5 comments

  1. Gabby in QC says:

    Now that some pro-life activists are voicing opposition to PM Harper’s POV on launching a debate about abortion, the media is sure to give much more coverage and exposure to the pro-life side.

    In this CBC article http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/09/pol-anti-abortion-protest-thursday.html NDP MP Niki Ashton is quoted:
    “A woman’s right to choose is her own and not up to the state. That’s a position that most Canadians have dealt with and we’re ready to move on to other things.”
    If Ms. Ashton really believes what she said, i.e. “A woman’s right to choose is her own and not up to the state” then I see no reason for the state to fund with taxpayers’ money that kind of choice, repeatedly in some cases.

    However, because our society is no longer homogeneous, with everyone holding more or less the same belief system, matters of conscience like abortion and gay marriage can no longer be universally agreed upon, much less legislated. Witness the Supreme Court decisions on so-called swingers’ clubs (Kouri & Labaye decisions). I expect assisted suicide will soon become another socially acceptable “choice”.

    On the issue of gay marriage, it’s strange that the millennial traditional definition of marriage could be changed rather easily while the Canada Health Act, which received Royal Assent a mere 28 years ago, cannot be touched without raising the ire of a majority of people. IMO, a civil union, registered partnership, or pacte civil de solidarité as the French refer to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_around_the_world should have been an acceptable solution to gay partners’ demands.

    BUT … although I consider myself a traditionalist, I believe the door has been thrown wide-open on some of these issues and I doubt the clock can be turned back.

  2. Jim and Rosemary Thompson says:

    Keep on keeping on God Bless you

  3. GeneralShrek says:

    Brian, the problem with the gay marriage debate is that marriage is NOT just a religious institution, it is also a secular one with legal implications. I’m sure we both agree (and I’m hoping you do) that all people have the right to have sex with anyone they like in their own home so long as it’s consentual by all parties. We can live with, and love, anyone we choose, but what about rights of survivorship for couples? In a heterosexual couple with children, should the mother die, guardianship passes to the father, but if the couple are two lesbians, and the biological mother dies, there is no recourse for the surviving parent. The child automatically becomes a ward of the state and, barring another family member to take custody, enters foster care. How would you feel if, heaven forbid, your wife should die, but because the government doesn’t recognize your union as anything legal, your children were ripped from you and sent to live with strangers? There are also tax implications, so now we’re denying them that as well. It’s got to be rights for all or rights for none, anything else, call it what you will, is just plain unfair. Should we decide to take this course of denying a portion of the population any rights enjoyed by the whole, we may as well go back to having “blacks only” drinking fountains.

  4. Jen says:

    My husband(a man-male) and I(woman-female) in the eyes of God are truly married.
    Gays are not married in the eyes of God nor ever will be.
    Therefore, no same couple who claim to think they are married will never ever be equal with me nor my husband in the terms of marriage.

    Paul Martin defied 99% of the public to satisfy 1% of those who want gay marriage.

  5. George Lenard says:

    Liliey, if Sun News Network could afford a better hair stylist, you and the Freakzoid could at least be presentable, although neer believeable!

Comments are closed.