Ok, now I'm cheesed off. The red tories think they can muddy the waters and do away with the Conservative commitment to hold a vote on restoring traditional marriage.
This issue has been fraught with government betrayals. Stephen Harper don't disappoint us with another one. Standing up for the traditional definition of marriage was supported by the over 75% of conservative party delegates at the last party policy convention. Holding the vote was Stephen Harper's first promise in the last election.
The Liberal government betrayed Canadians when it passed a motion stating clearly in June 1999 that, "Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this {traditional} definition of marriage in Canada." But it was just a facade. Subsequently the Liberal government voted to redefine marriage in a vote where many Liberal cabinet ministers were forced to vote against their consciences. I believe that when Canadians voted for change, it included voting to allow an honest debate on this issue.
Now the Conservatives are shying away from this. The Globe and Mail article above states, "Perhaps one cabinet minister, speaking on condition of anonymity, summed it up best: “I wish it would just go away.”"
A cabinet minister was speaking on the condition of anonymity. Give me a break. You're in cabinet, not some obscure bureaucrat. Grow a backbone. You're in a position of leadership, if you're not willing to state your views clearly in public, you shouldn't be in public office at all let alone one of the key decision makers. Shame on you.
Regardless, the issue will not just go away. When new laws are forced on people in an undemocratic manner, people will continue to fight those laws - look at the pro-life movement. The only way to make any issue go away is to deal with it.
Maybe holding a vote right away isn't the best direction. To have an informed debate, parliament should begin a round of consultations with the public, and perhaps commission a study on the benefits of heterosexual marriage to society and the benefits of other legal contracts. The process may take a little bit longer, but at least it will allow for the debate that Stephen Harper promised Canadians.
4 comments:
I totally concur with your statement, Mr. O'Neil. You don't undo 6,000 years of human history because it means a tourist boon to your eastern cities. Unfortunately one government parades after another and for the moment business considerations take precedence over moral matters. I believe in divine wrath in human conscience and in the physical universe. For instance, when PM Harper announced the child care deal was to be abandoned as signed by all parties in previous minority gov't, an earthquake occurred on parliament hill and beyond, I believe the magnitude was 4.7, no damage but certainly a warning.
That is why we need proportional representation. I do not believe for an instant that only 51 percent of the population disapproves gay marriage. We are undoing 6000 years of human history to secure business interests. May Almighty God have mercy on us all if we cannot achieve reversing this situation.
Canada remains one of the few geographical regions on planet untouched by disaster of biblical proportion. How long this can be sustained is another question given the inability to advise on the moral decrepitude continuing unchecked.
Thank you for speaking up in this matter to affect generations to come.
First, Thanks for your comment.
Second, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on my post on proportional representation. I don't see PR as any kind of solution, but I'm interested in a good debate.
Third, How do you reconcile your views on divine wrath with the many historical and biblical examples of divine grace? Most notably on the cross? If we would have all got what we deserve, there wouldn't be one man standing.
Mr. O'Neil: I do agree that He is slow to anger as scripture states. His Mercy is forever -- and not one man standing seems to be the order of the day. As in the days of Noah...
Yes, proportional representation, however I can't find your post on this. What I was referring to is the fact that if rural representation comes into play, I believe there would be a more representative assessment on majority opinion/vote on reversing gay marriage legislation.
There are no doubt powerful interests determined to keep it in place for business reasons. Fact is, the issue is already affecting our teenagers as there are reports of gender confusion whereby teenagers are deciding in droves that it's perfectly 'normal' to entertain dual sexual experiences, et.al. This is reprehensible in terms of the continuing damage. THe line has been crossed. How do we reverse? Free vote on floor last best hope. It's gone down in the U.S. I find myself focusing on the next generation and fastening myself to faith in Jesus Christ Our Lord.
I marvel at Pope Benedict's intellect and went through article on his view of Islam. Yes, the cultural sharing is open to humanity, yet Islam's highest regards for Jesus as a man is one point of agreement.
Enjoy your sight very much. Thank you.
Thanks again, I'm glad you enjoy reading. It really is disturbing what our society and increasingly our education system is promoting.
I'm interested in your thoughts on Proportional Representation, so see if this link works: A Threat to Democracy.
If not, just type http://patrickoneil.blogspot.com/2006/01/threat-to-democracy.html into your browser's address bar.
Post a Comment