rule as you assume they did (Once again they may in the future). Despite the fact that the court recognized statements from 1982 during the patriation dbates that specifically read OUT Same Sex marriage.
What the court did say was, well we cannot make law, but based on the fact that Parliament never expressed its opposition, by not appealing, then we assume they have expressed their will through inaction. What I like about that is it sets Parlaiment up for the future where the Court has said, your actions and words matter we are watching.
So to summarize, they DID NOT make a new law, they "read in" what they perceived was Parliament's will. Harper has picked up this point and said fine we will get Parliament to express its will. It is NOT a fait accompli.
That being said, the court may very well turn around after Paliament expresses itself under Prime Mininster Harper and tell him that is unconstitutional, it all depends on the question.
And that my friend leads us to the conservative argument against an activist court. No argument is out of bounds because at some point in time the court MAY decide that something is now acceptable. In 1982 it was clear and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for marriage to be between anything other than opposite sexes. Parliament expressed itself in the mid 90's on the same question. BUT somehow in 10 years everything changed. So the arguments about polygamy are not far fetched under this scenario. Any legal scholar will tell you that if it follows the same pattern the same sex did, lack of Government appeals etc etc then Polygamy could be legalized. Thats how our system is working right now.
So for the moment the Charter, "Fait Accompli" argument doesnt hold any water, you are incorrect. As I said that could change at any time though. :->
And please note, I have not once invoked comparisons to the US, religous driven imperatives or even expressed a moral argument about the sanctitiy of the family.
CBC The News Source That Canadians Trust
"The national divide on the issue was starkly apparent on the weekend, as thousands of people marched in demonstrations across the country both for and against same-sex marriage."
Follow">http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/09/same-sex-050409.html">Follow their link:
CBC Flavoured Math
About 15,000 demonstrators, ... gathered to protest against Bill C-38,
A small but vocal group at the rally supported same-sex unions.
15,000 (against) + a small but vocal group (for) = THOUSANDS .... FOR and against."
How can any intelligent human being think that the redefinition of a word is a human right? But then again it seems that 'intelligent' and 'Liberal' are at odds to begin with.
How about a trade? Give them the word marriage, they give back the word gay, and we throw in the word miserable.
Today's National Post covered the big pro-marriage, anti-gay demo; the Globe did not. The Globe however did cover the anti-marriage gay rallies as if they were news.
Interestingly they attempted to protray the party activists as "faith-based". Passing yourself off as Christian seems to be the done thing amongst the obsessively anti-Christian these days. They even founn a gay calling himself a "rabbi". No word on whether he stoned himself to death.
The second or third item on the CBC morning drive newscast this morning was a rally bey religious groups in favour of same sex marriage. Approximately 200 people attended.
I am not all that excited about SSM either way - I tend to the libertarian, and I would prefer to see the government just get out of the "marriage" business altogether, while remaining in the "civil union" business. At the same time, it would be nice if the publicly-funded national broadcaster would just cover the news, rather than trying to shape opinion and engage in a little social engineering.
Cheers,
Dean
"I know a few gay couples who have children of their own genetics."
Yeah ,Mmmm-mmm
That would be a neat trick,since the rest of the world doesn't know ANY.
"I know a few gay couples who have children of their own genetics."
That�s amazing! I mean hell, this is one area where 100 per cent of all biologists claim is scientifically impossible...but what the hell I'll take your word for it.
Here's a question to the Pro-Gay Marriage crowd:
Harper's position is to the left of the Kerry Campaign, and is in effect the same as the legislation in France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany and the UK. I DARE you to tell me these are Bible-Thumping states that have little regards for Human Rights.
Further more, can you guarantee me that the Liberal legislation will not extend to Same-Family marriages? (Since it only defines Marriage as one between "TWO PEOPLE") Can you guarantee me that it will not create a new movement to grant the right for Polygamy? If you think that's ridiculous...just ask the polygamists themselves! They're ecstatic about the Legislation.
Further more...how can you guarantee me that it will not interfere with religious freedom?
Believe it or not...not all Homosexuals are atheist. There is many Gay Jews, Gay Catholics (Andrew Sullivan being the most famous), Gay Muslims, Gay Hindus, Gay Sikhs...and they do want there love to be acknowledged by their respective religious institutions.
Once this legislation gets passed, EGALE can launch another campaign against these religious institutions. "A church denying the right to recognize a Christian Gay Couple's union because they are gay...is no different than a restaurant refusing service to a black man because he is black" is the reasoning they'll use. This is in step with Canada�s anti-Discrimination laws.
The Globe are showing their true colours. They also are selling into their left leaning urban market. Apparently they don't feel that a demonstration of that size warrants any coverage.
Just to wander off on a tangent here, I think I heard somewhere today that one of the Globe's editorials last week was following the same party line of Scott Brison. Wait for the Gomery commision to finish it's work, blah, blah, blah....I don't know how this guy can face himself in the morning, frankly....Especially considering the fact he used to be in the Progressive Conservative party before the merger.
The election should happen now while the iron is hot or the media will have the Conservatives for lunch. I don't think the majority of Canadians care whether or not the Bloq instigate the non-confidence motion in the house but I think the CPC are leary of being blamed for being in bed with the separatists etc etc
""I know a few gay couples who have children of their own genetics."
Yeah ,Mmmm-mmm
That would be a neat trick,since the rest of the world doesn't know ANY."
Ooops...bad wording. Let me re-phrase:
I know a few gay couples who have children that are genetically descended from one of the partners. Either one of the men fathered a child with a woman, or one of the women gave birth to a child.
This would put the child in the same category as a step-child to the other partner.
Lots of that happening with hetero marriages, too...