Time to Vote

And you just have to love the wording...

We've asked this before but the federal Conservatives keep bringing the question up: Do you approve of same-sex marriage?

Currently 64% no with over 40,000 votes cast.

Of course there is no box for "marriage is no business of the government".

With a clear majority saying no to SSM, let the left spin that one. After all, they kept claiming majority support in favor.

BTW, they never told us where, precisely in the Charter, it mentions SSM, or even marriage, or even sexual preference.

That's because none of the above is mentioned in the Charter. The left and the MSM lied. As did the Liberals et al. Boy, talk about lying and cheating...

The left hates democracy because under it, they rarely get their way. That's why they oppose referenda. They're antidemocratic.

The ratio of yes to no has been steadily changing indicating the left is starting to jam the numbers. A few hours ago it was about 73% "no" and now it is 63% "no". Still, 63% "no" is pretty impressive given that the G&M website is a magnet for the looney left in this country.

BTW, they never told us where, precisely in the Charter, it mentions SSM, or even marriage, or even sexual preference.

That's because none of the above is mentioned in the Charter. The left and the MSM lied. As did the Liberals et al. Boy, talk about lying and cheating...

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at October 5, 2006 03:22 PM

As you well know, there is no lying going on. The courts found that guantees of equality for genders amounted to a prohibition on unequal treatment for gays and lesbians.

I am surprised the poll is going two to one against gay marriage, and I suspect by the end of the day it will be leaning heavily in the opposite direction.

Hey Budd you still banned at Rabble?

The ratio of yes to no has been steadily changing indicating the left is starting to jam the numbers....

Posted by: John Luft at October 5, 2006 03:29 PM

ROTFLMAO! I have to give you credit, Luft, you're an expert at spin. Maybe you should to to work in John Baird's TBoard office where you can help to explain how cutting literacy programs for adults amounts to cutting waste. He seems to need a bit of help on that one.

As for who is salting the numbers,... on whose website did I hear about this poll, along with an exhortation to vote? On KKKate/KHate's website, that's whose.

Whether one approves of SSM or not is not the issue The issue is one of equality and whether fundamental rights are to be decided by the whims of deep (as a birdbath) thinkers on the right such as sentinel.

Fundamental right? Sorry mj, but nobody has a 'fundamental right' to any kind of marriage.

The issue is one of equality and whether fundamental rights are to be decided by the whims of deep (as a birdbath) thinkers on the right such as sentinel.

1 man, 1 woman does not equal 2 dudes.

2,000+ years of marriage being the union of one man and one woman - some "whim."

as soon as anyone can tell me how it effects me, I'll let the gays and lesbians have the same rights we do...what's wrong with you people???

Looks like the "nutroots" haven't picked up on this yet.

Maybe if you dump your cookies and refresh, you can vote over and over again?

/Leftist useful idiot

This poll is proving to be "What Canadians Want & Believe"
The Liberals & NDP are famous for spinning that line, & have they ever once asked Canadians?.NO NEVER.
They go on the assumption of what there feel good issue of the day should be all in the sake of Buying Votes.

Seems Budd is off his meds again....or perhaps on the "bud" again. The G&M is well known as a magnet for left wing nuts like Budd and on most issues the results lean pretty far to the left. On another matter, I sure hope the Conservatives continue to cut funding to left wing lobby groups....like Status of Women and other useless Marxist/Leninst organizations. I guess Budd is getting worried that he might have to get a job soon.

>> Lib Leadership Vote >

VOTING FRAUD/IRREGULARITIES HAS TAKEN PLACE IN LIBERAL LAND -- INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO DISPAN LIBERAL PARTY AND CALL FOR NEW ELECTIONS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF CUBA SUDAN RUSSIA

As they work little and complain a lot it seems that righties have all the time in the world to chime in on stupid polls...favourite rightie pastime, washing each others feet and kissing each others smell-free butts.

The numbers will change tonight after working people get home and have a precious few moments to devote to frivolity.

Budd, you are one true piece of work. You hear about a poll because you are reading about it at SDA and now it is Kate's fault? Grow up asshat. I learned about it from a news gathering site and I assume a lot of other people did too, unless of course they actually were at the G&M website already. Imagine that.

BTW unless you are off your meds completely, referring to KKKate is far more libelous than mentioning Taliban Jack. His desire to dialogue with the Taliban is well documented. Please give a reference to Kate's connection to the KKK.

This is not a poll - it is a survey and has absolutely zero scientific accountability. It is based on only those respondents who stumble upon it and then decide to answer.
If either side uses this for any type of argument it should be automatically discounted to zero.

Any real legal marrage should be between one man and one woman no poligimist weddings and certianly not between to men or two woman and end this nonsnense

It is simply mind boggling that this is considered a "National Issue". The media continues to protract such inane debates as a marketing tool to sell papers and adspots, banking on the polarization of deeply held beliefs that are obviously irreconcilable.

And yet it is convenient to blame the media when over 40,000 lunatics actually voted on this crap...

Cogito ergo "dumb" perhaps.

Cheers!

Leto

Multiple voting on Gab and Wail is really easy . . . all you need to do is click to vote, wait for the screen to change and then tap 'refresh' and left click on your mouse repeatedly. You should be able to vote about 400 times per minute, and one minute later the numbers will be updated.

Even if you get a "Sorry you've already voted" message, you can still multiple vote. Just ignore the message and repeat. Click, click.

No one should get into any sort of twist about G&M polls, they aren't even straw polls. I remember back when there was a question on their site about Isreal, Hesbollah and their battles, close to 300,000 votes were recorded in one day.

Even scientific polls aren't really of much value, over 80% of contacted telephone resopndents now decline to participate. And of course the way in which questions are framed can have a big impact on final results.

The only significance this poll from the Mop & Pail has is that they are not getting the politically correct answer they were hoping for.

Further, for the SSM advocates name one live cultural society where SSM is the functional criterion for the preservation of itself.

Yeah, just what I thought there are no such cultural societies.

Equality to leftoids means discrimination against, and silencing of anybody who doesn't agree with them.

Whatever happened to our democratic rights on SSM?

Chretien explained that one - he said that if I had allowed Canadians to vote on bilingualism - it wouldn't have become law.

Jaeger: A humble suggestion, Debris Trail bounced the troll known as 'Budd', might you do us all a favour and get rid of this most foul example of humanity as well?

"precious few moments to devote to frivolity"

Yeah, it's all party, all the time here at SDA, assface. How do you manage to consistently sound like a crabby old man, Brown?
You visit more often than I do, apparently you have endless time for frivolity. Why? Are you lonely? Or just a judgmental little roach with nothing to do?

Who f**cking cares what the masses think about SSM, either for or against?

Marriage is, amongst other things, a legal contract, and who has any right to say that 2 folks of any gender cannot make a binding contract regarding their lives together and/or apart?

If marriage is also a social or religious institution, then let society and religious organizations choose to recognize or not recognize SSM on their own. I say do away with any legal recognition of 'marriage' per se (be it SSM or not), and instead replace it with the equivalent of civil union'.

If marriage is a religious issue to some or many, then let's let 'marriage' be dealt with by churches/synagogues/mosques. Government has no business there.

Ah, it's been a tough day, fired a few people for being frivolous. Had to fire another for sticking his nose in my butt while kissing it and another because he used the wrong soap on my feet, what a dumbass. Hope they don't go home and vote for gay marriage on that G+M poll I've been hearing about, especially now that they have the time.

But everyone has a fundamental right to equal treatment under the law, tom.

I agree with Sons of....

Civil union is what the state should do. If you can find a church to "marry" you then great.

Honestly, this is a reasonable compormise that would have saved everybody so much pain and discussion. But nope, somebody HAD TO HAVE the word marriage, not the rights and responsibilities but the word.

If you a man and a woman live together for two years in a union then without a ceremony, civil or religous, they are granted automatically a common law UNION. Same rights and responsibilities but no license and no ceremony.

This got jammed through and this is what happens when you engineer social change like this without proper process.

Be like every other reasonable jusrisdiction, like those hotbeds of fundamnetalism like France and the UK and call it civil union.

Then we can stop talking about it and get on with our lives, be they gay or straight lives....nobody really cares.

Funny thing, this so-called charter. Trudeau Liberals wrote it and jammed it through to become law - undemocratically. They then annointed themselves the high priests in defining it's meaning.

No wonder Canadians have had all of these abominations illegally foisted on them.

There's no equality, democracy or justice inherent in this leftist rag from the time of its ignoble rendering.

Maryjane says "Whether one approves of SSM or not is not the issue The issue is one of equality and whether fundamental rights are to be decided by the whims of deep (as a birdbath) thinkers on the right such as sentinel." No, actually, Maryjane, whether one approves of SSM or not is the FUNDAMENTAL issue. You speak of "equality" but you completely ignore the right of someone to not do something because of their religious beliefs. Some equality. By the way, not even the UN believes that gay "marriage" is a human right. you seem to miss tha

Hey Jaeger, I see lotsa swearing in this thread, better delete some comments for consistency, eh?

Token on-topic CONSERVATIVE commentary: if you support gay "marriage" then you must support polygamy. Hardline socialist/gay extremists like "Stephen" and "SonofMonkeysblahblahblah" are using gay "marriage" as a Trojan horse; polygamy and state-sponsored bestiality MUST logically follow. Oh, and marriage is NOT a contract between two people, ask any man who has ever tried to have a prenup enforced.

But everyone has a fundamental right to equal treatment under the law, tom.

Not true.

When the Charter was being drawn up, equality based on sexual orientation was suggested but flat out rejected.

Over the years a series of votes were held in legislatures across this land re-affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman; the original framers of the Charter participated in that re-affirmation.

So sexual orientation is not in there, was clearly never meant to be in there, and still to this day is not in there.

If there is a desire on the part of Canadians to alter the Charter, then by all means let's do so, but let's do so following the established amending formula.

Me, a hardline gay extremist.....? Jeez this blog is really devolving.....!

Currently at 63% against with 51028 votes cast....

I wish the Conservatives would leave the SSM debate alone. There is nothing to gain from debating it again except to get a bunch of libs & dippers more anxious to go out and vote come the next election. I am no more offended by a "married" same sex couple than I am by a married person screwing around on the spouse or ending a marriage because they don't want to be married anymore. Marriage doesn't mean what it used to even among traditional hetero couples

How about this as a solution to this problem?

The government no longer isues "marriage" certificates but "civil union" certificates which works for man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, other-other, whatever relations. This "civil union" would grant all of the taxation benefits, other benefits, etc to the couple that are currently given to "married" couples.

If people want to get "married" in the traditional religious/spiritual sense of the word let it remain in that sense and let the various religious groups maintain their jurisdiction over this.

As far as I'm concerned, having the State regulate "marriage" (as opposed to "civil union") is NOT a separation of Church and State, because the State is entering (in this case has already entered) into what was once the Church's affairs. Isn't this lack of separation something most secularists claim to fear anyhow?

I see "civil union" dealing with the government/secular side of things, and "marriage" dealing with the traditional religious side of things as being a compromise that both sides of this issue (if they are indeed being truthful with their arguments) should appreciate. (Obviously it won't please the rabid homophobes or the militant homosexuals but then again, what, besides completely forcing their beliefs upon everyone else will?)

I think the poll has become irrelevant. It has become a battleground of the blogs. Having said that, I believe it is important to realize that most people don't care to much about this issue, UNLESS it is pushed in front of your face. I am very much against SSM marriage as it relates to me personally, but I really don't care what you do, and I would definitely not treat you any different. What really bugs me is entrenching it in law as a marriage. It simply cannot be forced in this way. A civil union yes, but a religous ceremony, not a chance. Somone has already said that if you can find someone to perform a religous ceremony, then more power to you, but it would still be a civil union. The way it seems to be going is the opposite. Can you imagine a muslim cleric being forced by Canadian law to perform a SSM. Not likely. However a Muslim SSM could be performed as a civil ceremony without any of the obvious potential problems.

Bob,

LOL....thats funny, I have been called many things in my life but socialist gay extremist is not one of them. Being none of them (socialist, gay or extreme)

Did you read either comment? I wont speak for sonsof monkey....but I will for myself. It is a libertarian argument about state power. The push to gain access to the word marriage, which I dont agree with, is a desire to use state power to gain or enforce social acceptance. This is not something the state should be engaged in, offends freedom of beliefs.

Now enforcing equality before the law thats another story. On that one we likely differ. I am willing to let two human beings engage in whatever form of contract they want....I would be happy with just one man and one woman but if things seem to go that way with society, extending death benefits etc etc then I am ok. Who you define as family, is in someway your business.

As for polygamy.....is this criminal behaviour....juries out on this one. There seems to be evidence that it harms children and is not a good situation for women, but I await for more info. So do I believe someone should go to jail because they have multiple "life partners" (their word not mine) no.

However I do not believe the state shoudl grant legal recognition to multiple parents. You have one father and one mother mother. Anyone else is a guardian. Till it is proven to be not harmful to children and or women then it should not be encouraged with the extension of benefits and rights. Which to clarify means one person can only choose one other person as their "spouse" for legal pueposes. If you choose to be the concubine and be #2,# 3 up to n without any legal protections, thats your business.

But socialist/gay extremist.....hardly. You may want to think about what you would label yourself.

Stephen. You are 100% correct. The State has no buisness in Marriage. Civil Unions for cohabitation of whomever. Marriage as a religious ceremony. Protect Churches from prosecution if refuse to marry someone. Their Religion, their rules.

Seeing as the Liberals, as is their wont, rammed the SSM bill through Parliament by barely a hair--our then Librano MP, who had told his constituency he would vote against the bill, voted in favour of it: typical--and seeing as MPs got the most correspondence they had ever received, most of it against SSM, I'd say it's a darned good thing we're revisiting this issue.

It is NOT the will of the majority of Canadians to endorse same-sex marriage. I agree with a poster above, and I think that most Canadians would also, that civil unions for same-sex partners is a fair and equitable compromise.

Since Canada voted for SSM, take a look at how few same-sex couples have come forward to be married. Just an example: the Anglican Bishop of Vancouver strongly pushed for SSM, went against his House of Bishops by allowing it in his diocese, and as of last year, two years after the vote in the House of Commons, only seven ssm couples had come forward to be married in the church. The issue has torn the diocese asunder, and is threatening to tear the worldwide Anglican Church apart...makes you think...Canada now allows SSM, yet very few same-sex couples have availed themselves of this kind of union, so...

What's the real agenda here?

Stephen admits he supports polygamy!!!!!one!

I'm happy I could provide you with a laugh. You talk a lot about libertarianism and the state, yet dodge the exceedingly relevant fact that the state OUTLAWS marriage contracts: prenups have little to no standing in Canada, the USA, or elsewhere.

Married men effectuvely give up the right to private property, notwithstanding any private contract they enter into with their wives. Unless your surname is "Wonder" I'm sure you can see how that's a crock - a socialist crock.

Let's make a deal, then: I'll support gay "marriage" when the state a) gives back to men the right to private property; b)enforces, instead of opposes, marriage contracts (ie. prenups).

Seeing as how you are a feminist extremist :-) I know you'll oppose any change to the "gold-digger" status quo which severly restricts the freedoms and rights of male Canadians who get married, such as the right to private property and the right to freely enter contracts with respect to marriage. Right? Feel free to clarify your decidedly non-libertarian views on this matter for the record...

...The G&M is well known as a magnet for left wing nuts like Budd and on most issues the results lean pretty far to the left. On another matter, I sure hope the Conservatives continue to cut funding to left wing lobby groups....like Status of Women and other useless Marxist/Leninst organizations. I guess Budd is getting worried that he might have to get a job soon.

Posted by: John Luft at October 5, 2006 04:29 PM

I have a job, the same job I have had for thirty four years. Do you have a job?

I think it's indicative of the kind of fun-house mirror thinking that goes on at the political fringe, right or left, that Luft would label Status of Women Canada as a Marxist/Leninist organization. The women in that department are no more extreme that average Liberals, for the most part.

The marriage debate comes down to what Canadians think is best for the good of the country. The choice is obvious: traditional marital values which encourage a balanced and healthy environment for raising Canada's future is the clear winner. Granting equal marital rights to satisfy a selfish fringe group's quest for enforced social equivalency adds no significant contributions to our future. Basic biology beats questionable sociology.

Hey Budd you still banned at Rabble?

Posted by: jwp at October 5, 2006 03:35 PM

[Heh Heh]Yes I am! Thanks for mentioning it, ... gives me an opening to say that audra's been banned too. And her banning cost her a lot more than mine cost me!

{I'll pay you the five bucks next week.}

Budd says "I think it's indicative of the kind of fun-house mirror thinking that goes on at the political fringe, right or left, that Luft would label Status of Women Canada as a Marxist/Leninist organization. The women in that department are no more extreme that average Liberals, for the most part." No, I'm serious...he really did say "The women in that department are no more extreme than average Liberals, for the most part". Now THAT'S funny! Or perhaps Budd was saying that the average Liberal is really a Marxist/Leninist? No matter.

similar poll running on ctv this morning

Poll Result

Should religious-minded civil servants be allowed by law to refuse to preside over the civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples?


Yes 11471 votes (77 %)

No 3347 votes (23 %)


Total Votes: 14818

The women in that department are no more extreme that average Liberals, for the most part.

You're just setting that one up on purpose, aren't you, Budd? ;-)

> Their Religion, their rules.

Yay for polygamy!

The problem with much of the debate is that it refuses to recognize that hetero civil unions themselves were a problem to begin with. There's no compelling reason to foist any semblance of contractual obligations on a relationship when the concerned parties aren't concerned enough themselves to formalize it. Perhaps when children come along - which is why society has a compelling interest in marriage in the first place. Put children and their best interests at the centre of the debate and it all changes - as it is, they're usually added on as an afterthought, which should be a pretty good indication that we've done a miserable job of defending their interests in modern societies.

Little angry about division of property rules Bob?

Polygamy...no I DO NOT support polygamy. I thought I made it clear that that there should be no legal recognition of multiple partners. I said I dont think you criminalize it.

If you had two women who you considered your wife living with you Bob I dont think all three of you should be thrown in jail for that, but that doesnt mean the state recognizes them both as your wife, they should not both get spousal and death benefits etc etc. But if thats how you and the two women chose to live your life then so be it. But those are adult relationships

As soon as children are involved it is a totally different story. The best way to prevent those situations is making it clear that there is only ever two parents maximum and you start the list at the biological ones, as soon as you run out of number one and number two then you are done.

On pre Nups, I agree I did not address and I wasnt going to as that really isnt the thread.

I dont know enough about pre nups to know which aspects are protected and which ones arent. My wife and I had little when we got married so everything we have built up has been jointly "earned"

What little I do know is that family home, even if it was bought and paid for by one spouse before the marriage immeadiately becomes the equal property of both upon marriage/civil union.

I wont get into a debate about whether thats fair or not, other than to say on that point....the rules are clear and known to all..nobody forces you to get "married" or get into a common law relationship so caveat emptor....