Saskatchewan Roundup from Catprint in the Mash
First things first. This shit is tough. First you have to the blogs and then verify they match the criteria. At this point, you haven't even started reading them. I kept getting a server error from Blogs Canada's [Read More]

Tracked on December 18, 2005 7:37 PM

I could not handle more than one women. but I would like to marry my motorcycle, do I have to start a new religion? Could call it motorgamous.

Another question:

Since a homosexual couple cannot produce children, on what basis does the current Civil Marriage Act incorporate amendments to the Prohibited Degrees of Marriage Act barring homosexual marriages between consangineous persons?

Very simple. The WILLS have it...
Someone WILL challenge it, the Supreme Court WILL have to answer yes and Martin (please God, don't let him win) WILL not be able to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause (how double-minded can you be?).
Hopefully, this scenario will end after the Supreme Court says yes and Mr. Harper WILL invoke the N.C. or there goes Canada as we thought we knew it.

As soon as one pins his career on being everything to everyone he soon realizes he can satisfy no-one. Such is the lot of a person who cannot make basic moral decisions, or refuses to out of a lack of character.

It's difficult for me to even get involved in this silliness. I've been turning my mind lately to how we can keep this nonsense out of a Canada that is reduced to the size of a single western province.

Bang on comment and observations.
Martin stands for everything and nothing at the same time.

Alan: Don't laugh, but somebody actually DID marry his motorcycle, years back. They exchanged piston rings. No kidding.

If Alan marries his motorbike, does it have full pension rights?

If someone marries his bitch,do the pups (from the bitch's earlier liaisons) benefit from the estate? Do they have the right to vote?

Why am I denied the right to win the 6/49 simply because my religion prohibits me from buying tickets?

Why are Canadians denied the right to a warmer climate with shorter winters? 95% of the population of the world is free of the climatic injustices imposed on us.

Tell us, Paul or let the courts decide.

I believe its grounds for divorce if a marriage is not consummated. the mind boggles.

(mock horror) But we ASSURED this question was silly and would NEVER come up. That it was different....what happened??? (end mock horror)

Can I marry my father so when he passes on his pension can continue to his spouse (me?) Why is an incestual relationship banned....to get around it I will marry my mother in law...not incest...and stay married to my wife, (polygamy) once again I get to keep the pension....

At the end of the day a line has to be drawn somewhere, it used to be at one man and one woman...now maybe they'll stop it at one person non direct blood relative and another non direct blood relative...

Anyway, lets just be clear to not get distracted on this.

Honestly this is a distraction and unless the media turn on Martin on it to point out these contradictions it cannot be won during the election.

Honestly, it is a red flag and a red herring. Ignore it and change the channel back to Income Trust. It is a battle that cannot be won in Ontario, lowermainland BC or Quebec.

The points are valid and Martins contrdictions are amazing,,,but unless the media turn on him this will be used to paint the CPC as intolerant rather than principled defenders of the constitution. Worth fighting about just not now. Oxygen and Energy better used on other issues

Stephen Owen- MP Vancouver was on CKNW
I asked him on air- " Paul Martin has stated in the past if the SCC found it unconstitutional for churches to discriminate against gays wanting to marry he would use the NWC, how is this different than Stephen Harpers position?"
Reply
"Well, one is about taking away rights and the other is about prtecting rights....blah blah."
(So it's OK by the Liars to discriminate some times?)

Caller previous to me asked about polygamy

Owen: "Well society in Canada agrees that polygamy is wrong"

My next question was" I would also like to point out to Mr Owen that the Justice Department advised the govt that changing the definition of marriage would open up the charter to a challenge on polygamy, and I wonder what the many muslims and the people of Bountiful think of the comment that they are not considered, in Mr Owens own words, party of our society as polygamy is legal in many more countries in the world than gay marriage is? Would a Liberal govt use the NWC to block this?"

Owen: " Umm, well.....blah blah Canadian values... blah blah side step side step.
LOL

I have thoughts of four wives beating up on their "ex" in our divorce courts and an angry crowd of suddenly broke middle eastern males looking for the culprit.

It should prove interesting.

The "gay marriage" fiasco was used by the Liberals to drive wedges between Canadians, right along with their ongoing and recently accelerated insults directed against the country' best customers.

Sir Elton John and about 686 other couples are scheduled to take part in "civil partnership" ceremonies Monday under Britain's new law.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938131,00.html

Oh no, that wasn't good enough for Dithers. He and that piece of work Cotler had to misinterpret the Supreme Court decision to enable Canada to go "all the way," like giggling 14-year-olds whose 30-year-old "friends" have just pointed out they've reached the Liberals' age of consent.

If "gay marriage" is a right, then so is polygamous marriage, and so is any "marriage of convenience."

Bread and circuses, Liberal-style.

SSMartin will deliver ..... "change".... in brown envelopes...if you vote Librano$$$$$$$$. You want change? $50 & $100 do? BTW, what's a mandate, SSMartin? >>>>

PM: Liberals can deliver change Cdns want

REGINA (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin agrees Canada has an appetite for change - and says the best way to get it is to hand the Liberals a fifth straight mandate.

via canoenews

A video the media are free to steal...
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/12/turn-up-volume.html

p.s: Excuse the language, turn this shit up...

Mary has been taking care of her invalid father for years. Now that her father is near dying, her brother John is back in the picture, just waiting for his half.

Mary decides she ought to marry her father, so as to recoup some of the money she used to augment the care of her dad. The money she did use came from her and her husbands savings account.

Oh yeah, that can of worms is getting bigger by the minute.

Of course, John WAS married and had two kids. He decided he was gay and moved in with Bobm whi had two kids also.

Bob has terminal cancer- and nowm John and Bob's ex wife and kids are in court, fighting over who gets Bob's life insurance and pension.

John is arguing that since he is the spouse, he is entitled to the insurance and most of the pension.

I can hardly wait for it to be legal for 'marriage' to include animals. No doubt that will be the next on the PETA agenda.

So basically, and I'm being serious here, there is no definition of marriage at all in the books anywhere ?

If marriage is a right, is divorce unconstitutional?

Comment I posted today on CTV Campaign Connection at
http://www.electionblog.ctv.ca/default.asp?item=119559

The reason I'm posting the same comment here is because on the CTV Campaign Connection site the posting appears as ONE paragraph, with no spacing, so it's very hard on the eyes. Please forgive the repetition.

On the Charter of Rights regarding same sex marriage:
As many people before me must have said, the Charter has been interpreted according to judges' and lawyers' ideologies. According to the copy given to me when I chose to become a Canadian citizen, section 15 (Equality Rights) states:

«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 based on race and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour. religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour. religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.»

Now, the Charter was written in the late 70s & signed by P.E. Trudeau in 1981. At that time, women's rights was a very hot issue, so that "sex" was included in the passage above. In today's parlance, the term "gender" might have been used. In other words, "sex" did not refer to what is done between the sheets, but rather to male rights versus female rights.

Compare that to the Quebec Charter of Rights (which came into effect on September 30, 1983). In section 10 (Equality Rights), the Quebec Charter states (copied from):
http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/en/commun/docs/charter.pdf

«Chapter I.1
Right to equal recognition and exercise of rights and freedoms
10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.

Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.

10.1 No one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10.»

Please notice that in the Quebec Charter of Rights both SEX and SEXUAL ORIENTATION are specifically mentioned, so that they are not interchangeable terminologies. Therefore, the argument that somehow the right to marriage by same sex couples derives from the Canadian Charter is a faulty argument.
When the discussions around same sex marriage were going on (in 2003), I saw a documentary about the 10 most influential gay persons. In it, Svend Robinson was interviewed and he stated that he, having worked on the Canadian Charter of Rights, had wanted to include sexual orientation, but had not been successful.

The Liberal Party and its backers would have us believe that the Conservatives are against gays because they wish to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. Stephen Harper, I believe, had accepted the term "civil unions" or "civil partnerships," as they were called in Quebec and Britain respectively, with the same rights as traditional couples. However, militant lobby groups such as Egale, insisted on the redefinition of marriage, and some Liberal MPs (Marlene Jennings, for one) have gone so far as to state on my local radio station that exclusively heterosexual marriages are unconstitutional. Does that mean that all children born before Bill C-38 was passed are illegitimate?

One last thought: given the Supreme Court's decision in the Chaoulli (right to private insurance) case, why do both the Liberals and the NDP think the Canada Health Act, which received royal assent on April 1, 1984, cannot be changed in any way, yet the definition of traditional marriage, a centuries' old institution, can be discarded so cavalierly?

Now that the role of defending Charter rights has been transferred to the PMO, does that mean we can disband the Supreme Court of Canada?

The legalization of Harems. Interesting development, neighbor.

Who are these 134 so called legal experts who say that the conservatives cannot define marriage the way it used to be? Can we not find 150 who say we can?

It gets pretty bad when a dozen lawyers, politicians and MSM experts can't make heads nor tailes out of a piece of legislative crap. The fact that the lieberals have managed, with the help of MSM, to put this issue back up front rather than discussing say Income Trusts, Adscam and a few hundred other real issues is disgusting. What the voters will have on their mind as they go to the polls is "scary".

BTW, If you get a chance,go over to Michael Yon's site and catch the video there. Truely insirational to see those who value their chance to participate in democracy.

I thought the Queen (as our head of state) or her designated rep held responsibility to protect the charter? The PM is only the head of the government and is responsible to Parliament.

So if Parliament votes on an issue and the vote says re-open the debate, the government must comply or find itself in the postion of losing the confidence of the house. Parliament, regardless of what the fashionable trend of the day is, must debate the issue.

Harper says he will not invoke the NWSC. The liberals assume he is going to revoke rights. If they where listening, or just being ignorant, Harper intends on finding a compromise that is satisfactory to all. The gays only need to be granted charter protection, this can be done without violating charter rights to freedom of belief if the definition recognizes that traditional unions are a man and woman. Traditions are based on custom and ritual, and must subscribe to the belief that created the ritual lest the state be imposing on the belief by forcing the custom to be changed. The state did not create the rite of marriage, society did.
What has happened is that gays are now creating their own tradition and ritual.

This is going to end up like the case in "Merchant of Venice".

The court ruled that Shylock could have his pound of flesh, however the condition was that during the removal, no blood was to be spilled or lost and the removal must not hasten the death of the patient.

They may want their rights to a rite, but in the process they will kill the patient.

Sid,

They're second cousins to the 4 (of 5) dentists who use Crest Whitestrips (TM)

Why do you ask?

With Ed Schreyer being explained away by the NDP as having "evolved his thinking" on homosexuality, perhaps another question you should be willing to ask is can we expect Jack Layton or Paul Martin circa 2020 supporting polygamist marriage?

Time to update the Constitution to reflect reality, and overhaul the justice system in its entirety. We're supposed to applaud the recent report by Stats Can showing young people are doing less jail time. WHoopee. That makes us feel safe, especially the folks in T.O. who are being targeted by the under 18 crowd just because they can. And where drug dealers thumb their noses and use young mules because they won't do time, and poor things, they're troubled and need a new basketball court.

Now doesn't this seem hypoGritical? Or is it simply arrogant, and Mr. Martin is letting his MP's know that they really don't count...In today's National Post, Mr. Martin now says: "Liberal candidates are entitled to run in this election even if they want to deny Charter rights to gays and lesbians seeking same-sex marriage." "The issue is not 'What does an individual MP say?' An individual MP is entitled to his or her vision."

If parliament freely votes the will of the majority in keeping a traditional definition of marriage...NOTHING IN FEDERAL PURVIEW CHANGES TO OPENLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS. The PROVINCES offer marriage processes AS PART OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION, not the feds. All that a win for the traditional marriage definition means is that the gay political lobby will have to spend more money taking 10 provinces to court until they provive a separate but equal marriage system for gays....and as far as the charter is concerned, as long as there is a separate but equal legal civil remedy approximating marriage in final application, there is no systemic discrimination regardless of federal definitions of marriage.

So, what would happen is Harper would not have to use notwithstanding at all because this is a battle to be fought in the provincial courts. The gay lobby knows that if so-called sexual orientation discrimination ever makes it to the SCC a whole can of worms opens up for them that they do not want. For one thing the charter does not include sexual orientation in any conventional legal sense. Just because we have lower courts who want to "pretend" SO is enumerated in the charter does not mean it legally exists with a proper mandated change in the text of the charter by the requisite amendment process. This is not something special interests do not want explored in a SCC case.

A parliamentary free vote means the provinces will have to build a civil union processes for Gays that will run parallel to the marriage process for heterosexual couples...separate but equal as the charter demands.....but this is not what the gay political lobby wants...they do not want constitutionally sound civil remedies.

The new law regarding "civil partnership" seems to be working in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4540226.stm

"The new Civil Partnership Act provides same-sex couples with similar legal rights to married couples..."

"Campaigners say the law ends inequalities for same-sex couples.

Since it came into force, couples have been able to legally register an intention to form a civil partnership with local councils..."

Are the rights of the child brides of Bountiful being upheld when they are forced into marriage with men three times their age (and more)? Where's Captain Canada? BC government has admitted they won't take this on because they're afraid they'll lose under the Charter. So, this document has become a weapon to quash dissent. If a provincial government, responsible for marriage laws, refuses to act, it is by its silence, condoning such marriages. So, polygamy is now legal in Canada, no matter what the PM says.

Martin relies on the ignorance of the electorate. He knows they will not understand the nuances of the notwithstanding clause being part of the Charter. Mr Harper will have to get very aggressive on this one and point out that our Charter makes no comment whatsoever on gay marriage. Furthermore, there is no SCC decision saying the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. He must show Martin for what he is, an opportunist who gleefully drives wedges between Canadians of good conscience, for votes. His argument that only the party leaders are held to a "higher standard" is nonsense. If something is a right, then all must uphold it. Picture this, a party leader says he does not agree with the right of sexual equality. But it's OK if backbenchers want to remove this right? C'mon. The real truth, or agenda, is that the Liberal party seeks to convert us to a monoculture, where only one view is accepted, which now is, conveniently, that of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Duceppe says we should re-open the issue, because it was settled already. The same logic applies to the Quebec Referendum - it was decided already, so let's move on.

PMPM says he would attend a gay marriage if invited. Certainly he should attend Sir Elton's, Bono will probably be there.

and by extension - Elton could become a new Canadian citizen and our new Queen.

from the Weekly Standard:

Here Come The Brides - Plural Marriage Is Waiting in The Wings

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they'd met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or "cohabitation contract," the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

To expand on the previous post, the author of the article referenced above states in today's National Review Online that "we’re in the middle of a polyamory moment..."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

And, with a Canadian character in the new movie exploring Polyamory, Three of Hearts:

http://threeofheartsfilm.com/

"They know they have found that special someone else when they meet Samantha, a Toronto ex-pat struggling as an actress in New York City. Sam meets Samantha, and they fall in love. Samantha meets Steven and they fall in love too. The 'trio,' as they are affectionately called, begin their journey."

who wants to bet AGAINST it someday being the latest great Liberal Cause, once the election is safely wrapped up?

I haven't read everything here and I don't intend to. Suffice it to say that most of it is real drivel. There are also some pompously stated falsehoods. People have claimed that the Justice Dept advised the Fed Govt that the amendments to the Civil Marriage Act would open the door to a polygamy challenge, and another poster has inaccurately claimed that the BC Govt has refused to investigate the situation in Bountiful because of the Charter. Both assertions are, of course, outright fabrications.

The real tragedy is that this kind of despicable rhubbish, and the overall sleazy attitude in this thead, makes the otherwise wild Liberal claim to being a sort of "thin red line" standing against bigots, bastards and worse start to sound at least half credible.

You filthy people aren't just your own worst electoral enemies, you're the enemy of every responsible Canadian who wants this country to grow up and get a life. You really suck!

"I haven't read everything here and I don't intend to..."

Yes, don't spoil a good namecalling argument with facts.

Maybe you can take a moment of whatever it is you're doing to read this ruling:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=df5ac2e9-351c-4973-bbf2-756403fb1184&k=46743

Court says swingers clubs with group sex, swapping are legal

John Ward, Canadian Press
Published: December 21, 2005
OTTAWA -- Swingers clubs which feature consenting adults cavorting in twosomes, threesomes and moresomes, are legal, the Supreme Court of Canada said Wednesday.

In a major decision, the court re-wrote the definition of indecency to use harm, rather than community standards, as the key yardstick.

Hey, I tend toward libertarianism (sort of the opposite of most of what the Liberals stand for with a few kinky exceptions) so I really don't care what you keeps you busy rather than reading, as long as it doesn't scare the horses (which is in the same spirit as the ruling of those folks in the purplish dresses).

I'm just calling those who subscribe to the idea that overturning a principle that has been around for a few years isn't going to have a few unintended (to some) consequences.

Drained Brain: Am I supposed to disagree with that Supreme Court ruling? Take it as evidence that things have gone too far? On the contrary, it makes sense to me. Why should your moral disdain count as harm?

I don't see the logic in a lot of these anti-gay marriage arguments. It isn't that you're discriminating on the basis of orientation so much as sex. Given that the government can set up an institution between two people, is there justification to limit it to people of opposite gender? Apparently it's discriminatory. It seems like a separate argument to attack the restriction on number, and I don't see that it's homologous to the sex argument. There's the wrinkle that people who are straight could enter into a gay marriage if they wanted to.

Also, since when should we allow only people who can produce children to marry? What about men with vasectomies?

And since when would the SCC go in for separate but equal? Wouldn't that run afoul of the idea of human dignity?