1  2  Next

[align=justify]CHECK OUT THIS ARTICLE!

This issue of same-sex marriage took a long time to resolve - longer, in my humble opinion, than should have been necessary. Now it seems the Tories want to "revisit" the issue; in light of how Harper feels about it, I'm guessing that he's going to try to rescind the law that was passed last year that made same-sex marriage legal in this country. I predict huge problems if Harper tries to pull this off...[/align]

   

The Conservatives will follow through with their election promise to revisit same-sex marriage, with debate expected to begin as early as next week.

The government confirmed Tuesday they will begin debate Dec. 6th with a vote planned before the House breaks for the holidays.

The motion is expected to ask MPs to reopen discussion on same-sex marriage, but will not directly challenge the existing legislation. However, it may ask whether parliamentarians wish to repeal or amend the existing law.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said if the House votes against changing the law to allow same-sex marriages, the matter would be settled.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Canada last year when Parliament passed Bill C-38 in response to a series of court rulings that gay people had the right to marry.

During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the House of Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the issue. Following the election, Harper said the vote would be held this fall.





(Article continues - click link above to read the rest of it)

   

   

Last I read, and this article mentions it at the bottom, is that pro SSM folk want Stevey to have his little vote for the theocrats while the measure is sure to lose. I think the SoCons would rather delay the vote till they had a better chance of winning, not sure what century that would be in but most likely not the future.

Assuming there will be an election in the spring, bringing up the vote may placate the theocratic base and keep them from going CHP. It will, however, also remind everyone else of the silent partners in this Conservative alliance. I read that Stephen was nixing any of the back benchers filling out questionares by the pro-life groups.

   

Well, I for one hope Harper doesn't get his way on this one. I've been feeling pretty worried ever since he took Office, because his stance on women isn't one that is, shall we say, "modern." He seems to be attempting to send women back into the Dark Ages, when we had no votes and no rights, and I'm very concerned about his back-door political attempts, right now. I have a sneaking and very unpleasant feeling that you're probably right, USCAdad, and if you are, this country is in for a very rude awakening.

   

Before the election I got to meet with the Conservative candidate for my riding (he was a "star candidate") and we talked about this issue at some length. He as much as told me outright that the scenario you describe was precisely the strategy, as they would really rather not have to reopen that issue and have it affect their chances in the next election. I quite expect it will be a motion designed to be voted down in the House.

   

I'm wondering that myself.

   

When did he say he was ever going to take away women's right to vote? Or take away all their rights? I think he is just pro family if anything. Of course we can’t have that anymore can we? God forbid someone believes parents should be able to raise their own children. You would think in a country with declining birth rates and people constantly saying we have a labour shortage would want more families and children.

   

Bringing this topic back up is a bad idea, Harper is really starting to grow on moderate liberals, and he needs those votes badly

   

What I mean by sending women back to the Dark Ages is that it seems like Harper wants to restrict women's rights. I've had lots of discussions with my aunt about this - she's a serious advocate of women's rights - and from what she's explained to me, Harper is trying to covertly change things so that women won't be able to have the same freedoms in their rights that we have now. Abortions, for example, are something on his To-Mess-With list; he's trying to change the abortion laws so that women can't have them. When he says he's "pro-family," he's not kidding. You'd think he was Catholic (sorry, no offense to Catholics) by his stance on abortion...

The other issue I'm having with this is that if Harper actually reverses the new same-sex marriage laws, what's going to be next on his chopping block?

I suppose the reference to the Dark Ages probably wasn't the best, but it was the only thing I could think of at the time I posted this. If "pro-family" means keeping women at home, that concerns me, because I wonder if that means we're going to end up reverting back to the way things were in the 40's and 50's, when most women didn't work outside the home.

Just my opinion, is all.

   

Yeah, I caught that - sorry about that.

Harper's policies seem to be geared towards keeping moms at home - which would be great, IF that was something parents could afford, which most can't, these days - and changing abortion laws. I admit I'm not sure if he's trying to make it more difficult for women to have abortions (change from "any reason" to "medical reason only" for example), or if he's trying to outlaw abortion altogether, but from what I've understood from other friends of mine, it seems like Harper is trying to outlaw abortion. Not a good thing, in my opinion. The population is already bloated enough, I think; no abortion would mean no population control (or less than we have now, anyway).

As to the issues of mom's staying at home, I answered that one already. I'd like to think that Harper's intent is honorable, but he's a politician, and all politicians have their own agendas. Pretty much everyone knows this, so I'm not saying anything new on that score.

Abortion and the right to work are big issues for women - as is equal pay. If Harper has his way, these things could very well change, and not for the better, either.

   

Wow, you managed to make a mountain out of a molehill! I see you used the 'friend of a friend" argument which is nothing. No population control if there is no abortion has to be one of the dumbest comments I've heard in a while. I guess everyone is going to just stop using condoms and the pill and just start having babies!

Also please provide a source(other than your aunts opinion) on how exactly he is going to get rid of equal pay for equal work, because I'm calling bullshit on that comment.

Every post you made in this thread is nonsense, typical left-wing fear mongering or outright lies. You need to get a life!

   

Actually we are under-populated in the range of 0-30 years of age.
Here is an animated demo of the changing population by age:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/animat/pyca.htm

The effects of this are only slightly being felt, specifically in the retail industry, where there are not enough workers to fill all of the positions during this Christmas shopping season. However, over the course of the next 20 years, there is going to be a serious strain put on our healthcare system, as well as pension fund, etc.

It is important for Canada to fill the bottom of the pyramid with wage earners to compensate for this.

I personally believe that it is better to raise the population through childbirth than immigration and therefor I agree with Harper's pro-family stance, although I oppose him on almost every other issue.

Children born here have less trouble adapting to our way of life, and children brought from abroad will probably have parents who will also be a burden on the system in the near future.

   

Stephen made a promise before the election He is now keeping that promise.

I know all about "Income Trusts:

That is different.

   

Bump! Yes, DO tell.

   

1  2  Next