Downsizing Sucks

Friday my company dismissed 25% of our staff. It had to be done, the Canadian pork industry is in dire straits and cost cutting is just reality. Still there's no two ways a about it, downsizing sucks.

This is the first time downsizing has really hit me so close, and it's hard to describe everything that I'm feeling. The closest word has got to be grief. I've lost a lot of good friends who I didn't see this morning. In some cases, I might not see them again. It's going to take a little bit of time to come to terms with that loss.

I think of my friends who did lose their jobs. We were a close group and they've basically lost that entire social network. We'll still get together, but the relationship will have changed because we won't be experiencing the same struggles.

It's also easy to get angry and start second guessing the management. (When will people realize the world will be a better place when I run it? ;) But all that can be done now is to pick up the pieces and move on. In the meantime, downsizing sucks.

Bumper Sticker

I saw a great bumper sticker on the drive home:

If you don't stand behind our troops . . . You're welcome to stand in front of them.

Classic.

Abortion and Breast Cancer

Earlier this month the Kitchener Record did a hit piece on KW Right to Life's recent billboard campaign that highlights the link between abortion and breast cancer. According to the Record article, the Breast Cancer Foundation's position is that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. But according to AbortionBreastCancer.ca:

Since 1957, a total of 70 studies worldwide have been published with specific data on induced abortion and breast cancer. Of these, approximately 80% have provided evidence linking induced abortion to the later development of breast cancer.

I'm not a scientist, and I'm sure there are studies that find contrary conclusions. But I have to ask with such a wide body of evidence that suggests there may be a link. Why don't cancer associations develop a more nuanced position?

Congratulations Ontario!

I've been on vacation in Africa for several weeks, so I only saw the results of Ontario's referendum on changing the system of government. The results were decisive. More than 63% of voters voted to keep the current system of government. In fact there were only 5 out of 107 ridings (districts) in the province that voted to change the system.

The bar was set quite high, so that it was unlikely that the system of government was going to change. However, I'll admit I was fearful that the result would be close and we'd have to listen to academics tell us what a foolish system of government we have until we were forced to accept a less democratic system. Happily, I was wrong, Ontario voted solidly for the current system of government and there's no need to discuss it further.

No to Mixed Member Proportional Representation

Ontario's October 10 referendum is quickly approaching and Ontarians will have to choose whether to keep the current system of representative democracy or move to a new system of mixed member proportional (MMP) representation. As I wrote last January proportional representation is a threat to democracy because it will make some members of parliament accountable to party brass rather than to voters. Please read that post because my views haven't changed: Any system that uses a party list rather than directly electing representatives is less democratic.


That said a good friend of mine who is deeply divided on the issue wrote me recently asking a question that I'll paraphrase somewhat: Given the choice between a proven liar (McGuinty on the Health tax), a spineless red tory, or the quasi-communist NDP wouldn't it be better to vote for the new system and hope that some fringe parties will get a few members of parliament and gain an opportunity to raise their issues? The question specifically mentioned the pro-family Family Coalition Party.


I'll start by saying I may very well vote FCP; I'm thoroughly unimpressed with John Tory and the PC party simply does not deserve my vote. The FCP offers the only coherent pro life and pro family platform so I certainly wish them well.

I also see the attraction of having more voices in parliament. However, I think it's important to recognize that representative democracy is about REPRESENTATIVES! Naturally many of those representatives will have a common approach to issues and they will form voting blocks to advance their goals, political parties are just a formalized extension of this trend. Giving power to political parties rather than directly elected representatives will turn the concept of representative democracy on its head.

The proposed MMP system of government will have other secondary impacts too, such as more minority governments, and quite possibly the development of many more (likely urban and left wing) fringe parties. I view these impacts as mostly negative as well, but, regardless of how you might view these secondary impacts the damage that will be done to our system of government outweighs any potential benefit.

Ontario - Vote to keep the current electoral system!

Exposing a Harsh Chemical

This sounds familiar, but it's worth repeating:

A freshman at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at this year's Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair, April 26. He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to the alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide." And for plenty of good reasons, since it can:

1. cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients

He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide. Forty-three said yes, six were undecided, and only one knew that the chemical was...water.

The title of his prize winning project was, "How Gullible Are We?" The conclusion is obvious.

H/T Agrilaugh

The Globe is Right About Families

I was pleasantly surprised to read the headline editorial, "No Replacing Traditional Families," from the Globe and Mail today:

Not all families are equal for the raising of children. Not every form of diversity deserves celebration. Canada's 2006 census, released yesterday, shows that marriage is in decline, and common-law unions and single parenthood continue to grow. And that is not good for kids. Marriage is still the best framework in which to raise healthy, happy children.

To applaud diversity for diversity's sake is to evade responsibility for the effects of that diversity on children. Common-law unions are more likely to break down than marriages, and the children of single-parent families tend to face disadvantages. "Children growing up in single-parent families are more likely to repeat grades, and to be less healthe than children living in two-parent families," says a Canadian government report on the well-being of the country's children, citing the huge database known as the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. "These children are also less likely to get along well with friends and parents than children living in two-parent families." Problems of hyperactivity, aggression or conduct disorders and other behaviour problems are also higher in single-parent families, the report says. These findings hold true regardless of the income of the single parents.

The editorial board is absolutely right! Could it be a sign of rational thought in the Main Stream Media? I hope so. It's about time that we stop making 'diversity' the primary definition of what it means to be Canadian. It's also time to stop the war against 'the traditional family.' Our society depends on healthy families to create healthly children and healthy citizens. It's time to start supporting them.

He Who Controls the Present . . .

. . . Controls the Past. He who Controls the Past Controls the Future. (George Orwell 1984)

There was an intelligent debate happening at the Globe and Mail. It's a pity they closed comments so quickly. The issue surrounds a decision change the wording of a display at the Canadian War Museum that seemed to paint Canadians as War Criminals:

"The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested: Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations. Although Bomber Command and American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war."

Fortunately we still have primary sources that want to set the record straight. One of them is Art Smith, a former Bomber Command captain and former Conservative MP, who explained: "The words said that we were responsible for 600,000 dead. I took offence that we were just helter-skelter bombers. We always had justified targets."

Many Historians have taken offence that the museum has agreed to change the wording of the display. It's sometimes admirable to defend accounts of history from political lobby groups but in this case the display seems inaccurate. Historian David Bercuson seems to have summed it up best, "I don't see it as giving in. I see it as correcting something that was unfortunately and badly placed in the first place, and I don't see why anyone shouldn't be given leeway to correct errors."

I think the museum has made the right decision; Museums must respond to public input, especially when it comes from people with first hand knowledge. Far too often academics do not recognize their own (usually very left-wing) bias. The museum has not bowed to political pressure simply agreed to make their display more accurate. It's about time.

Winning Iraq

Check out the News from Iraq this week. On Sunday an under dog Iraqi soccer team won the Asia Cup beating Saudi Arabia in the final.

On Monday respected critics of the war from the left leaning Brookings Institute outlined the progress in Iraq this year and argued for a continued American presence in Iraq. It's an important article, if the last link didn't work try here. The article generated some excellent discussion at the National Review.

On Tuesday it was reported that July had the lowest casualty count in Iraq this year!

The good news keeps pouring in, although I read it all online. The radio news still carried the boilerplate a bomb exploded somewhere stories. This should be cause for Americans and all the Western World to be hopeful. Regardless of your opinion on the war success in Iraq is vital to our freedom and the struggle against terrorism.

Catholic Insight Magazine Endorses FCP

A popular Canadian Catholic magazine has endorsed the Family Coalition Party. The FCP has often been considered a fringe party that has had trouble fielding candidates, has never won a seat in the Ontario Legislature, and generally has a percentage of the popular vote that ranks well into the single digits.

In recent elections there's been little reason for anyone except the most passionate family values voters to cast their vote in their direction. Strategic voters may have voted for Mike Harris' Conservative party or for a strong local candidate from another party. The upcoming election is different, no other party holds the slightest promise of advancing family values or offering any protection at all for life or those that are most vulnerable. Father Alphonse de Valk explains:

. . . for the upcoming October 10 election, Catholic Insight sees no choice but to abandon the policy of supporting worthy candidates in all parties. Instead, we will support only the candidates of the small, centrist, pro-people Family Coalition Party. The situation is so bad that it would be inexcusable for us to do otherwise.

As readers know, and as we have explained before, the NDP and the Greens are constitutionally committed to a pro-death, anti-human philosophy. Therefore, they are disqualified from holding office.

The leaders of the Ontario Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties have now also made it impossible for family-minded Canadians to vote for them.

Since 1967, the federal Liberal Party, from Pierre Trudeau (1968-1984) to Paul Martin (2004-2006), mocked human Reason, Tradition and Religion with anti-family policies sanctioning contraception, divorce, pornography and same-sex 'marriage,' matched only by their pro-death abortion and embryonic stem-cell legislation. More recently, its provincial counterpart, ruling in Ontario again under a renegade Catholic, has adopted the same stand.

The Ontario Conservatives, meanwhile, have been in opposition since 2003. They are still dominated by the so-called Red Tories, to the public acclaim of the Ontario media . . . In February 2005, Ontario’s McGuinty Liberals changed some 70 Ontario statutes in three readings, lasting a total of less than three hours, to conform them to the Ontario Court of Appeal command of June 2003 that from then on, the age-old federal definition of marriage would be unconstitutional. The Ontario PC’s co-operated by refusing to even call for a recorded vote.

Clearly the alternatives are grim with John Tory as perhaps the most disappointing leader of all. Next election it's time to support the FCP with votes, money and hard work. The party's not perfect and they've endorsed the dangerous proposals to move to proportional representation, however, it's run by a core of hard working, sensible and moderate volunteers. Now's the time to lend them our support!

Conrad Will Walk

According to Black's lawyers, the Conrad Black trial will end tomorrow. With the jury deadlocked, it seems increasingly likely that Conrad Black will be a free man. This would be a very good thing for the rule of law and the validity of contracts. It's been disgusting how the prosecution relied on a completely dishonest schmuck like David Radler or others who were bought with plea bargains or other side deals with the prosecution. It simply doesn't appear that prosecutors would have had any case whatsoever without their side deals with witnesses. Essentially if Conrad is found guilty traditional burden of proof justice will be replaced by Survivor justice where the defendant is simply voted off the island by ex company employees or directors whose sole motivation is protecting themselves.

Before you mistake this for an informed opinion you should know that I'm certainly not getting 'fair and balanced' coverage. I've been following Mark Steyn's coverage of the trial on Maclean's, but given Mr. Black's one time dominance of the world newspaper industry I doubt there's a single 'unbiased' reporter covering the case.

Shameless

Stephan Dion and Jack Layton are shameless in their attempt to capitalize on the death of six Canadian soldiers. I sincerely hope that they tone down their rhetoric and take the advice of the soldiers' officers:

Senior commanders at CFB Edmonton have called for quiet reflection on the recent deaths of six Canadian soldiers, rather than political debate on the mission. Four of the slain men were based in Edmonton.

"I would encourage all of you that at this point in time, that the focus must be on repatriating these valiant soldiers and ensuring their families hear a clarion call of love and support from Canada," said Col. Jon Vance.

"The families are well aware that there is debate on this mission. Nonetheless, at this particular point in time, the most sensitive and, I think, mature approach, would be to show them ... love and support. These soldiers died in a mission that they believed in, and saw progress occurring."

Brave men and women are fighting to keep Afghanistan free, and by extension to keep the world free. Shame on anyone who would use their death as an opportunity to score political points. Make your arguments - you're entitled to your opinion, but show some common decency.

I Feel All Warm and Fuzzy

There's no shortage of stories that highlight the heroism of our troops. But you just gotta love this one:

A Canadian warship freed a humpback whale that was entangled in fishing gear on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland on Wednesday. HMCS St. John's was on a routine fisheries patrol when it received a radio message from a nearby fishing boat that a whale was in distress.

The 10-metre animal was thrashing on the surface as it tried to free itself from ropes and a large orange buoy snagged in its tail.

. . .

"We were a little concerned about letting the boat get close, let alone letting divers get in."For more than an hour, sailors in one of the boats tried to free the whale by cutting some of the lines that were attached to the buoy and about 20 heavy crab pots below the surface.

The sailors had to keep a safe distance as the humpback dove to the bottom and then surfaced in a futile attempt to get loose of the lines. Santarpia eventually dispatched two navy divers without tanks into the water to try to save the animal before it drowned.

. . .

Once free, the whale swam away slowly as two other humpbacks stayed nearby and a few dolphins looked on.

I'm no environmentalist, but I think this story demonstrates a basic truth that it's in our nature to be good stewards of the environment. Thumbs up to the crew who participated in the mission. Now there's no excuse, even left wingers have to Support Our Troops!

But That's What They're For!

Quebec looks to ban cellphone use by motorists.

h/t Bourque.org

Right Signals on the Day of Action

Julian Fantino is saying the right things in advance of the day of action:

If there is any lawlessness, police are prepared to take a "measured response," he added.

Fantino also responded to statements made by Mohawk protester Shawn Brant, a hard-liner who suggested to The Canadian Press that he and others will be carrying weapons to defend themselves.

"The only lawful authorized force that should carry firearms and use firearms is not Mr. Brant or his followers, it's the law enforcement officers," he said.

"Mr. Brant had better realize that because no matter what he thinks, at the end of the day, there will be consequences and they will be severe. And hopefully they will be those that will deter others like him from this kind of anarchy."

That's right. Natives can protest like anyone else, but this country has laws and they must be enforced.

A Faint Glimmer of Hope for the Anglican Church

Last Sunday's decision by Canadian Anglican Bishop's not to bless gay marriage has narrowly averted a crisis that would have led to the Canadian Church's expulsion from the Anglican Communion, a mass exodus of members and the closure of countless parishes. It is clearly a victory for reason and the church as a whole. It was also a surprise victory given the church's relentless march to irrelevance.

It's a rare moment for Anglicans faithful to scripture such as Anglican Essentials to claim any victory in the battles for theological purity. Instead they focused on the short comings of the synod with these two quotes from the Edmonton Sun:

Cheryl Chang, a spokeswoman for Anglican Essentials, a group lobbying against same sex blessings, said she believes confused and frustrated parishioners will start finding other churches immediately.

"People (will) leave to go to the Catholic Church, the Baptist church, the Pentecostal church. That's going to happen starting next Sunday, or next Monday even," Chang said.

"These are decisions that are very confusing for the church, and ultimately, very divisive."

And

"To do what they've done is to step apart from the worldwide Anglican communion," said The Rev. Canon Charlie Masters, the head of Anglican Essentials.

"This is a very sad day for Anglicans."

Come on guys. What would you have said if the Church had decided to bless same-sex unions? It very nearly did. Instead, you won the key vote. You worked hard for this victory claim it.

What Canon Masters and Mrs Chang are focusing on is a decision by the Synod that blessing same-sex unions “not in conflict with the core doctrine” of the church. OK, it's a set back, but it doesn't have any bearing on the actual practices of the church. Advocates for same sex blessings such as Bishop Michael Ingham will have a hard time continuing to go against the expressed wishes of the Synod.

My bigger concern is with the incoming Primate (head) of the Anglican Church in Canada:

“There is disappointment – a lot of pain. Some people will be saying ‘How long, O Lord, how long?’” said Bishop Fred Hiltz of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, who is the incoming primate or national archbishop. When asked how he might maintain discipline among clergy and bishops who want to move forward, he said, “My sense is that, as painful as these realities are, we do have a responsibility to respect the decisions of General Synod. It’s not the last time this will come up.”

Sir - there should be no more waiting, the Synod has spoken. This is the problem with the Anglican Church, the idea that doctrine and church teaching can change every few years and that liberals in the church believe they can use the same strategy as Quebec separatists, keep on voting until you get the result you want.

For those scriptural christians patient enough to stay in the Anglican Church I say fight the good fight. You still have a long uphill battle, but you won a victory on Sunday, enjoy it.

Support Lebanon

There was good news out of Lebanon today:

The Lebanese army has destroyed all Fatah Islam positions,” [Defence Minister Elias Murr] declared on the private Lebanese Broadcasting Television. “The army is combing the area. This terrorist organization has been uprooted.”

He said “the military operation is over. The Lebanese army has crushed those terrorists.” A few hours before he spoke, sporadic battles could be heard in the camp.

“What is happening now is some cleanup that the army's heroes are carrying out, and dismantling some mines,” he said.

Mr. Murr said the camp would remain “a theatre of operations and under siege until they (remaining fighters) surrender.”

As we learned last summer Islamic Terrorist groups pose a serious threat to the stability of Lebanon and the surrounding area. This six week battle has tested the government's resolve, but it has also made the country and indirectly the rest of the world safer.

I haven't read very much about aid to Lebanon, but I hope that it's flowing freely. Lebanon is a truly remarkable democracy in a crazy region. We need to put as much effort into supporting it as Iran and Syria put into destabilizing it.

Pope Benedict Greets President Bush

Pope Benedict welcomed President Bush to the Vatican on Saturday. By most accounts it seems that the Pope was very effective at bringing his concerns forward about the plight of Christians in Iraq. The president clearly recognized the problem as reported by the Age:

US President George W Bush today sought to reassure Pope Benedict XVI over the plight of war-torn Iraq's minority Christians, while later an otherwise peaceful protest against the US leader's visit turned violent.

The Pope "did express deep concern about the Christians inside Iraq", Bush told a news conference in Rome less than a week after a Chaldean priest and three deacons were murdered.

"I assured him we were working hard to make sure that people lived up to the constitution" calling for religious tolerance and honouring "people from different walks of life", Bush said.

The murders last Sunday in northern Iraq were followed three days later by the kidnapping of another priest and five of his parishioners belonging to the Chaldean Catholic church, an autonomous Eastern rite church with upwards of 700,000 followers.

Bush said of his first audience with the Pontiff who was chosen in April 2005: "I was talking to a very smart, loving man. I was in awe, and it was a moving experience for me."

Seeing the Pope and President together is a very powerful image. And I can't help but be more optimistic about the situation for Iraqi Christians. The meeting also makes it clear that the Pope is very effective at making his concerns known:

Bush was spared the more public rebuke he received three years ago when Pope John Paul II, after receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bush, began a condemnation of the "deplorable" abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

True to his personality and style of governance, Benedict did not use Bush's presence to make public remarks of substance, and instead chose to deliver his message in private. Bush emerged from the Vatican palace seemingly more subdued.

The only drawback of the meeting is the President's failure to observe protocol calling the Pope "sir" rather than "your Holiness." The White House may still have an opportunity to correct the misstep by referring to the Pope with his proper title on when they post a news brief.

Coren and Gifford-Jones Debate Life

There was a revealing debate in the Toronto Sun Thursday aboout the fate of cojoined twins Tatiana and Krista Hogan-Simms. Michael Coren and Dr Kathy Gifford-Jones both answer the question "Do they deserve to be born?" Gifford-Jones says No, arguing the pro-choice?/euthanasia?/eugenics?/death? position that they should never have been born using a basic quality of life argument:

Reports claim that Felicia Hogan-Simms [the mother] was advised by doctors that her pregnancy could be terminated, but she refused. I assume that she considers life of any kind sacred, and abortion never an option.

What a tragic life awaits the twins. For as long as they live they will be unable to care for themselves or lead a normal active life. It's hard to comprehend a parent who would want such a tragic pregnancy to continue. Nature in this case has created a catastrophe. Why compound the mistake by subjecting these twins to this fate?

[...]

Hogan-Simms also believes "the girls were born for a purpose to teach people about tolerance; that it's OK to be different." But the point is, how much different? Unless there's a cataclysmic change in human nature, she has destined her girls to be stared at as a freak of nature as long as they live.

They will never walk, joined at the head in such an abnormal position. Physically they are destined for ill health, lying on their backs forever. They will become obese and develop the myriad of diseases that accompany this problem. Their lives will be a living hell.

[...]

Is there anyone among us who would want to be born this way or willing to trade places with these conjoined twins? Hogan-Simms should not have been allowed to make the ultimate decision. I have in the past always cast a jaundiced eye on committee decisions, but I like to believe in this instance an ethics committee would have seen the logic of terminating this pregnancy.

In summary, Ms. Gifford doesn't believe their lives meet her standards ('their lives will be a living hell'), so they should have been done away with either inutero or shortly after they were born. But her article includes two serious warnings about what can happen when you use a quality of life yardstick.


She says their life is not worth living in part because, "They will become obese and develop the myriad of diseases that accompany this problem." I wonder if my life still qualifies as livable after the few extra pounds I put on over the winter! Quality of life is a very subjective yardstick that can be used to eliminate almost anyone deemed undesirable.


Gifford also said the mother should not have been allowed to make the decision about wether or not to abort her child. I'm going to hope that most 'pro-choice' people will disagree with her position advocating forced abortions. Still her position reveals a lot about the upcoming euthanasia debate, the right to die will quickly become an obligation to die for those deemed unworthy.


Coren argues that the children had a fundamental right to be born because human life is inherently valuable:

And this surely is the point. Objective quality. If we are subjective and make our own value judgments we might as well wipe out all sorts of people. Or we could simply grow up, develop our compassion and intelligence and realize that existence is a sufficient contribution in itself.

There is an absolute that we have to tackle. Life is either sacred or it is not. If it is, preserve it at all costs. If it is not, we might as well destroy it at will. It is terribly expensive to keep the sick alive and wholly impractical to prolong the life of an ill person who will die anyway.

No civilized person or society, however, considers expense and practicality to be more important than goodness and humanity. If it did, it would immediately wipe out, for example, drug addicts, the homeless and people with AIDS.

Tatiana and Krista will be loved and, important this, will love back. They will smile, laugh, cry, be sad and happy, sometimes frightened, sometimes excited. Just be. Which is quite enough. And God forgive anyone who awards themselves the right to decide who may be and who may not.

So that's the debate in a nutshell. One group of people believes life is valued based on society's subjective standards, the other group believes life is valuable because it is sacred and that every human life matters simply by virtue of its existence. Both sides will use the language of compassion, but only the pro-life arguments avoids the danger of letting society make an arbitrary choice about which lives have value and which don't.

Warning: Signs of Conservative Drift

Toronto Star Columnist Chantal Hebert says that Stephen Harper's Conservatives need new ideas. It's a short readable article and by and large she's right. With weak opposition leaders Stephen Harper has a potentially stable government but his last budget was a hodge podge of new spending initiatives without a really coherent theme. Chantal says:

At this point, the government is basically killing time, an exercise it cannot sustain for more than a few weeks, let alone the months or even years between now and an election.

...

Something more substantial is needed to both re-launch the government and give Harper something inspiring to campaign on in the next election.

Behind a business-as-usual facade, a search for new ideas is ongoing. It involves the top strategists of the government as well as the upper levels of the civil service. It will stretch into the summer and could result in the presentation of a throne speech in the fall.

The larger question is whether the Prime Minister should go the route of another set of unconnected but populist nuts-and-bolts initiatives or opt for a grander design.

The former may offer the least risky path to the government, but what if it leads to another dead end? Harper needs a more ambitious agenda for both defensive and
proactive reasons.

Yep. I can't say I often agree with Chantal, but government simply works best when there's an overarching coherent agenda that will make policies fit together. There's an enormous amount of pressure especially on a minority government to focus on uncontroversial policies to stay in power. Stephen Harper must resist this temptation or risk being a mere caretaker of a short lived government. I hope this summer a bold new strategy is developed.

My advice to those developing the strategy: Do not ignore your base, especially social conservatives and democratic conservatives, there's enough support for truly conservative principles to give the Conservatives a healthy majority. Also use your back benches, there's a lot of energy, passion and principle that can drive your agenda forward. An unambitious agenda will suck that energy away from your government and your supporters, myself included.

H/T Unambiguously Ambidextrous

Avoid Depression: Stay Married!

Statistics Canada has once again affirmed the importance of lasting marriages to our society. In its Study on Marital Breakdown and Subsquent Depression Stats Canada found:

• Men aged 20 to 64 who had divorced or separated were 6 times more likely to report an episode of depression than were men who remained married.
• Loss of custody or a change in parental responsibilities is one of the most stressful aspects of post-divorce life for men.
• Women who had undergone a marital break-up were 3.5 times more likely to have had a bout of depression than were their counterparts who were still in a relationship.
• 43% of women who went through a break-up had a substantial drop in their household income.
• Even when taking other related factors into account, the end of a relationship was independently associated with the risk of depression among both sexes.
• The study found that most people who experienced depression in the post-relationship period were no longer depressed four years after the break-up. But for a sizeable minority, depression remained a problem.

The study focussed on married couples, but it would make sense that the same negative factors would be in play with long term unmarried relationships. The only difference is that those unmarried relationships are considerably less stable so the risk of depression is that much greater.

The bottom line is long term stable marriages are good for everyone. If you're married stay that way. If you're a law maker stop messing with marriage it's way too important to our society.