This is very true - I think most Canadians have moved on and quite frankly I don't care what people do in their own bedroom.

Gay marriage is absolutely inevitable and I am not sure why it is even an issue. The bigger issue here is whether gay couples should adopt.

We will run into this wall again in 10 years when gay rights groups push their agenda further and seek equal adoption rights.

This is a much bigger societal issue. Gay rights groups have been very successful in pushing their agenda.

Quite frankly, I don't see what the problem is with Harper's proposed bill - where Gay couples are provided the same constitutional rights as heterosexual couples, yet it is called a "union".

That seems like a win-win for both sides, and a still don't care for people like myself.

Bill C-38 seemed to emerge as much from a seachange in public attitudes (changes largely reflected in the political parties over the past decade) as it did from gay activism. We really have come a long way as a society in such a short time. Until very recently, the gay press was fairly tepid about gay marriage (it was divided between mainstream “assimilationists” and more radical ideologues that celebrated the “outsider” status of gay culture). Another factor contributing to our acceptance was the widespread realization that the gay community constitutes an extremely lucrative market share for virtually every commodity and service under the sun, from holiday cruises to sports cars to highrise condos. We are voracious and highly useful consumers in the urban landscape, and an indispensable constituency for any self-respecting cosmopolis. So it was a combination of a lot of things, not just a pre-determined activist agenda. We had to be "brought into the fold" of civil society somehow.

Unlike Capitalism, who still wants to play the bullshite semantics game of "union" versus "marriage", I think what the hell does it matter if "gays" (What a misnomer that is.) marry?

Though equally, it doesn't matter to me if they, as in both sides, settle on union either.

It isn't going to make a sqat of difference, once all the media and wingnut hype dies down, to my life or that of very many other straight person's or couples lives that I know. The issue is already a yawner for most folks. It sure as hell is for me.

Life will go on as it always has for us, raising families and struggling to make a living and keep our relationships viable and above water, most of us whom scarcely ever knowingly run into a "homo" or "queer" in the course of normal events anyway.

Marriage has mostly always "imperfectly" ideally been there for the protection of children, bloodline tracking, and persons "property share" and emotional needs anyway, and that isn't going to change because some "sexually ambiguous" persons are going to also avail themselves of the "institution" for their own emotional/approval needs.

Once all this kafuffle the religious nutters and Cons are working so mightily to keep alive, front and centre, finally dies down, as it will, watch how quickly it becomes a total "non-event". Which it largely is already anyway, certainly for most of the "straight" community I experience, save for this same insanely conservative and fundamentalist crew still wanting to use it to play one group of folks off against another. (It's instinctive to them.)

Somebody wants to walk down some aisle with multiple wives and or husbands, even the dog, or exchange vows with their right hand or a calloused middle finger, and have a priest mutter some incantations over them and call it a marriage, what does it really matter a dribble? We should know the real world that is out there by now in the Capitalist Marketplace Age of Porn anyway.

Stop the bullshitt, is my humble suggestion. :-) Time to move on. This is nothing, whereas there is a lot of really deadly important stuff happening out there in the real world, of real threat and import to large numbers of folks and families, queer and straight.

Let 'em marry in peace and get on with it, fer Christsake. :-)

Semantics or no semantics - it seems to provide gays with equal rights under the law, but satisfy the religious right.

Who knows what makes these people tick. However, they believe passionately in their cause.

This really is a non-issue for most people and I for one don't want to hear about it anymore.

Very true - big consumers and normally have high disposable incomes given they have no children. Great for the fabric of our city.

I only wonder why they don't have enough self respect to parade a little more conservatively. Greater public acceptance would be achieved without the whistles, hoses, squirt guns, leather, straps, chains and porno style dress.

Personally, I'm not interested in satisfying the religious right on this issue. This is a question of rights and the church, at least in this country, does not dictate what those rights are.

If they don't want to sanction these unions in their churches, so be it, but that should be the extent of their influence on the matter.

I think Capitalism (not Capitalist but the whole goldang -ism is he), IAMClueless and the not recently seen but not missed Mr. Irwin were created just to jumpstart my circulation in the morning, if necessary. If I issue a do not recesitate order, I'll have to remember not to read any of their comments with my morning coffee.

The -ism hisself sez:

We will run into this wall again in 10 years when gay rights groups push their agenda further and seek equal adoption rights.

The people who constantly worry about children being raised by gay couples should ask themselves where the gay people came from in the first place. Most gay people, if they had two parents, had a female mom and a male dad, yet somehow turned out gay. Gay parents are probably more likely to produce children who turn out heterosexual than gay, since that seems to be the most likely sexual orientation, no matter what orientation the "parents." I don't think I need to point out that at least one heterosexual act is required to produce any child, gay or straight, barring advanced reproductive technology.

The most important thing for a child is to have the opportunity to grow up in a safe, loving evironment where he can learn to be an thoughtful, responsible and caring adult. Everything else is crap.

Stevie boy is really starting to scare me. It is becoming more and more obvious that he is a very skilled politician. Unfortunately all of this skill and talent is being used against the interests of Canada and most Canadians who care about the planet earth and its inhabitants human and otherwise.

He has managed to hijack the once proud Conservative Party that MoolaMoolaRoony almost killed off and now with the aid of a complicit Corporate media that answers to (or is part of) the same cabal
is carefully trying to convince Canadians that he isn't a whacko rightwingnut chained to a ideology that has pretty much proven it's hollowness and lack of promise for all but the self interested elite.

Unfortunately the self interest of the elites that are trying to appropriate the resources of the world for their own greed do not have "enlightened" self interest. If their self interest was enlightened they would realize that a return to feudalism and the Dark Ages will only lead to either environmental collapse and/or complete chaos and violent insurrection once those left out become desperate enough.

King John didn't sign (or attach his seal to) the Magna Carta because he was feeling benevolent that day in 1215 and Marie Antoinette and her pals weren't feeling suicidal when they lost their heads. Bread and circuses (cough..2010...cough)only satisfy so long.

Capitalism wrote:

Earth to Capitalism: read the weekend edition of the Courier: "Gay, lesbian and single parents have had the legal right to adopt in B.C. for a decade."

In Canada, adoption is within provincial/territorial jurisdiction, and thus the law differs between each province and territory. Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories. In Alberta, stepchild adoption is allowed. In the Yukon, the law regarding adoption is ambiguous. NDP MP Libby Davies, who is in a same-sex relationship, has campaigned for national uniformity when it comes to same-sex adoption. This too is "absolutely inevitable."

So maybe Harper wants to get this behind him, but even after the argument is voted down the red neck friends he needs will not stop arguing. It's old news folks, it's been debated in the house, Gay marriages are happening so get used to it. What bothers me , is this whole seeming endless debate is going to cost us time and money , and insult gay folks, as parliament keeps droning on. There are lots of real big items out there, but hey let's discuss marriages. Our tax dollars are at stake here. And the dignity of the folks who happen to be the same sex and want some dignity in their union. Harper and buddies, take a aspirin and let's get back to issues that really need to be addressed. Am I gay? NO: am I a non believer? NO, RC( but don't like the Pope who figures women are lesser persons so sure can't be priests) actually father of three, grandfather of five. I could care less what their personal preferences are. You stupid politicians should get a life.

"Greater public acceptance would be achieved without the whistles, hoses, squirt guns, leather, straps, chains and porno style dress."

What do you have against clowns, marching bands, and baton twirlers? :-)

It's a parade. People dress funny. Who cares?

It's a crazy, colourful world, and gays don't appear any more sex-obsessed than most breeders as far as I can tell. At least they're up-front about it.

Bluenose:

I don't believe equal rights to same sex adoption is a smart idea. I would have to see proof that children are not impacted negatively under such circumstances.

I am sure they are capable of loving parents, but I could only imagine the type of ridicule they would face. Further, I am not certain that a gay couple could provide balanced parenthood.

That being said - I don't know otherwise. However, these are young impressionable children.

I am sure they are capable of loving parents, but I could only imagine the type of ridicule they would face. Further, I am not certain that a gay couple could provide balanced parenthood.

That being said - I don't know otherwise. However, these are young impressionable children.

Yes, children are impressionable that's why every effort should be made to stamp out homophobia from their impressionable minds.

Hate can be taught, sexual preferences can not.

This story is interesting in that it reminds us that there are enough queer-hating folks in Canada to form a substantial voting bloc. Wow, what year is it?

Im glad Rafe has finally recognized that gay/lesbian marraige has been happening for some time now.

Perhaps his great influence back east may have changed the liberals mind when it came to a vote...I'm sure his rambling could have earned him that "NO"
vote that he so desperately wished for.

As for provincial marraige commisioners,
they can not refuse a request to perform a gay or lesbian wedding.

She certainly wasted no time jumping into the fray:

New US church leader says homosexuality no sin
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-19T193318Z_01_N19347151_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-EPISCOPALS-BISHOP.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't think of a single verse in the Bible that describes or qualifies what "marriage" is. And what gives any church the right to impose their interpretation of marriage on the rest of us?

Should gays be allowed to adopt children?

I don't think sexual preference is the factor that should determine if a couple is suitable for adopting children. Just look at that dear old grandparent couple that was in the news a short while ago, accused of starving the child to death (or near death).

Hetrosexuality, doesn't necessarily make you a good parent or role model. I don't believe homosexual couples would have a negative affect on children and should be allowed to adopt, as they currently are in most of Canada.

The matter is clear in my mind which is unusual : - )
Parliament must make the right to marriage an equal access right period. When asked the SCC will not accept any less.

"He who say this is evil is evil"

To set some things straight (pun is definitely not intended):

Capitalism says: Quite frankly, I don't see what the problem is with Harper's proposed bill - where Gay couples are provided the same constitutional rights as heterosexual couples, yet it is called a "union".

The problem at least partially is with international recognition. If it's called a union it will be much more difficult to get other countries to recognize it as a marriage. Imagine travelling somewhere and (hopefully not) getting ill and not being able to see your partner just because it's a "union" and not a "marriage". There are other sides to that. Discrimination is still there if you call it a different name. Should we rename straight marriages to "unions" as well then?

Coyote says: Somebody wants to walk down some aisle with multiple wives and or husbands, even the dog, or exchange vows with their right hand or a calloused middle finger, and have a priest mutter some incantations over them and call it a marriage, what does it really matter a dribble?

Why is it that i see same idea over and over again: if we allow 2 (two) persons of the same sex to marry it means anyone can marry anything. Can a man marry a Barbie doll? Two barbie dolls?

Capitalism says: I only wonder why they don't have enough self respect to parade a little more conservatively. Greater public acceptance would be achieved without the whistles, hoses, squirt guns, leather, straps, chains and porno style dress.

You would wonder as to how many gay people think the same way. I used to think this way too. But probably the most important thing being gay taught me is this: people are different. Get used to it. If a person looks like a freak it doesn't mean they are one. I have some friends now that would be considered "freaks" and yet they are wonderful human beings. Have you heard of Pride Parade in Moscow? Many Russian gay people said: "Oh, why do they have to attract attention like that. We need to show we are normal people, just like straight people". Well, if you can find a better example of Stockholm Syndrome, show me one.

One correspondent is right that I "finally" supported Gay Marriagesbecause I did have trouble with that word being used ... but I have long agreed thatgay relationships ought to be recognized and have equal status with marriage. I changed my mind when, as the article says, I began to analyze just what a civi[I]marriage connoted.
Rafe

Tangential to Mr. Mair's argument is his reference to "clerics who also did all they could to make Sunday a 'nothing' day, even for religious people who did not see Sunday..." He is talking about church opposition to Sunday shopping, which young people will be astonished to learn was an issue a generation ago.

Contrary to the popular memory, however, church support for a commercial-free Sunday was shared with the labour movement. It was not about forcing families to church, it was about maintaining one day out of seven when no one not working in emergency services could be compelled to work. It was about minor relief from commodification of every aspect of life.

That battle was lost and now we are free to shop — and work — every day of the week. O freedom!

Ladies, Gentlemen, csis

Has anyone seen that jerry falwell stuff on the internet?
I think you can link up thru whitehouse.org or just type a few relevent key words into a search engine.
If that's not fake it sure explains a lot!!
p.s.- not suitable for children!!

I remember Barbara Amiel tackling that same distinction about ten years ago - Her argument was purely rational, saying that the only way to "save" marriage as a distinct institution was to extend the whole franchise to gay couples. Otherwise the courts would simply slowly whittle down the distinction between common law unions and marriage. I'm still not clear on the precise distinction now, or if the distinction has all but disappeared over the past decade or so.

I think people will realize in time that, far from kicking out the bottom of the bucket, "gay marriage" has simply updated a venerable institution that still has a long life ahead of it, in spite of its current low ebb at the present time (not an unprecedented occurance in Western social history - marriage & sexual mores seem to be on long cycles spanning centuries - the West has seen 'sexual liberation' movements many times before).

I'm not terribly worried about gay adoption. I have visceral (primordial?) concerns about the absence of a true mother in early infancy (civilization begins right there), but given the current state of the family and the condition of so many foster homes, we can scarcely be choosey when so many willing gay couples can offer unwanted, parentless, destitute or abandoned children an emotionally stable, financially secure and probably quite privileged and progressive future.

Makes some sense! Truthfully, I couldn't care one way or the other. People are different and we should accept those differences. Gay people are honest and productive members of society. Discrimination should never be tolerated, and if people percieve that the term "union" is discriminatory - then let's call it a marriage.

Either way, I will continue to cast my vote for Mr. Harper!

Spot on, JM.

In the words of one right-wing Christian commentator: "What this debate is really about is allowing a certain section of the population to claim ownership of the word marriage."

I think it is extremely important to point out that in addition to same-sex *civil* marriage there is also same-sex *religious* marriage: Vancouver Rabbi David Mivasair officiated at the first Jewish legal same-sex marriage in Canada in September 2003. Same-sex religious marriage is celebrated within several liberal Christian communities. Moreover it has been celebrated *without civil sanction* in some of those same communities for over *thirty years* (since the mid-70s) in one form or another. No, no one wants to force churches to perform gay marriages, but why is the issue always framed in the negative? Why is the concession always given to the opposing side in the debate? Instead of emphasising that no one wants to force churches to perform gay marriages, why not emphasise that no one wants to prevent churches from performing gay marriages?

This has never been a debate about civil vs. religious marriage: it has always been a debate about power and definition. To paraphrase Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, it has always been a debate about choice and deliberation and the power to take charge of our own life and thought, rather than about control, dependence and obedience. Under the law as it stands, no one who is ideologically opposed to same-sex marriage (whether on the "right" or on the "left") can legitimately prevent two men or two women from marrying each other if they choose to do so. I pray the situation remains as it is.

I think Coyote may have hit on something:
"For rich or for poor, In sickness and in health, 'Till death do us part"... seems to me my dog and I are doing better in the marriage dept than most humans around us... can you imagine the financial bonanza THAT would create, with all those nutty dog owners out there?!

The issue really is a dead one but it will linger on for a while longer, just like divorce and abolition of capital punishment. Very few people would want to return to the divorce laws of the 1950's and exectuing people like Guy Paul Morin.

That said, Herr Harper still has to pander to lunatics like Diane (dark sunglasses) Finley among many others.

And never forget this one truth:

We have millionaire Jack to thank for it all.

Indeed.
Call me old fashioned - or just plain old - but marriage is meant for procreation and the promise of raising offspring together as a family. Just because today's marriages have become fickle in the responsibility department does mean that the intention should be any less.
If gays wish a binding (legal) union then create a name for the union but don't call it marriage.

You're old-fashioned Jack's.

Would you deny two 75 year old heterosexuals the right to marriage? It's unlikely they'd procreate.

Just because today's marriages have become fickle in the responsibility department does mean that the intention should be any less.

The word 'does' should be doesn't.

Don't rule it out with today's medicine.

8-D LOL. Actually Fii, though it's good to hear you again, hetero-sexual marriage is doing quite well, at least statistically, despite the doomsayers of sundry predilections and sexual mores. Though my own anecdotal observation is that the current generation is in some difficulty even trying to form marriages, around which I see some signs of desparation on both sides of the gender line. Being for various contemporarty lifestyle change reasons having to do with male and female behaviours and role changes-, compared say to my own generation. With everybody working, and less committment to it, modern marriage & homelife is simply not as attractive or secure a haven as it used to be, I suspect. (The rate of divorce did spike, I believe it was in 1987, following the making of divorce easier in the 60s. Which was anticipated, but has since fallen off again. Indeed divorce rates continue to fall, but which could indicate any number of things really.)

In 2003, the rate of divorce (after three years of marriage) was 2.6 per 100,000 marriages, yet within the top ten for all countries behind the leader US. After three years the rate of divorce actually declines each year thereafter.

Some interesting real info here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/marriage/

And here.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil04.htm

All of which indicate to me that in fact, on balance, the institution of hetero-sexual marriage is at least doing
reasonably well, certainly the majority surviving the test of time. And when one considers the actual odds of that in the modern world, compared say with the number of seeds ejaculated into the female womb to secure one survivor offspring, and out of that even the mortality rates of humans let alone other animals per 100,000 births, the record for marriages is certainly at least as good as that.

That not all persons or couplings measure up to the task of procreation and family creation should not be the least surprising, given the great variety of types and circumstances that come to the marriage table.

Nonetheless, a serious rather than anecdotal, urban myth examination of the marriage facts, and weighing all the elements that work against successful marriages, most actually do quite well. The blush eventually leaves every rose however, and sooner or later all marriages involve getting down to making them work-, which is where many a modern male and female is falling down-, in my interested observations of the institution. Some modern folks just ain't tough enough, committed enough or suitable in a variety of regards for marriage and family creation. They simply fail the tests of natural selection. And that is a process that continually goes on throughout nature.

One interesting stat I have encountered though, is that the number of males AND females getting married who have been married at least once before is increasing. So part of what is happening with marriage is that it is taking more than one kick at the can to get it right and secure a suitable mating. Which shouldn 't really surprise anyone either, I don't think.

This article is an example of how the left has undermined the principled and processes of democracy in a free society. Mr. Mair opines that anyone who thinks differently from him is either homophobic, motivated by hate, or being dictated to by religious authorities. He then proceeds to misrepresent almost every aspect of the debate. Somewhere along the line, we have forgotten that true debate on important public issue should show the capacity to recognize that people of goodwill can disagree. The only hate I see here is the "hate" Mr. Mair attributes to people who think differently from him--presumably this form of hate is OK.

Jack's,

While I see no actual real harm to homosexual "marriages" or "unions", whatever they wind up being called, and I am not concerned either way, I must confess that on balance I do tend to share your overall view about the institution of marriage and the purpose it serves.

I like being old fashioned. 8-D LOL

Still, homosexual marriage is an innocuous enough thing in that, on balance, it largely does no harm. (Though I have more concern in some other regards to their agenda, directed against hetero-sexuals, of which we hear some noises.) But by and large it still simply leads to what might be called a kind of herd "culling" or "weeding out" result, except where there is an actual hetero-sexual style intervention or dalliance, or that of a turkey baster or pipette. And there are those that do both in a desparate bid to secure offspring in what is the otherwise naturally "sterile camp". :-)

The conclusion I come to in the end is though, "Really, what's the bloody harm?"
Like playing house or doctor when we were kids. They want to mimic us without any real consequence. We should be flattered. :-)

And really, to my homo-sexual friends, and I do mean "friends", I would say that we are having a quite friendly discussion here. You surely did not think all we hetero-sexuals were going to rush to agree entirely with every point or nuance to your agenda, or fall before your diktats like so much mowed wheat. If you did, then you really are quite far removed from our reality. :-) (And I don't think that is actually the case.)

OK, Jack's, half a point to you. What about a man with a vasectomy, or a woman with a tubal ligation. No marriage allowed? Just a union? Silly if you ask me, and I'm all for more unions!

Surely our M.P.s have bigger concerns to address than who wishes to pledge undying love to who?

Amen, to that, for sure.

And one final snapshot of what is really happening to the hetero-sexual marriage divorce rate over 30 years, as distinct from "common law marriage" which is more temporary and has a higher breakup rate.

The divorce rate for "conventional" marriages has been falling each year since they peaked in 1987 (?).

From Statistic Canada, through the CBC website:

With the passing of the Divorce Act in 1968, grounds for divorce were extended to include "no-fault" divorce based on separation for at least three years; in 1986, the separation period was revised to one year.

Within a decade of the introduction of the Divorce Act, the total divorce rate (the percentage of marriages that dissolved in the previous 30-year period) rose from 14 per cent of all marriages in 1969 to 30 per cent in 1975.

The total crude divorce rate peaked at 362 divorces per 100,000 inhabitants in 1987. The divorce rate in 2000 was 231 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Marriage did not arise for the purposes of procreation - that happened regardless. It scarcely requires a statistical analysis to conclude that the vast majority of humans born throughout history were conceived in the absence of anything we'd recognize as 'marriage'. In other words, we're all illegitimate bastards in one sense or another.

Marriage was always a contract between two men - The Groom and the Father of the bride - for the purposes of property allocation and inheritance. Only very recently did it come to be seen as a vehicle for the achievement of personal happiness, or any embodiment of romantic love. This change is partially why the institution is having such trouble - or rather why people are having such trouble with the institution.

It seems everybody (in this discussion) agrees that religious organizations are free to choose how they see "marriage". The question is about government's view on it. And why government would want to support institution of marriage? Initially, maybe (i'm not that good in history) it was mainly for procreation, but not anymore (couples that can't have kids for various reasons, older couples etc). So "marriage" is good from government POV because it brings stability to society, because it saves money AND because it allows procreation. So let's separate the latest one from marriage. Like giving tax breaks to people who have children (there might be something like that already, actually, child care support is about that, isn't it)? Now, without kids in equation, how is gay marriage different from straight marriage? Both bring stability and save money for the government.

As to whether call gay marriages "unions" - as i said before, the word "marriage" has more weight internationally (bears more legal weight, if you wish). And i wouldn't have a problem with a "union" but i'm pretty sure it would be used as a base for discrimination like "oh, it's just a union".

To Coyote: And really, to my homo-sexual friends, and I do mean "friends", I would say that we are having a quite friendly discussion here. You surely did not think all we hetero-sexuals were going to rush to agree entirely with every point or nuance to your agenda, or fall before your diktats like so much mowed wheat. If you did, then you really are quite far removed from our reality.

- if you did want to have a "friendly" discussion you might wanna try sounding a little less patronizing.

Which is again part of the point, nightbloom, which you keep missing, for reason to do with your own reality. Hetero-sexual marriage has indeed evolved to become what it is, since even well before "my" great-grandparents time. Everything that is, is a product of some kind of particular evolutionary history. So its modern manifestation certainly did not become what it is yesterday, as you tend to want to suggest.

The entire point is that hetero-sexual marriage IS the product of a particular, long and still evolving history, adapting to the needs of "the players".

And hetero-sexual love being sometimes fickle, the modern institution of hetero-sexual marriage reflects elements of that, no doubt.

Nothing to apologize for there.

In addition to that "love" aspect however, it still contains the early and important elements of "property relations" and "geneology tracking" that were "part" of its early foundations. And these elements are a real and legitimate part of love that seeks to be "procreative" as well. Everything, even love in its hetero-sexual manifestation. has a "material" basis or element to it.

Since the beginning, however, it has always had to do with facilitating procreation and the needs of the union required to achieve that successfully. And it was successful, as it is, or we would all not be here.

Nothing to apologize for here either.

And is the institution having trouble?

I'm not so sure anymore than the hetero-sexual relationship has always had the stresses and strains of a "special responsibility" on, and within it.

That's life, bubba. At a level you may never entirely understand. Nay, almost certainly can never understand. :-)

Besides, outside of the wealthy few, with whom nightbloom tends to identify, I think, for the mass of the historical participants in the hetero-sexual relationship, at the level of the "lower classes" of society, always the majority mass of society nightbloom :-), there was typically very little real property involved. A much more simple "struggle for survival", to feed many mouths, was more the norm for both the men and the women.

I can't do anything about the way my mouth hangs, or your perceptions of me.

I do much prefer frankness to artifice however. :-)

Part of the problem with online communications is that we cannot see the others face or hear their voice, which can skew our perceptions.

Oh. I see.

Thanx 4 setting us str8, coyote.

I do much prefer frankness to artifice however. :-)

Part of the problem with online communications is that we cannot see the others face or hear their voice, which can skew our perceptions.

Coyote - ditto on all 3 points :)
And for myself there is also an added difficulty of having English as a second language.

But would you mind addressing points i made about marriage as an institution? They might sound naive (history was never my strong subject) but it just seems that discussion on same-sex marriage always wonders into "why we have marriage the way it is and why we want it to stay that way" instead of (or additionally) focusing on "what marriage means now".

It will be interesting to see if the legalization of gay marriage creates a further bifurcation in the community between monogamous professional sub-urban gays that are more or less integrated into the hetero environment, and the more transient urban gay enclaves that are composed of (largely) single, party-oriented, and transient elements located in the larger city centres.

I believe the reason why the religious right is fighting gay marriage is because of the importance they place on family.

One of my business partners is a church-going old fashioned guy. To him, his family is the most sacred thing. I don't think they care as much about whether god condemns it or not, but the erosion of their traditional society. These people think society is going to hell.

Further, they believe that gays don't have the same family values, and are incapable of the family bond - which was designed to be between a man and a woman.

Religious or not, this is true. Nature is about evolution and procreation. Whether you are a fish in the ocean, or an ape in the jungle - two men are not meant to procreate or raise a family.

This is not to say what is right or wrong. I believe that happiness is right.

Further, some believe that gays wish to marry in part to spite society. As a result, they believe that one term should be left to restore their traditional family views - and another to recognize the rights of gay couples.

The religious right does not wish to persecute or torture gay people. They merely wish to maintain to preserve the values they hold closest to them.

Let's hope not - the second group you speak of live at times, incredibly irresponsible lifestyles. These are the paraders I originally spoke of.

I remember hearing that the gay community is the only group in North America with an increasing rate of sexually transmitted disease infections - including AIDS.

I understand that it must be difficult to grow up "in the closet", but the gay urban community needs to increase its PR efforts.

I believe the reason why the religious right is fighting gay marriage is because of the importance they place on family.

That's a lot of people you speak for... no doubt it's true of some, but there are plenty who oppose it flat out for religious reasons or just straight out fear and hate.

The funny thing is many gays fought for the right to marry for the same reason -- the importance of family.

Nature is about evolution and procreation. Whether you are a fish in the ocean, or an ape in the jungle - two men are not meant to procreate or raise a family.

Nature is more than procreation, nature encompasses all we do. There is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality, it happens with animals, it happens with humans.

Marriage and procreation? One does not require the other. Plenty of married couples don't procreate...is that unnatural? Should they not be allowed to marry?

"These people think society is going to hell."

So, do I and some of my bike-riding friends. But we promote education over a ban on buying and selling SUVs. If religious people can put together a logical argument against gay marriage, let's hear it, otherwise, keep they should keep their narrow-minded prejudices to themselves.

"They merely wish to maintain to preserve the values they hold closest to them."

And letting people who love each other marry harms their values? Hmmm, maybe their values need to be re-examined?

Nothing is stopping them from preserving and promoting their values to anyone who's interested. Making laws to reflect them however seems exclusionary to me, and not what our country is about.

Your argument doesn't hold water. At least 90% of those born - from the beginning of the human species - to this date in time, have been born following the concept/ritual of marriage.

I don't think it's right to tell right-wing, religious people to shut up. But deciding what IS and what is NOT a hate speech and what people can say and what they should be able to preach is a balancing act. Pretty often i find myself thinking "shut the f*** up already". Why? Because of all the bullsh** i keep hearing since i was a kid and all the hate i had to withstand. So it's a touchy subject for me, and it's very hard to restrain emotions when i talk on this subject. It's ironic that i can somewhat understand what religious folks are going through right now. Yes, i'm pretty sure they think that their world is being threatened more and more. And now gay people want to take away marriage as well! And whatever you say for hard believers it will all come down to one thing: being gay is a sin. So don't expect logical reasons there (that's pretty much what the article is about, isn't it?).

So it's almost impossible to argue with them. Which is a shame, because what i would ultimately want for them is to sit down and think about this: we live in a changing world. We have to adjust our values and principles every SECOND. Another thing being gay taught me is this: choose. Choose what suits your morale, or your consience or whatever. Then believe in it and protect it. A lot of gay people are open-minded, because once you have to doubt one thing, you doubt everything else. Does it mean it's gonna make me an antichrist? No. I often joke that if my boyfriend wasn't gay he would be one strict christian. He is not. But he is a humble, people loving and caring person.

And, Capitalism, you think some gays want same-sex marriage "in spite"? And that they prefer to choose extreme lifestyles because they're gay? Same reason as i described before, only with a different outcome - if they think one thing they were told was false - why follow any morales at all? But again, there are all kinds of people in between. And straight marriage is in danger from straight people mostly - i just have to turn my tv for about 5 min and flip the channels to prove it.

What we need is a good, fair and balanced education for children. Teach them to be good people, and let them choose their own believes.

Forgetful in my old age... the above was directed to Nightbloom...

The family unit is through marriage. Marriage creates the family unit. Illegitimacy is not evil by any means and serves many well but marriage is family.

scnnr_drkly - Since English is your second language, you write very well.

Capitalism, I agree. But it's an internal problem. Speaking from experience, the gay community reacts extremely poorly to constructive criticism from within its own ranks, and "progressive" society won't do it because no one wants to be perceived to be "beating up" on the gay community. It's a tough call. I think I mentioned a while ago how I had to put up with over a year of throat-slicing gestures and other vindictiveness from the downtown drug-crew when I first started speaking out about the drug problem several years ago. I spoke with a few 'old hands' in the Vancouver gay community and they told me that kind of retaliation has been going on periodically for years. That's the kind of shit that happens in such a closed community, and the Vancouver drug-network is fairly extensive. The Vancouver gay male community is a cash-cow for a lot of nasty people. The gay bars, the afterhours venues and the bathhouses are neck-deep into it. So we've got a money-driven dynamic that perpetuates the drugs-&-AIDS profit cycle, and a social welfare apparatus (prevention & treatment) that acts as apologists for that cycle as part of their own financial grant-seeking efforts. Look at how they're scrambling to deflect heat for our failed prevention strategies away from the gay drug-circuit, while demanding more cash from the provincial and federal governments. It's a perverse symbiotic relationship. You have to watch it over time to believe it - I remember people writing about this when I first came out years ago, and I thought they were out to lunch....Now that I've seen the same cycle perpetuate itself over & over again, there's no hiding the strings. The gay press doesn't touch it with a ten foot pole anymore - their job is to make sure gays show up at the fundraisers and that they vote pink. Everything else is mission-creep.

So, you're right...but I think the only people who can correct the problem are gay people themselves. Whether they ever will is another issue altogether.

Jack's - i'll take it as a compliment :-)

nightbloom - is there any resources or articles available on the net in regards to what you say? i agree xwest etc are pretty toothless about anything.

Capitalism..

Gawd, I hate to think that I would agree with anything the religious right has to say.
Even when gays talk of family, they generally aren't referring to their partners. They are talking about their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters.
The political assholes in Parliament don't want to take a stand on anything that might offend, for fear of the resulting publicity. They should put this whole issue behind them regardless of their religious beliefs and get on with something every Canadian is really interested in - gun registration...??????
The apathy of our politicians is pathetic.

Nightbloom:

When I wrote this, I meant internal PR. I did mean that the problem is internal.

The community has done a great job of publicizing their demands, and achieving results. They have come further than most special interest groups.

Many limit their social network to the community itself, and I would assume these are the party goers you speak of. Obviously, changes must be driven internally.

As a side note - there is nothing wrong with excessive partying. God knows I did my fair share in my 20's. I am lucky I made it out alive!!

Drugs and unprotected sex are health disasters. I am sure this youth is merely exercising their first chance to express themselves.

A little less drugs and a few more condoms and everybody will be fine!

These aren't just youth - it's 45, 50 year old men (the drug-partiers, I mean). It changes things when a critical mass within an insular community is into it, as opposed to, say, 3 in ten kids in the population at large. Relatively speaking, it becomes a much bigger deal for those caught in the "fishbowl".

Yes, we wrote the book on successful activism during the AIDS crisis. Part of it was also the willingness of liberal-Left parties to tap into the issue (or "exploit" it, depending on how you see things). It became a constituency-building exercise. The irony is that the Religious Right in the U.S. took careful notes & emulated us. That's one of the reasons their activism & fundraising has become so much more successful over the last 15 years or so. Sorta funny & perverse at the same time.

scnnr_drkly: There’s a growing corpus of material out there about gay male drug-culture, although most of it focuses on addiction issues while skirting around the organized crime aspect. Most of the literature is readily divisible into either critique or apologetics. This is a good site to start: http://www.lifeormeth.com/, as it presents a critical take on Circuit Party Culture from a gay perspective, which is hard to come by within the gay community. As you may know, the AIDS Committee of Toronto (ACT) and similar organizations in NYC and elsewhere have repeatedly fired staff for getting “off message” by criticizing the inter-city Circuit Party industry & the drug-culture that upholds it. So the internal dynamic is problematic...and perhaps the key problem.

The healthcare sector is wary of marginalizing drug users, which they argue would make their outreach efforts more difficult, so they seldom criticize the Circuit Party industry head-on, but rather will go after the individual behaviours which are foiling prevention efforts:
Reducing HIV Infections at Circuit Parties
http://www.thebody.com/iapac/apr05/circuit_parties.html

The New Plague - An Epidemic Swallowing Gay America
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?51957254-0b22-4546-a29c-11edf7f4f427

The book “Tweakers: How Crystal Meth is Ravaging Gay America” has won critical acclaim. It has generated a very polarized response from within the gay male community, with partiers peppering review blogs with apologetics for drug culture in diversionary invectives (the playwright Brad Fraser wrote one such screed in Toronto's Xtra last year, to which nightbloom subsequently penned a riposte in the same publication). Those who have gone through it & come out clean on the other side generally tend to appreciate the book, which is a fairly telling indicator (in my opinion).

This describes a gritty scene that is now commonplace in the gay drug circuit and local afterhours scenes : http://alternet.org/drugreporter/21794/?comments=view&cID=2565&pID=2545
(incidents like these occasionally result in deaths, particularly when they involve men over 45. This has happened at the Montreal Black & Blue, Toronto Prism and Vancouver Rapture parties over the past few years, but the gay press has an unwritten policy of not reporting drug-deaths in the party scene. Usually the organizers and “helpers” are very quick about getting the victim off the premises asap, which further obscures any “liability issues” for the event organizers or venue owner/operators. Any negative press impacting the drug-circuit is hushed. For example, when the founder of Whister’s gay ski week (the “Altitude Party”) killed himself while on a meth binge a few years ago (he jumped off his Yaletown balcony), Xtra West simply reported that he “died suddenly” and the mainstream press didn’t mention it at all).

I hope this provides some background for my earlier comments.

nightbloom: thank you, i will check it out.

nightbloom:

The death of the organizer WAS reported, but w/out toxicology reports and so forth being made public, the reason and cause at the time of the death would probably be unknown to the press, so reporting supposition would be a legal nightmare.

Further, if the press had gone 'there' they'd be accused of besmirching the good name of someone who had done a lot for his community. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but your intimations of cover-up and collusion are unfounded IMO esp. w/r/t the 'mainstream press'.

Stump - No, I didn't "intimate" anything. I stated the fact that the gay press reported neither the suicide nor the drug factor until there was a public backlash within the community, and even then it had to stew for a good while until then-Managing Editor (Xtra West) Gareth Kirkby relented and reported the facts, while offering a somewhat lame exlanation/apology/excuse for his paper's initial policy of silence. There was a broad consensus that journalistic standards had lapsed, and Kirkby seemed to acknowledge this. Until then it was hush-hush as per the gay press' usual modus operandi on these matters.

And I situated this instance within the context of other muffling of other "bad press" related to the gay Circuit Party industry. There's a consistent pattern here, and I'm hardly the first to comment on it.

Why was coverage of Dr. Tom Lampinen's presentation on Circuit Culture and the Meth/HIV problem totally omitted from Xtra West's coverage of the World AIDS Day proceedings back in December? I sat through the whole thing, and every other session was covered in excruciating detail in Xtra West's write-up. Too hot to handle perhaps...? You bet.

The pattern gets hard to miss after a while, Stump.

Interesting arcticle here, for those interested in the debate of wether homosexuality is "natural":

450 homosexual animal species and counting:

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y

Nightbloom:

My comments were mainly about the 'mainstream' press. I don't know anything about Xtra West's handling of the death. By the time such evidence would be available, the death would be off the radar for many people. As they say, that's why it's called 'news', not history.

Stump: Planet Out's initial reporting, below. Kirkby is quoted in the article. You'll note that the lacunae goes beyond simple liability issues related to toxicology reports. And above all, note that the principal concern here is not the unfortunate death of the "founder" of this community "institution", but whether this drug-party money-pot will be able to continue uninterrupted. the Party must go on. Granted, there are other components of the Altitude Party that are not directly circuit-party-related (like the skiing & snowboarding that presumably takes place during the day!). But it's all about the money, Stump. The gay party dollar. And note the abbreviated list of charities near the end who are direct beneficiaries of the event (which brings us back to the internal dynamics of the community, and the unhealthy & self-perpetuating symbiotic relationship that exists between drugs, HIV, the prevention/treatment service provision apparatus): http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2004/01/08/2

nightbloom - is Dr. Tom Lampinen's presentation available online, or at least a good summary? Found nothing via Google so far. Thanks.

The presentation is not available on-line that I am aware of, although his research findings are available in article form. The caveat here is that although Dr. Lampinen has called attention to the drug problem, particularly among those who are already HIV+, he's be criticised for downplaying to link between meth use and sero-conversion of previously HIV-negative users. To sum up, we know HIV+ gay men use a lot of drugs (and a lot of meth in particular), and we have the stats that show that meth & other "party drugs" (GHB, E, Ketamine, etc.) have a strong statistical correlation with high risk sex practices (i.e. unprotected penetrative stranger-sex with multiple partners whose sero-status is unknown), but statistical controversy erupts when you try to correlate the actual moment of sero-conversion with the simultaneous (co-incident) usage of the drugs. That final equation is so nuanced that it doesn't lend itself to generating statistics that are beyond question and/or manipulation, even though it's a basic reality everyone has observed. It also doesn't take account of intangibles like the ambient social culture and latent expectations that are created in a drug-saturated environment even though a given individual may himself be "clean" but nevertheless still be strongly influenced by this kind of latent messaging & social pressure in his social environment.

Here are Dr. Lampinen's recent statements on the BC Government's Meth Prevention program, as reported in Xtra West: http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?SessionId=756893db-ccdc-44c6-b68a-a315e9b7a66b&AFF_TYPE=4&STORY_ID=1653&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=1

Btw, note that the community groups have all lined up with their hands out for more money, but no one is breathing a single word of public criticism about the Circuit Party industry or the municipally-licenced local afterhours venues that are the locus of the gay drug-market. That whole scene is as immune from criticism as it is from standard law enforcement. It's that pattern again, that I keep referring to. The often-heard calls from community service- provision groups (like YouthCo) for more data & research are code for "give us more grant funding". In reality, they've known about the problem for years and have ignored it. I remember responsible voices in the gay community raising the alarm on this issue as early as 1993. They were basically told to shut up at the time. That's well over ten years ago now.

It's so obvious that i never even thought that it still needed to be proven, i took it as "everybody knows it" kinda fact. Thanks for pointing it out. I don't want to hijack this thread any more, but i will talk to some friends of mine and i will keep my eyes open. Again, thanks for the information, nightbloom, i will check it out.

No problem. It's an issue I can't quite let go of, because of my own experiences and those of my friends, and also because of my lost friendships with people I love who are still consumed by this trap.

I found it interesting that one of the world's most renowned ethicists, Margaret Somerville, was rudely insulted both by gay activists and by Ryerson faculty, for holding to her views that same sex marriage was not a good idea as children should have a right to know/be raised by their biological parents. The vote that Harper will be allowing is just to review the matter. When French parliamentarians investigated the matter thoroughly (which the Martin government did not do), they decided that it was not in the best interests of the nation in general or of children in particular. Dr. Maria Xirodou of Holland was curious why long term same sex couples made up 85% of all new HIV infections in that country. She found that it was because long term couples i.e. married, engaged in riskier sex because they had higher levels of trust, but still had 6-10 outside partners per year. Fidelity is one of the highest expectations of heterosexual marriage (not always fulfilled, admittedly), yet not something expected by gay society. So if Dr. Somerville is "homophobic" for being opposed to same sex marriage, does that mean Gareth Kirkby and nightbloom's partner are homophobic too?

Jack said:

I just call Jack factually wrong. Because that's what he is.

He needs to read some history because his understanding of the original "purpose" of marriage is just simply in contradiction to the actual facts of the matter, as a smidgin of actual research will easily demonstrate.

Dolphin:

When did you need to get married to have children? You don't think homosexuals will have children if they want them regardless of whether they are legally married or not? Is Somerville homophobic because she opposes gay marriage? I'd say she is seriously misguided if she is linking marriage with procreation. There is simply no requirement to be married, in a stable relationship, or even be a potentially decent parent to have a child. I suspect Somerville is smart enough to figure that one out. What she really must be against is any homosexual couple having children; and yes, that is homophobic. Homophobia that she might argue is justified, but homophobic all the same.

What's common in the Muslim community. Does this group support homosexuals in any way shape or form ?
I don't say this in order to demonise Muslim's.
I only ask the proponents of the homosexual lifestyle to realize that the west is far more accommodating to you, than anything you can expect from the east.
Please explain if you support this mindset.

No question we've come a long way, although some Christian Fundamentalists are scarcely more progressive than the hard core Muslims...although Christian Fundamentalists seem able to draw the line in terms of not advocating physical violence towards gay people (let alone beheading & execution).

Conservative Judaism has an anti-gay vein to it too, but it notably lacks the vitriol of the Christian and Muslim analogues.

I think we've reached a point here in the West where we need to take a more nuanced view of both "homo-phobia" (a linguistically non-sensical fusion of Greek and Latin that is an embarassment to the exceptionalism of the pre-Stonewall gay intellectual tradition; a word born from the New Left's technique of pathologizing incorrect social behaviours that contradict its ideology), and of "sexual liberation" more generally. Ultimately, IAMC, my freedom is your freedom. The mutual goal is self-determination in the context of a basic and commonly accepted ethical framework governing individual behaviour in the public sphere.

But trying to re-program people is misguided - people will always be nonplussed (even repulsed) when they contemplate sex with members of a gender they are not attracted to. The trick is to get them to perceive those other people as real people rather than reducing them to conjured images of what they may/may not do in the bedroom (which is a natural reflex of the human imagination and our involuntary fascination with the perverse - that is, perverse by our individual subjective standards).

I got my Dad over that mental hurdle by explaining it this way: when he thinks of my brother & his girlfriend, he naturally doesn't contemplate their sex life. He associates them with a whole bunch of other things that make them real people in his mind. But when he first met my partner, he didn't have those same inculturated frames of reference. The relationship was reductionist for him: the sex acts. He couldn't help it. Once he realized that it was only his head playing games with him, that it really wasn't about sex acts in themselves, and that he really didn't have to picture them at all, it was something he was able to get over fairly quickly. He worked around the unfamiliarity of the whole thing and can now situate my partner and our relationship within the same context as my brother's relationship with his girlfriend.

And for the record, by and large heterosexuals can be every bit and randy and bent as gay people when they put their minds to it. All those training dildos & strap-ons hanging on the wall in the straight sex-shops are as much for the man's pleasure as the woman's. And when I was dating women regularly (way back!) I was shocked at how many women just casually went for the doughnut hole as a regular part of intercourse (and they certainly didn't get that from me), so there are obviously a lot of straight guys who like that as part of their sexual repertoire. Breaking the bum-taboo isn't a gay or straight thing - people just either go there or they don't.

Gee - From Muslims to bum-taboo...I'm sure there's a connection here somewhere...!

Gay marriage was once put in perspective by one of Rafe's former cabinet colleagues quite succinctly, in two different ways.

"I don't know why we're worried about gay marriage, we already have gay divorce." (Civil, of course.)

"I'm not worried about the same sex marriages, I'm worried about the no-sex marriages."

Interesting Rafe should jump on this bandwagon now. I'm not sure even the church believes this little game, because it's not lining up at the barricades any more.

My moderate-to-conservative Mennonite church family isn't interested in fighting this one. The website I manage for our church gets no e-mail or requests at all now to help fight the godless sin of homosexual marriage, whereas a year or two ago we got two or three a day from any number of individuals, groups and churches, most purporting to know the details of God's own mind.

Not even the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is fighting this one. Go ahead - if you can find it in less than five mouse-clicks on their home page at http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/ you get the prize.

So if nobody's interested, why did Harper bring it up? Look deeper, people.

And then ask why did Rafe bring it up?

Zalm, interesting comments - Can you expand on them?

I watched the Senate hearings for Bill C-38 where all the reps of religious denominations presented their case for or against. I found even the Roman Catholic argument (against, naturally) to be very pro forma and civil. Cardinal Marc Ouellet didn't really seem to be there to battle gay marriage per se (aside from simply articulating the R.C. party line), but rather to stake out and reinforce the freedom-of-speech position that the R.C. critique of sexuality (and those of other religious groups) should be free from possible prosecution under the legal rubric concerning "hate speech".

It's surprising how much of a non-issue it has become now that it's a done deal. People are catching on that it's only a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the population that's going to make use of gay marriage - civilization isn't coming to an end, and heterosexual concupiscence is doing more to undermine the family unit than the "3% of 3%" that will marry as a result of C-38.

In regards to catholic church stand on homosexuality here is a couple of interesting links (i'm sure you've heard of it but just in case):

A group of 19 Roman Catholic priests from Quebec has published an open letter criticizing the church's stand on homosexuality:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/27/quebec-priests060227.html

Canada's Roman Catholic bishops have come under fire from a majority of the members of the country's religious communities, comprising brothers, nuns and priests in religious orders, for what they call the bishops' blind obedience to directives issued by the Vatican. A letter to the bishops from the Canadian Religious Conference, which represents 213 Catholic religious communities across the country, asks the church to consider offering full communion to "all marginalized persons, divorced and remarried Catholics, and to homosexuals."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=c5ef7e36-53a2-4207-b903-365b0c90d9eb&k=60366

Thanks for the links. Similar public statements by RC clergy have occurred in other countries as well. It's interesting that a divide has opened up between secular priests (priests belonging to a specific diocese and beholden to the local Bishop) and religious priests (members of a religious order or community). I've discussed in other threads how the latter have become quite liberal & progressive over the last few generations, while the former have become more conservative (since they are most closely tied to the hierarchy, and are currently dominated by a fairly conservative clique of Bishops...Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver all being notably conservative Archdiocese). So agree with the "blind obedience" assertion.

...so I agree with the blind obedience assertion, was what I meant to say...

nb,

This one's not over in the US. Harper's me-tooing Dubya in order to promote closer links. Off to Afghanistan we go, drop Hamas like a hot potato despite a legitimate election result, and now reopen a marriage question everybody thought long closed.

Evangelical Christians in the US are going to take a bashing from the liberal electorate, and they're going to feel perfectly justified in bashing back, using Canada as an example. It's the perfect divisive issue to fight an election on, either this year, or over the fallout in two years. Domestic issues and foreign policy issues will all be conflated and reduced to who is more moral and more honourable. Haven't we seen this before?

Harper plans on the same effect - let ordinary people bash the dogmatic church as bigoted and unfair, and go too far, as ordinary people are wont to do. The church will complain about being unfairly treated when all they want to do is preserve their country-club atmosphere where everybody is "just like us, and you can be too if you really try!"

Then Harper will use the reaction to conflate the more important issues of foreign policy with the less important ones of domestic policy, and use it to fight the Liberals in the next election, whenever that may be.

And Rafe is only helping Harper. I'm not sure why, because the EFC sure isn't. It's a dead dog - don't beat it any more.

ed seedhouse...

OK - I should have said to-day's or in recent times...
Present day's understanding or in the last 150 years is, as I stated.

Zalm, I don't think Harper or anyone wants to fight an election on this issue. It will unite all the other parties against him, and play into the popular myth that Harper is a closet ********** with a secret agenda. Harper himself is smarter than that (although I'll grant that others in his party are not).

I think the current House balance on this issue means that the content of bill C-38 will be upheld. I also think Harper knows this, and wants to diffuse the issue for internal party reasons. He wants to demonstrate something to his own party, and put the issue to bed.

That's my reading of it, although it's possible I'm being a little optimistic about Harper personally. Time will tell - I just don't see what it to be gained by keeping this overblown issue hot on the stove.

...they blocked out the word "b-r-o-w-n s-h-i-r-t"

I thought that was an acceptable (if strong) expression in politics denoting a Rightist extremist willing to bypass constitutional norms. Apparently not.

I hear you - I'm just more suspicious of the Christian right and its capacity for martyrdom. Everyone wants to die Jesus' death for some cause or other. That's what makes them so hard to argue with. Y can never tell what the stakes are.

I'm still laughing over "**********". Especially when I had "brown-nose" in mind.

"Actually Fii, though it's good to hear you again, hetero-sexual marriage is doing quite well, at least statistically, despite the doomsayers of sundry predilections and sexual mores." says Coyote.

Check out this link on online infidelity:
http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/story.html?id=e4e7edcb-6dd9-43f6-85df-c8789847a892&k=7389

Haha... perhaps this is why all those marriages appear to be "doing quite well"....