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....

Thanks, Martin. What too many people miss altogether is that marriage is less for adults than it is for KIDS, in order that they may grow up in a stable environment with their own parents. Of course, not all marriages provide that but, on average, within a marriage is a heck of a lot sounder a place to grow up in than the alternatives.

I'm a teacher: I've seen the horrendous and heartbreaking fallout of the sanctioning of "free" love. This failed social experiment has devastated the lives of too many of our kids. Marriage is not a right and it's not about the rights of adults. As long as the selfish "adult toddlers" of the West in 2006 get this all wrong, our kids are going to continue to suffer, and, in the long run, so will all of society.

To the shallow thinkers who can't process this, I say, look at our young people today, at how angry and unhappy so many of them are, and how dysfunctional. Then I say to you supporters of the selfish, adult-centric, failed social experiment of "free"--actually, very costly--love: Think outside your selfish little box and think of someone other than yourself, like a vulnerable kid who relies entirely on the good graces of the closest adult(s) in order to thrive. And then, if possible, grow the heck up!

"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."

Basic biology beats questionable sociology? Is homosexuality not a question of biology. I'm not sure I understand what yoru trying to say.

Also, the question of whats best for Canadians. How do you know what is best for Canadians? Are you so sure that same sex marriage will be a problem, that you are willing to infringe on others freedoms?

Did anyone catch the underlining message in their poll?

"We've asked this before but the federal Conservatives ---- keep bringing ----the question up"

Is this question balanced and non-biased? Not on your life. Was the Globe trying to get a certain result? You betcha.

To be balanced and unbiased and credible, this question have been written simply like: do you agree with same-sex marriage?

Now, should anyone ACTUALLY trust any pollster out there? or their results? Not!

Thanks, lookout. Since my post got caught in the bloody filter, AGAIN, let me ride on the coattails of your views on the SSM issue, which hit the nail on the head.

I'd just like to add that when SSM was being voted on in the House of Commons, MPs got the most correspondence from Canadians that they had ever got, overwhelmingly against SSM, but that didn't stop the Liberals from putting it to a vote, anyway. It squeaked into Canadian law by a hair, but it's been pretty clear since then that the majority of Canadians don't want SSM. Civil unions are pretty unanimously acceptable in the minds of Canadians, so why not this as a compromise?

Even the very small (roughly 3% of the population) of homosexuals in Canada seem to have vetoed SSM, given that very few have come forward since it passed into law to avail themselves of marriage.

Go figure.

"It squeaked into Canadian law by a hair, but it's been pretty clear since then that the majority of Canadians don't want SSM"

Are there actually polls that show this(and i dont mean pointless internet polls), because i've always had the impression a majority of Canadians are for SSM.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/8147

heres one poll I found

Stephen, you "don't know much" about a lot of stuff, don't you? I've seen this libertarian debating technique before; it is weak and too clever by half to say:

"well, I'm no expert on murder/rape/bestiality/incest/pedophilia...who am I to say whether it is good or bad???...until someone takes the time to explain to me very slowly why such and such is a bad thing, I think everything should be permitted."

You simultaneously admit to ignorance AND a complete lack of anything approching a moral code, all in a weak effort to justify egregiously crappy statism such as the rancidly unjust family law industry.

You make other errors too, but because I am heterosexual and there is a good hockey game on I shan't correct them all, other than to say your implicit support of gay "marriage", feminist family law, polygamy, and anything else that is bleedingly obviously wrong leads me to logically infer that you may not be especially opposed to pedophilia, bestiality, incest, and maybe even murder and rape too.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/8147

heres one poll I found [that says the majority of Canadians support SSM]

Posted by: kmm at October 5, 2006 07:47 PM

kmm, that poll was sponsored by--get ready (drum roll): CTV and the Globe and Mail, both organizations mind-numbingly pro-Liberal and their whole agenda.

Those were also the days before the blogoshere could mobilize thousands to vote in these polls.

Go to the wo/man in the street and ask them across Canada, from Newfoundland to BC, whether they support SSM, and my gut feeling is that they'd say no. Most people would say they know some gay people or have gay family members and that they wouldn't mind seeing civil unions, but SSM? I don't think so.

Just look at the number of gay couples who have got married: a few gay activists to make a point, but across the board? Not that many. So if the gay community doesn't support the legislation by taking advantage of it, why would we keep a law like this which, after all, has caused such rancour and division?

kmm, the poll you posted, that says the majority of Canadians support SSM, was sponsored by, get ready (drum roll), the CTV and the Globe and Mail, both of which are mind-numbingly pro-Liberal and the whole Librano agenda.

Go to the wo/man on the street across Canada and ask her/him, from Newfoundland to BC, whether s/he supports SSM, and my gut feeling is that the answer would be no, especially if you offered the alternative: SSM civil unions.

Just look at the number of gay couples who have got married: a few gay activists to make a point, but across the board? Not that many. So if the gay community doesn't support the legislation by taking advantage of it, why would we keep a law like this which, after all, has caused such rancour and division?

I've often wondered - how can one advocate gay marriage, then turn around and say they don't support Polygamy. This was the biggest issue I had with Gay marriage - Its a floodgate effect. I'm sorry, but if you say ok to gay marriage, you dont have a leg to stand on if you're fighting polygamy.

i dont know most people i talk to are for SSM. I'm from saskatchewan too....which I've always thought fairly conservative.
Also I trust Angus-Reid, whihc is a very respected polling agency, alot more than randomly walking up to people on the street and asking. That method isn't exactly the most accurate.

Lookout: You put the argument very succinctly . To those who say that SSM does not affect them I would like to say, the sky never falls with one loud crash, it slowly crumbles away til one day you wake up and realize what you have wrought. We can already see what we have wrought with so called "free love". We can continue to mock God and His rules for living but we will surely pay the price.

Kate was not the first to post this on her blog, and she did not post it. I posted it at 7;45 a.m. AB time, after I had voted. Also, it is impossible to vote twice. At that time it was 72% against SSM.
I posted it under readers comments. Don't blame Kate for mentioning it, or urging posters to vote.
The majority of cdns oppose ssm. Another shocker from Kevin Newman. Support for the mission in afgan is up to 57% an increase of 10% in a month.
Taliban Jacks actions have backfired big time.
Or is it because iggy supports it so libs do.
As for cutting literacy programs, what are these people learning in school. Lots of teachers not doing their job. Maybe they should go back to the 3Rs, instead a bunch of crap about 2 mommies, and refusing to fail students, who end up in literacy programs.

"I've often wondered - how can one advocate gay marriage, then turn around and say they don't support Polygamy. This was the biggest issue I had with Gay marriage - Its a floodgate effect. I'm sorry, but if you say ok to gay marriage, you dont have a leg to stand on if you're fighting polygamy."

I wish it were discussed more......its somethign I've been trying to figure out myself. Only once in awhile do I hear stuff such as polygamy often leads to abuse, unfair conditions for some of the spouses. Nothing really substantive though.

I have been considering one thing lately.
Doesn't any type of marriage open the floodgates to polygamy(and SSM). Something to think about maybe.

"Doesn't any type of marriage open the floodgates to polygamy(and SSM). Something to think about maybe."

yes, perhaps...

Maybe we should just cancel non-religious marriage?

I'd be fine with that..

not bad idea

Okay, while I completely agree with the take that the *most* important aspect of marriage is it's framework for child-raising, I believe that that cannot be it's only fundamental role. If marriage were ONLY for child-raising, then infertile, childless people above the reasonable age for raising children need to be ineligible. In reality, though, it is also about agreeing to merge and share two lives - before we talk about children. My great uncle was married for the first time at age 75, to a 55-year-old woman who had also never been married. They had no children and were not about to adopt or attempt to conceive them. The two had a glorious 15 years of marriage before he passed away. That marriage HAS to have been okay, MUST have been good in the eyes of God and the world.

...but if it is, then the smiles on the faces of the same-sex couples as they leave the courthouse, or the United Church, or wherever, must also be good. The unity, sharing, convergence of lives, of absolute commitment is a glory and blessing, in and of itself.

Even if we consider these never-to-be-childraising marriages inherently "limited", they are still marriages, and worthy of the label.

Ashley

I wish there were something on that Globe poll where you can vote 'yes' on same sex marriage but 'piss off you cheeky assh&%e' on the phrasing of the question.

As for people who support SSM logically being required to support polygamy too ... well that's a valid point.

The principle behind SSM is that any consenting adult may have their romantic/sexual relationship recognized by the state – regardless of gender.

If a married couple wants to bring in a third or fourth member, I think it would be fine if it were done according to the same principle. That is that each new member would have the same romantic/sexual relationship with each other member of the polygamous marriage.

So if you are married to 2 women, then you are sleeping with both women who in turn are sleeping with each other. All are consenting adults, all have a romantic/sexual relationship with each other.

Now if it were an old fashioned polygamous relationship where some old guy could marry more and more wives as he pleases, I think that would be wrong because:

1. it is done without the consent of the other parties to the marriage
2. the two wives would be no more than friends, and the law does not make room for the legal recognition of friendship

If a SSM supporter were to say that it’s ok for a married guy to also and at the same time marry his ‘buddy’ from the bathhouse who he’s been sleeping with on the ‘down low’ – thus also brining the wife into the relationship without her consent – then in that case that supporter of SSM would be obliged to also supporter Islamic marriage and Mormon ‘Hold’em’.

you have to log in now to vote..........so much for stacking the vote .eh lefties?

Something weird is happening in the poll. Now it is almost even, but, in 12 hours only 10,000+ have voted NO, and in the same period over 25,000 have voted yes. Yes, I have checked the results every hour or so, just to see what they do when their side is losing. How many of you recorded the numbers of y/n when you voted or when you may have checked it. Mo wonder they are worried about the electronic voting machines in the US.

lol.......I just checked again and the poll is gone!! LMAO

They pulled it when it reached 50:50 and replaced it with a serious poll - "What is your favourite season?"

Here is the CTV poll before they took it down as well:

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

Yep the Mop & Pail always massaging the results to get the desired 'politically correct solution'.
The masters of spin, hard at it clicking their mouse buttons.

Alas, were it only their own buttons they pushed.

Is it any wonder that this rag is regarded as nothing less than the LIEBeral cheerleading choirmembers. Apologists for corruption, deception, and other assorted methods of baiting.

No wonder their circulation numbers continue to drop like a stone in a very deep pond.

That got disappeared quickly enough. Guess it didn't give them the right answer.

Suggestion for Plop and Smell next poll: which is the most corrupt political party in Canada?

Well, the good old Mope and Wail did it again! In the last 1/2 hour, the poll magically went to 50/50! Imagine that. What an uncanny coincidence! What a scam. And that's what passes for honesty by the left wing these days. Way....waaaayyyy too funny!

I agree too fishy!!!!! How the heck did that many people register their vote that quickly??? I smell a rat......

The poll is gone, big surprise, the Grab&Flail weren't getting the result they wanted. I'm just bumbed that you made me go over there to the bizarro world, where up is down, good is bad. Everything I read today in my National Post is spun in an opposite direction at the Bend&Impale. Thank GOD for the Nat Post and Conrad Black.

i cant believe anyone even cares about an internet poll......theres zero accountability anyways

8pm Calgary time it's "what's your favorite season?" poll, sure glad I voted early this afternoon!

Bob,

Based on your last foaming rant you apparently dont understand the printed word, since you keep reading things that were never written. Knowing that, I can only imagine how your fetid imagination will interpret the follwoing.....

Clearly you have major issues with whatever divorce you were apart of. I am sorry somebody so close to you hurt you so badly.

Apparently your insecurity about your manhood surfaces your need to make unprompted comments about your sexual preferences.

Knowing you see things that arent there I am sure the message was understood as...I agree with your brilliant insights you are clearly the superior one.

Now back to the game.

I watched that poll all day long. I have no hesitation in saying the poll was manipulated in the last few minutes. This kind of dishonesty
hurts all of us, regardless of views. Shame on the globe and mail.

Like everything else that Mr. Dithers did it got screwed up. The SSM issue was dead before him since parliament voted that marriage was between a man and a woman. Dithers voted in favour of that. As PM he needed an issue to separate the Librano$$ from the Conservatives. SSM was the issue.

As usual, it was presented by the Librano$$ as a human rights issue. Strange how that item is not even listed as a right under the UN list of human rights. Strange also how it wasn't an issue under Chretien who knew more about the charter than Dithers.

So now we have the matter where the lower courts say that it's a charter right and the Supreme Court saying it's up to Parliament to define marriage. Any wonder there was never a real free vote?

What is the problem with SSM? Obviously, Dither’s group never thought it out. Here are some items to consider. Chretien changed to charter to say that you cannot discriminate against a person based on their sexual preference. Preston Manning lambasted him on this. If I have a sexual preference for children I could claim that my rights are being violated.

Pedophilia, which is a psychological disorder, is a distinct sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 111-R), which is published by the American Psychological Association, supplies this definition of pedophilia: “recurrent, intense, sexual urges and sexual arousing fantasies of at least six months duration involving sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child” (DSM, V.3, 1987).

Could the same be said of those that exercise bestiality? What about polygamy? Any wonder why the polygamist colony in Golden BC has never been arrested? The authorities fear a charter case that will favour the polygamists.

The Librano$$ also were prepared to sacrifice religious rights to win the election. Coulter, the then Minister of Justice, would not commit to the protection of religious rights by the courts. He knew the courts would rule against religious rights.

How will SSM affect religious rights? Say I am a minister and I planned a religious retreat for married couples and my religious belief was that SSM was wrong. If a gay married couple wanted to attend this retreat I could not refuse them without fear of a law suite. Since my parish is run on a shoestring I could not afford the legal fees so I would be forced to cancel my retreat or change the religious teachings. Is my parish not then affected by SSM?

We also have a bill passed under Chretien’s watch that was initiated by Sven (I love your ring) Robinson that made it a crime in Canada to speak against gays. So we lost more freedom of speech. First it was uttering hate that bypassed the litigation route which required that I prove my ideas were false in favour of my being offended and thus deemed the ideas to be hate motivated. Now it’s think as we say or else.
One last thing: there is no division between state and religion in Canada. That’s an American thing. Our Queen is the Head of State and the “defender of the faith”. This notion is propaganda. I guess they must love Bush on this one.

kmmm: "Also, the question of what's best for Canadians. How do you know what is best for Canadians?"

Kids are best for Canadians, kmmm. No brainer. Kinda hard to have much of a future in this country without them. Anyone who seriously contends that kids can be raised in a better environment, as a rule, than provided by traditional marriage must be anxiously waiting in their new purple Nikes for the next round of Hale-Bopp comet aliens to come by earth.

The gay & lesbian tribe don't do the kid part well. It's way too self absorbed of a lifestyle to provide the meaningful sacrifice required, as a rule, to raise children to carry on our nation's future progress. Simple biological math for any species is No Offspring = Dead end. Can one honestly draw a conclusion of equivalency between the importance of traditional and gay marriages?

If it's agreed that "the most important aspect of marriage is it's framework for child-raising" and that traditional marriage gives the best framework then why wouldn't a government want to protect and encourage the traditional definition of marriage above all others (i.e. keep it unique)? My belief is that a government will support the traditional definition if it's concerned about protecting and encouraging progress in Canada's future.

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

First, impertinent wording, which makes it very clear on which side you stand on this issue.

But GIVE ME A BREAK! Canadians are 50:50 on this issue? Not bloody likely. For hours the poll stats were showing clear opposition, then all of a sudden, the poll is split 50:50.

Doctoring the stats, are you? It's clear that's what happened here and your credibility and journalistic integrity has slipped to your ankles. It is you who are not in touch with where most Canadians are on this issue.

Civil unions: fine. Same-sex marriage: a contradiction in terms. That's the compromise that's needed here.

Why not have another poll asking what Canadians prefer to see for gay couples: marriage or civil unions? You might get a clearer picture of where Canadians are at--or is that what you want: a clearer picture?

'Caught in the filter again. It's working overtime. What's up?

Basically pointed out, in a comment sent to the G&M, that a more accurate picture of where Canadians stand might be elicited from a poll that asks:

For gay couples: SSM or civil unions?

Stephen, I accept your admission of defeat. I'm sorry your lack of intellect and athletic talent has left you embittered and unable to debate without resorting to the most effeminate and catty of personal insults. Your support of the "no-prenup" status quo, gay marriage, polygamy, and pretty much everything else under the sun (bestiality?) is duly noted. Once again, I accept your admission of defeat.

Thanks again, Martin. That's essentially what I said in a post that's in the filter. (They never seem to come out these days. Why not? Also, I thought my points, though hard hitting, were well within the bounds of reasonable discourse.)

Courts which enable any kind of sexual preference to be the basis of marriage--polygamy, anyone?--have no leg on which to deny any sexual predilection. It's well proven that common law and homosexual arrangements are more volatile and less stable places in which to rear children. And creating laws, which deliberately separate children from one of their biological parents, is both cruel and foolhardy.

What a selfish, juvenile society we are: Adult sexual preferences--of almost any kind--trump our children's need for their own parents and a safe environment in which to grow. We're already reaping the whirlwind of our terminal selfishness.

"If it's agreed that "the most important aspect of marriage is it's framework for child-raising" and that traditional marriage gives the best framework then why wouldn't a government want to protect and encourage the traditional definition of marriage above all others (i.e. keep it unique)?"

Good question, Martin B. Obviously, the CPC have their priorities right: kids DO matter, whereas the Librano$ have been fooling around with social engineering experiments with the family for far too long--to the total detriment of our kids.

I sometimes think that Canadians have a death wish, otherwise why are we championing a lifestyle, including SSM, which leads, as Martin B. and others on this thread point out, to a dead-end?

'Gotta shake your head and profoundly wonder...

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

Gays already have equal rights - this is a fight over a word definition. Words should not be legislated - what rights are being taken away from gays by denying them the use of a word. No one is saying they shouldn't have civil unions, maryjane

Albertagirl...this is ostensibly a fight over a word definition. In actual fact, opponents of SSM are masking their bigotry behind a semantical argument.

"The gay & lesbian tribe don't do the kid part well. It's way too self absorbed of a lifestyle to provide the meaningful sacrifice required, as a rule, to raise children to carry on our nation's future progress. Simple biological math for any species is No Offspring = Dead end. Can one honestly draw a conclusion of equivalency between the importance of traditional and gay marriages?"

First of all your generalizing. I know gays/lesbians who have devoted their lives to raising children. Secondly, just because we don't allow SSM doesn't mean our nation isn't going to have offspring. It's not like we are short on hetersexual couples right now and even if we didn't allow SSM do you think someone that is homesexual is giong to turn heterosexual and starting having children.

kmmm: "First of all (you're) generalizing."

Must have been the use of "as a rule" that tipped you off. Are you offended by correct generalizations?

"It's not like we are short on (heterosexual) couples right now..."

There's an example of an incorrect generalization based on pure whimsy. Canada's population is rapidly aging as are the populations in the whole of Europe. You think that's a healthy trend? Where are the kids supposed to come from to halt this biological death march? You said yourself that gays aren't keen on "turning hetrosexual" to start having children. That's a generalization I agree with. So the huge numbers of children that Canada needs won't be coming from gay marriage. There's a surprise.

Weakening institutions that support the creation and development of children is dangerous and stupid. Such actions attempt to defy biological realities but end up putting our future in peril. Traditional marriage is the spring of life for our nation. It is the best framework for child-raising and a responsible government will protect and encourage that definition of marriage above all others (i.e. keep it unique).

By the way, kmmm, nice purple Nikes. Going somewhere?

Maryjane it is very sad that it is impossible to have a real discussion with people like you.

Anyone disagreeing with you is called a bigot. The ironic part is that you are the perfect example of a bigot.

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Any disagreement with your position and instead of debate or discussion you slander.

You are absolutely correct on this debate being a semantic arguement. Same sex sposual rights were granted in May 1999 (Ontario). This absolutely is not a fight for rights because they were already granted (as they should have been).

I find it very dishearting that we can't get a real discussion of the issue here without the b word being brought out by those supporting SSM. There is a lot of middle ground here and most Canadians (myself included) support a moderate solution. Britian came up with this proper solution (DEC 2005) with Same Sex Civil Unions. I fully support this solution and I've been called a bigot so many times I've lost count.

It is both sad and ironic that in Britian I would be called progressive and that in Canada I'm called a bigot.

On polling:

Most Canadians don't support same sex marriage. I say this as fact because you can look up poll after poll and it'll break down like this:

~20% completely oppose any gay union
~45% oppose redefining marriage to allow SSM, but support SS civil unions
~35% support SSM

The angus reid polling stats this breakdown is you look at their foot notes.

Regional break down:
Quebec/BC is about 20% higher in the support for SSM.
Ontario is about 5% higher
Rest of Canada is closer to 30%.

Wording thus makes a big difference in the exact results you get.

Couple good examples.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/5826

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/6731

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/5954

KMM your poll you quoted doesn't ask if they agree with SSM. It asks if the law should stand as is. The larger supporting number represents those that support SSM & those that are sick of the "debate".
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/8147

At least the entire world hasn't gone nuts. Even on the left coast of the U.S., the courts seem to still have some intelligence left. A state appeals court upheld California's ban on gay marriage yesterday. They said, in part, "We conclude California's historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class," the court said in a 2-1 decision. "The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat." (Boy, imagine that! Democratic processes! What a concept)
The justices, in their 128-page opinion, noted that California's ban on same-sex marriage does not discriminate against gays and lesbians because of the state's strong domestic partner law, which gives registered couples most of the same rights as married spouses in California.

I just checked & the results are on the G&M from the poll.(they are finaly up)
When i last checked Yesterday at 5:30/est No was at roughly 12300 ahead of yes.
So what happened? I find this very hard to believe that the final result was a 50/50 split.
i was paying close attention as votes came in, the update was maintaining in the roughly 12,000 difference up until 5:30.

Look, for me it is very simple. If homosexuals want to experience the joy of bitter, acrimonious divorce, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned. I would be interested to know whether some of these folks will be singing the same tune once their same sex EX-spouse takes their house, half their RRSPs and pension, and dings them for spousal support for the rest of their lives. I would urge homosexuals to be very careful what they wish for... ;-)

The polygamist comments interest me, from a personal point of view. I suppose its because of the media interest in those particular communities that paints those who live polyamorous lifestyles as unhealthy. I do oppose women being 'forced' into polygamist relationships, I oppose girls being forced into relationships of any kind.

However, there is a whole community of polyamorous people that never gets 'highlighted' or discussed. They are grown consenting adults residing in more than one relationship of their own choosing. Don't dismiss this, the numbers of these relationships are large, they just avoid the spotlight. And, its not always MFF, there are many that are FFM or other multiples.

I am myself in a long term, very stable polyamorous relationship. I choose this. No one forced me. I chose my partners and they chose me, just like in a two partner relationship. We live together as a family (no children at home), our neighbours don't have a clue nor do we advertise it. And.. occasionally we socialize with others like us as there are poly social groups all over the country. Do I believe I should be able to marry both my partners? No. Do I think anyone including the government should regulate what we do or how our relationship works? No. We just live quietly, taking part in our community just like the rest of the population. We don’t wave it in front of anyone face and we are left to ourselves.

As for Bob and his property issues... I note the gender bias there. It's MEN'S property rights! LOL He seems to think women don't have good incomes and can't come to a relationship with more assets than men. Wake up Bob... there are as many woman supporting men or are primary wage these days! I suspect what Bob REALLY means is that he doesn't feel he should have to support his children.

hey martin b. My mistake on the generalizing comment. I realized afterwards that I should have used "stereotyping" and expanded. Most homosexuals I've met aren't to different from most heterosexuals I meet when it comes to "free" love or whatever. But I guess that only the ones I've met.....it might be different on average. But I doubt, because really its the same thign that draws couples together no matter their orientation......its just basic biology.

The Canadian growth rate is around 0.9% right now whihc is equal to the American growth rate. The world growth rate is about 1.15%.

It doesn't seem like we're exactly facing a crisis or anything, so I don't see why we have to infringe on individuals rights in order to see more population growth. Is bannign SSM for that reason much differnt than saying, "Let's ban the woman's right to work, because it will increase the birth rate?" That is something that we would obviously all be against, so how is the SSM issue different.

Even from a growth perspective, I don't see hwo it would make much of a difference. Don't you think a gay couple in a recognized marriage is more likely to commit to a child through artifical insemination or adoption, as opposesed to a couple who is shunned by society.

I'm sorry I can't remember what the purple nike's alludes to and I can't find the previous post about it. I wear black adidas anyways.

In defense of Stephen:

Bob, you are some piece of work! Do yourself a favour and google 'Straw Man'.

And stay on topic next time, don't bring your immense bitterness over your divorce into every discussion. I say that as someone who got 'taken to the cleaners' himself, to the tune of several million. This thread is about SSM, not divorce.

Anyhow, if you really were up to snuff on family law in Canada, you'd know that a recent SCOC decision re-affirmed (to the great relief of many, including myself) the primacy of said 'contracts', and limited the Courts' ability to revisit them.

Get over it and on with it, son!

SOMAS

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.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at October 5, 2006 04:36 PM

I'm a piece of work? Coming from you? ROTFLMAO!

The KKKate/KHate reference comes from KKKate/KHater herself. She used it in one of her promotional pieces, one in which she posed her head on a body builder's frame and invited people to use it to make posters. Ask her if you don't believe me, I don't have the link handy. It was in the last few months or so.

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.

Posted by: John Luft at October 5, 2006 06:42 PM

No Luft. I am saying you're on the extreme political fringe, ... almost off the scale.

Lefty looney Budd Campbell says "No Luft. I am saying you're on the extreme political fringe, ... almost off the scale." Thanks, Budd....coming from a clown like you, no doubt that is from your perspective and if so, I take that as the ultimate compliment.

kmmm, 1 in 8 Canadians were over the age of 65 in 2001. By 2026 the estimate is 1 in 5 (in 1921 it was 1 in 20). We're getting older overall and the kids are getting less. Canada's birth rate is at an ALL TIME LOW with the average woman producing 1.5 babies in her lifetime. Even not taking into account child mortality it's way under replacement a stable replacement rate of roughly 2.1. Does that seem o.k. to you?

Do you know what that 0.9% growth rate number you quoted so freely means? Does adding a plethora of adults through immigration give the same benefit to the stability of Canada's future as having more children? Do you know that more than half of Canada's immigrants in 2006 will be over 65 in 20 years? I'm sure I can count on you for adding more mis-information to the discussion.

Feel free to call my generalizations "stereotypes". I don't hear screams of inaccuracy from the peanut gallery. You're pretty good at generalizing too.

For instance, you seem to think that gay "couples" will more willingly open themselves up to raising kids if they're married. So that might be a minor percentage of a small number of gays that actually remain in a committed relationship which is...a tiny number. You have any hard data to show otherwise? Like I said in previous comments, the gay lifestyle is way too self absorbed, as a rule, to dedicate much energy to raising kids.

I'm o.k. with giving gays common law recognition, but as I've said before how can a responsible government not recognize and protect the far greater role traditional marriages have in Canada's future? Canada does have a birthrate problem which will have huge negative consequences for our aging population. The best and most productive source of young Canadians must be preserved: the traditional marriage.

"You have any hard data to show otherwise? Like I said in previous comments, the gay lifestyle is way too self absorbed, as a rule, to dedicate much energy to raising kids."

No I don't and neither do you.....and thats why both of our arguments weak. Unless there is some significant data that as a whole gays are too self-absorbed to raise children effectively, I'm not gonna tell my friends, who can probably do better job of raising kids than most heteros, that they can't have the same recognition of their marriage as non-same sex couples.

As for the growth numbers, I realize their is an aging population. This is a global trend, Canada doesn't seem to be getting left behind.

This is the source I've been using:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbpyr.html

anyways i just realized i dont care....

This is finished. It was decided a year ago or so. All you tories do is show politicians what not to do.

Your ideas are old and well worn. You're at least 60 years out off date and your bible is 2000 years out of date. As I have said before mankind wrote the bible not god. And another thing how can people be so ignorant of the world. I'm not gay but I think being gay is hard. And now we want to bring in the 50's American phoney ideal of marriage while one of their own chases young men. Give it up. All you people do is show the rest of the world how backward and out of touch you Tories are. I hope their is an election soon. I can't wait till you fools are sent packing. you are a disgrace to Canada. Next you'll tell me the KKK are just good ole boys. Maybe you think lynching was OK. Not a lot thinkers.

ok4ua, some fantasy you've got about the KKK and conservatives. You're not swapping stories with Hedy Fry, are you? Based on the language you display commenting about Christians, you might make Grand Dragon yet of your CAW local. Good show, 'ole boy.