The Shotgun Blog
« CBC Promo Girl doing Liberal attack ad voice-overs? No, she isn't | Main | Stephen Harper: Star Trek Lover »
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Church and State
Socially conservative voters in the B.C. riding of Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam are facing an interesting dilemma in the current election. The question: Should they vote for the Conservative party when they can’t stomach the Conservative candidate? The question arises because incumbent Conservative MP James Moore, an otherwise stellar parliamentarian, notoriously voted in favour of same-sex marriage in the House, and has also subsequently expressed pro-choice-type views. Both these stances came as unpleasant surprises to Moore’s many so-con supporters, who had earlier been led to believe that Moore was just as so-con as his Reform predecessor in the riding, Sharon Hayes. So-cons now must decide whether to hold their nose and vote for Moore, with the hope that his election will lead to the creation of a Conservative government in which the SSM issue will be raised again and in which general pro-family causes are more likely to be advanced, or to vote for independent candidate Greg Watrich, a man who has little chance of winning but is ideologically pure – he’s solidly pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage. It's important to note that, if the Conservatives had allowed nomination contests involving incumbent MPs, Watrich would more than likely have been a strong challenger for the Tory nom in Port Moody-etc. Moore might also be concerned that, last Sunday, at least one Catholic parish in his riding distributed to parishioners a document entitled "A Canadian Catholic Voter’s Guide." The document, which is unsigned but which was produced by the Archdiocese’s Office of Life and Family, says Catholics have "a moral obligation to vote." And when it comes to abortion and same-sex marriage, "we MUST vote for candidates and parties that uphold the right to life for all Canadians…and we MUST vote for candidates and parties who recognize that a family is a ‘man and woman united in marriage, together with their children’ [emphasis added]." Using this criteria, there's only one candidate Catholics "must" vote for, and that's Watrich. It will be interesting to see if they do. *** Coincidentally, in the New Westminster-Coquitlam riding just next door to Moore’s, the wife of incumbent Tory Paul Forseth "has written a note to local churches on Conservative party letterhead asking them to support her husband, who has ‘fought to uphold Christian values in the House of Commons,’" according to today’s Vancouver Sun.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 11, 2006 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834a0055c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Church and State:
Comments
I think that incumbent protection is the most serious mistake that the Conservatives made in their transformation from the Reform Party. It is the only type of "recall" that makes sense.
Posted by: Stewart | 2006-01-11 12:18:36 PM
If the candidate flys against your core values, there should be no debate but then again when the choice is the Liberals, NDP & Green there isn't much left!
Posted by: the bear | 2006-01-11 12:18:44 PM
Why would anyone care if gay people can get married? ITs not a 'gay' rights issue, its a human rights issue - in Canada, separate is not equal - we know this.
My feeling is that same sex marriages are not popular for one reason only - visualizing two males having oral, or anal sex is disgusting. Its a matter of opinion - but fair is fair.
So that you know where I am coming from - I am not gay, I am not bi-sexual and I can admit that, certainly, gay sex acts between males kinda creeps me out - the same way that imagining two fat people having sex creeps me out. It doesn't seem right.
What I have noticed however is the crazy double standard - in almost every porno movie there is at least a scene that has only women in it, or a male and two females (who often are sexually involved with each other). So it seems that while people don't like "gay guys" they have no problem with a couple of hotties pawing at each other.
When someone says "if gays can marry it will ruin marriage" I simply point to the 50% divorce rate - are these people suggesting that it can get worse that HALF of all marriages ending?
What we need to accept is that we are a country of equal rights - we are all the same. I think its really sad that the people of this area of BC would have a hard time recognizing that equal is equal - and racism is racism. Although - these days, not supporting gay marriage is 'country club' racism - but hate is hate.
DMW
Ottawa
Posted by: Dennis of Ontario | 2006-01-11 12:19:43 PM
hey - what about a bumpersticker that says
"I only support same sex marriage if both chicks are hot"
DMW
Posted by: Dennis of Ontario | 2006-01-11 12:25:13 PM
This is my riding.
Please hold your nose and vote for Mr. Moore.
As important as SSM is, there are a lot of other issues that need to be addressed - first and foremost (IMHO) draining the swamp of corruption.
Please don't split the vote in my riding over this.
Posted by: BCDad | 2006-01-11 12:26:32 PM
"When someone says "if gays can marry it will ruin marriage" I simply point to the 50% divorce rate - are these people suggesting that it can get worse that HALF of all marriages ending?"
can you provide the source for this comment? I know that this has become a pop-stat in the US, even though it is incorrect.
"What we need to accept is that we are a country of equal rights - we are all the same. I think its really sad that the people of this area of BC would have a hard time recognizing that equal is equal - and racism is racism."
Why is marriage a right? It is not an individual right (obviously). So is it a collective right?
Personally i think marriage should be removed from gov't control. there is no need to have the gov't sanctioning marriage.
Posted by: stuckInVancouver | 2006-01-11 12:27:34 PM
I can hear the cries of "hold together" echoing from the ramparts all over Moore's riding already. Moore is a dissappointment as an MP and Sharon Hayes must be chagrined every time she hears his name. What an incredible lady and MP she was.
As for the people of Moores riding, they have an opportunity to send a message to Harper, and the Conservatives. Vote for Watrich and let the chips fall where they may. Greg was a loyal member of the Party until Moore pulled a "Joe Peschisolido" and voted against his sworn position on certain issues. I would not have been surprised to have seen him follow Joe into the Liberal pig pen.
Posted by: Servant | 2006-01-11 12:38:22 PM
Marriage is a human right?
So if an ugly guy like me can't find a girl to accept his offer, it's the government's duty to step in a "right" a wrong?
Marriage is a human right ... unbelievable!
Posted by: Mississauga Matt | 2006-01-11 12:49:39 PM
I know James Moore, and he's a highly intelligent man, and honest as well. He has strong, sensible, Conservative values. I wish he was my MP, instead of the NDPer in my riding, whose big priority seems to be the homeless, and who will probably be re-elected. I wish that people would shut the hell up about same sex marriage...just shut up about it...I can't believe that anyone thinks that it harms traditional marriage in any way. And in any case, the issue is settled. It would be tragic if Moore or any Conservative was defeated because social conservatives voted for a fringe moralist candidate.
Posted by: BillBC | 2006-01-11 12:50:43 PM
Chan denies anti-gay stance
Chinese-language newspaper quoted Richmond MP as saying he opposes gays’ right to marry
Peter O’Neil, Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, January 09, 2006
OTTAWA --Multiculturalism Minister Raymond Chan has denied that he advocated using the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Chan’s advocacy of the clause was reported in late April in the World Journal, a daily Chinese-language newspaper published in Vancouver that targets the Taiwanese immigrant community.
The reporter who wrote the story, now being circulated in an English translation, says he stands by its accuracy.
According to the story, Chan said he would advocate using the clause to stop Bill C-38, which passed in the House of Commons in late June.
However, a new statement issued by Liberal party headquarters quotes Chan as saying: “I have never been willing to use the notwithstanding clause to deny same-sex couples the charter right to marry.”
“This has been my position since the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed same-sex marriage as a charter right and reaffirmed the protection of religious freedom in 2004.”
Roy Ruan, the reporter who interviewed Chan and wrote the April story, laughed when Chan’s new statement was read to him.
Ruan noted that the minister was upset at the time about anti-gay-marriage groups attacking him.
Ruan told The Vancouver Sun that Chan, while still refusing in April to say how he’d vote on C-38, said he’d personally “prefer to use the notwithstanding clause.”
Chan, an evangelical Christian, voted for C-38 when it was passed in the House of Commons.
Now he says he was misquoted and insisted that Ruan is incorrect.
“I have always been very clear” that the notwithstanding clause isn’t a preferred option, Chan told The Vancouver Sun Friday.
Neither Ruan nor Chan has a tape recording of the interview.
Chan was quoted in the article as attacking a group called Defend Marriage B.C. for accusing him of being pro-gay-marriage.
Chan was paraphrased saying he hoped to stop the legislation using the section of the Constitution that allows Parliament to override charter rights for up to five years.
The issue is controversial because Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin has frequently accused the Conservatives and leader Stephen Harper of being too eager to trample on individual rights by invoking the notwithstanding clause, which has never been used by a federal government since the charter came into force in 1982.
Chan is seeking re-election in the Richmond riding, where more than 40 per cent of the constituents are ethnic Chinese.
He is running against Darrel Reid, the former president of Focus on the Family (Canada). Chan has attempted to portray Reid as hostile to the charter. >>>
http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-01-11 1:10:16 PM
Mississauga Matt, Suppose that the girl marries you, either voluntarily or with state intervention and then decides to divorce you. The state grants the divorce, which now ends your charter-given right to marriage.
Have they now violated your right to marriage? If the divorce can't be granted because it would violate your right to marriage, would the state now be violating her right of freedom of association?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-01-11 1:11:30 PM
I thought the issue was settled when the framers of the constitution explicitly left out "sexual orientation" as one of the equality rights.
I also thought the issue was settled when provincial parliaments across the land re-affirmed the traditional definition of marriage.
I further thought the issue was settled when the feds, including soon-to-be-departed Paul Martin, re-affirmed the traditional definition of marriage.
Is it too much to ask anyone arguing in favour of SSM at least put forth a decent argument?
Posted by: Mississauga Matt | 2006-01-11 1:14:12 PM
Kathryn,
Sounds like polygamy is the only solution. As long as one lady is stuck with me, everything's good.
How long until polygamy is a human right?
Posted by: Mississauga Matt | 2006-01-11 1:18:13 PM
Eminem wrote:
"How long until polygamy is a human right?"
Dunno about polygamy, but swinging is now pretty darn close.
Posted by: Great Walls of Fire | 2006-01-11 1:32:32 PM
As exciting as the thought of a conservative gov't is, its not worth reducing my own humanity. If I believe there is a right and a wrong, reason and truth, and then vote for a candidate that clearly does not- I am betraying myself. Why vote at all if that is the best I can do? I do not believe any party loyalty or prospect of change is worth it. Canadians can stand to show principles. Even if its too little too late.
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-01-11 1:42:19 PM
This riding will be interesting to watch. Moore has been touted in the media as one of the upcoming, young people in the conservative party.
A couple of things caught my attention.
It seems like the conservatives did not allow for an open nomination meeting prior to this election (it seems that "incumbent protection" is playing here and if so, I think it is a lousy policy). Peace River Riding in Alberta seems to be in the same position. I'm not in either riding but can understand the dilemma - and it is a tough one.
I wonder how many other ridings are in the position where there is an Independent running as well as a Conservative for the same reason.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Moore is fluently bilingual. I have been wondering just how Bill S-3 (amendment to the Official Languages Act) came to gain Royal Assent a few days before the election writ came down. Somewhere Moore must have had to vote on this issue prior to it being given all party support to gain royal assent. So far, Bill S-3 is a totally non-talked about issue - but the campaign is not yet over either.
Perhaps the issue of official bilingualism is not an issue in the N/W Min/Port C riding as are the other two issues.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-01-11 1:44:23 PM
"Greg was a loyal member of the Party until Moore pulled a "Joe Peschisolido" and voted against his sworn position on certain issues."
You guys are hilarious. You go on and on about how MPs should be allowed to "vote their conscience" on ethical/moral issues. I guess you think that only should apply to Liberals - a Conservative votes his conscience and you brand him a Quisling. Hypocrtical much?
Posted by: Amused Observer | 2006-01-11 1:48:29 PM
Incumbent protection doesn't play well with democracy. I think this really is the problem.
If I would be in that riding, I would vote for the independant. I would not want to have a MP in Ottawa who will act against biblical principles on other issues.
I know Sharon Hayes who had to leave because her husband was sick. I pray for her.
Proverbs 13:5
A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-01-11 3:00:13 PM
I say good on Greg Watrich. We need people who will stand up for traditional marriage and the innocent child in the womb. If I was in his constituency I would vote for Greg. I've had it with mealy mouthed politicians.
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-01-11 3:01:41 PM
Actually it was all parties who abandoned the nomination process. All sitting MPs did not have to face a nomination meeting. Only those ridings where the sitting MP was retiring resigning or had died held candidate selection opportunities.
Posted by: Servant | 2006-01-11 3:37:23 PM
Amused Observer is half right when he talks about MP's voting their consciense. The problem with Moore is that he "lied" about his conscience. This is the reason the old Reform Party addage about "polling my constituents" was such a load of crap. Who needs the politician if all he has to do is survey his riding to make decisions. moore was elected because he promised he would represent a certain viewpoint and then after he was elected he changed that viewpoint. Truly he belongs in the Liberal Party. The last independent elceted in Canada held the balance of power and saved the government for six months. I say vote Watrich.
Posted by: Servant | 2006-01-11 3:53:24 PM
Well that does it for me. The Conservative party is scary because it is full of pro-choice candidates and pro-life candidates. Isn't there a candidate who just "doesn't care".
"What we need to accept is that we are a country of equal rights - we are all the same. I think its really sad that the people of this area of BC would have a hard time recognizing that equal is equal - and racism is racism."
What the hell has racism got to do with SSM.
And if SSM was a rights and therefore a charter issue why was it even voted on in the commons.If its in the charter(which it isn't) and therefore a right you can't have a vote on it.
horny Toad
Posted by: Horny Toad | 2006-01-11 6:39:32 PM
While there is a proper autonomy of the political realm from that of the Church, this means that the state cannot interfere, "except when it is a question of public order," with matters such as "the profession of faith, worship, administration of sacraments" (2002 Vatican document on Catholics and political life, 6), matters which are specifically religious. It does not mean it cannot interfere with matters such as stealing, murder of human life at all stages of development, and homosexual "marriage", matters which pertain to the natural law and the common good; on the contrary, the state must combat matters such as stealing, murder, and homosexual "marriage." The natural law is the objective moral law of right reason written on the heart of every human being and rooted in the very nature of the human person, and the state cannot violate it without being invalid. There is no autonomy of politics from morality.
The legalization of same-sex "marriage" in Canada has contravened the natural law, violating the nature of the human person and the common good, and has undermined the natural rights of families and religious communities (cf. Douglas Farrow, "Why and How Canadians Should Refuse to Recognize C-38"). The majority of Catholics have been complacent throughout the redefinition of marriage in this country and have no idea of the implications of this legislation toward undermining their natural rights as parents, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
Posted by: M. Remus | 2006-01-11 6:48:46 PM
I wish I could have the option of voting for an independent like Watrich, or perhaps the CHP:
http://www.chpelection.ca/
http://www.chp.ca/
Posted by: oldright | 2006-01-11 7:35:47 PM
"When someone says "if gays can marry it will ruin marriage" I simply point to the 50% divorce rate - are these people suggesting that it can get worse that HALF of all marriages ending?"
can you provide the source for this comment? I know that this has become a pop-stat in the US, even though it is incorrect."
2003 US stats from Center for Disease Control: 7.5 marriages per 1000 population. 3.8 divorces per 1000 population. A UN report on Trends for Womens Issues in 2001 indicated a Canadian Dviorce rate of 37 / 100 marriages, a US rate of 54 / 100. That wasn't hard to find.
Next:
"Is it too much to ask anyone arguing in favour of SSM at least put forth a decent argument?"
Here's one. Why do you care? How does it affect your life?
Posted by: Axeman | 2006-01-11 8:30:25 PM
Same-sex Marriage: A Conspiracy?
By Stephen Gray
“In preparation for its annual meetings and national consultation, the Court Challenges Program requested submissions for a number of discussion papers, including one on coalition-building, participatory litigation and strategic litigation. …the Program had funded the intervention of EGALE before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Egan v. Canada, the first Charter challenge involving lesbians and gays to reach the Supreme Court….A number of groups spoke highly about the willingness of the Court Challenges Program to recognize the increased costs of working in coalition and approve expenditures beyond the usual maximums”
(http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=40&item=309 ).
Why would the Court Challenges Program, a Liberal government, taxpayer funded organization, solicit “submissions” from Equality for Gay and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE)? Did EGALE have special status with the “Court Challenges Program?”
It would appear by the above quote from EGALE that this program has a penchant for selecting certain approved groups for funding. Could this be why all these nonsensical judicial decisions on “same-sex marriage” were never appealed? Was the fix already in? Was the funding arranged? Were the decisions already decided in advance?
The way this aberration called “same-sex marriage is being imposed on the country raises many questions. In fact, dare one call it a conspiracy? Let us look at the evidence available.
Fact 1: This perversion of words “same-sex marriage” was never in the Charter of Rights
“Sexual orientation /gay rights is not in the Charter. Attempts to place it in the Charter were rejected by those who framed the Charter”
(Ted Morton, Winnipeg Free Press, July 10, 2003).
Fact 2: This phrase called “sexual orientation” was “read in” by a non-elected judge.
Note: “EGALE received funding from the Court Challenges Program to challenge the non-inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act”
(http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=21&item=883).
Fact 3: The words “sexual orientation” have never been defined.
Fact 4: Non-elected judges declared “same-sex marriage” as a “right.”
Some of these judges later partied with homosexual activists.
“JUDGES PARTY WITH HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS
If there is anyone left in Canada who still believes that our judges are fair and impartial on the homosexual issue, they should know about an event that took place during Gay Pride Week in Toronto.
On June 26, 2003, The Ontario Law Society sponsored a panel consisting of the lawyers who had successfully argued for same-sex marriages in the Ontario courts. Attending this panel and the reception afterwards were invited guests including the judges who decided in favour of same-sex marriage and representatives of homosexual advocacy groups, plus organizations offering services for homosexuals/lesbians as well as representatives from all three levels of government. …”
(see the full article at: http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2003_july_aug/article_4.html )
Fact 5: The government could have appealed this judicial nonsense on “same-sex marriage,” but did not do so.
Fact 6: Equality for Gay and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE) the pushers for “same-sex marriage” have received funding from tax payers dollars.
“The Mossop Case: EGALE, in association with other equality-seeking groups, including National Action Committee On the Status of Women (NAC), National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), Canadian Rights and Liberties Federation (CRLF), and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC), has intervened in the MOSSOP case.
…The case is now before the Supreme Court of Canada and is expected to be argued within the next few months. EGALE and its co-intervenors are presently finalizing a written factum. Funding for the appeal is being provided by the Court Challenges Program.”
( http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=21&item=883 )
Fact 7: EGALE also claims support from trade unions and other organizations. Trade unions are funded by compulsion.
“Egale’s Sponsors Egale acknowledges the generous support and grants from the following organizations.
Platinum Sponsors: The Court Challenges Program of Canada, Canadian Heritage—Multiculturalism
“Gold Sponsors: Canada’s Digital Collections, Trillium Foundation, International Business Machines, The United Church of Canada
“Union Sponsors: Canadian Auto Workers Union, BC Teachers' Federation, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Media Guild, Health Sciences Association of BC, SE-UQAM, Public Service Alliance of Canada—Local 00042
“Conference and Gala Sponsors: PFLAG Ottawa, Captial Xtra, Être, ToBe, Bad Boy Club of Montreal, CruiseLine, Status of Women Canada, Canadian Heritage Community Action, Asper Foundation, Chambre de Commerce Gaie du Québec, Bradda Printing Services, Investors Group, National Film Board, John King Realty Private Donors Egale wishes to thank the generous individuals like yourself, across Canada, and around the world, who support equality by donating to Egale Canada and the Egale Canada Human Rights Trust” ( http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&item=113 ).
Note: Some of the groups and unions listed above have also received government grants. The Canadian Media Guild (CMG) listed above as an “Egale sponsor” might be a reason why most of the media seem to be gung-ho also on this claptrap called “same-sex marriage.”
Read the following from The Canadian Media Guild:
“The Canadian Media Guild is a democratic trade union, duly recognized and certified under federal and provincial labour legislation. We currently have nearly six thousand members, all of whom work in the Canadian media. The major employers with whom we have collective agreements are the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada (CBC/SRC), Canadian Press/Broadcast News (CP/BN), Reuters, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and TVOntario (TVO). We also have several hundred members who work at CBC on a freelance basis. …Much of what you see in your daily newspapers, on television, radio or new media sites comes to you thanks to the hard work of CMG members.
“The CMG is one local of The Newspaper Guild Canada (TNG Canada). TNG Canada is in turn affiliated with the Communication Workers of America (CWA), which has a membership of over six hundred thousand workers across North America….
We believe strongly that Canadians will have access to higher-quality information and entertainment if the people creating it have stable and fair employment conditions.”
Yeah sure! We are getting your “higher-quality information” on “same-sex marriage.” Most of you are promoting it.
Fact 8: EGALE appears to have an in with the government.
An editorial in the National Post of March 1, 2000, headlined “An open conspiracy” had a sub - headline saying: “Justice Minister too close with gay lobby on same-sex marriages.”
The editorial further stated, “This open conspiracy involving the courts, the Justice Department and the gay lobby is no figment of conservative paranoia...”
Equality for Gay And Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE) is mentioned in this editorial. And it is stated that the Justice Minister had “already agreed with EGALE to consult them before deciding whether or not to seek leave [to appeal].” This was a court case involving gay rights. The editorial goes on to say, “EGALE simply told the minister what to do, and she did it.” The Justice Minister at that time was Anne McLellan. The editorial concludes by saying about Ms. McLellan: “Her secretive collusion with EGALE - with whom she pretends to have an adversarial relationship in court - raises more than just political questions; it raises questions of ministerial ethics as well.”
One does not have to be a modern day Sherlock Holmes to see that there is something strange going on in the halls of power. Ann McLellan said the following on June 8, 1999, “Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages.”(Hansard June 8, 1999) Now fast forward to today. Ms. McLellan, the deputy Prime Minister, has now made a lie of her original statement and now supports “same-sex marriage.” Oh, what a tangled web politicians weave, when they resort to lies to try to deceive. Which raises the question, if the “government” had no intention of “changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages,” why are they going to do it now? Did they have a timetable planned for this aberration? Were they lying to the people, but intending to legislate “same-sex marriage” at a later date? Did they know the courts would do their dirty work for them?
“The courts have spoken clearly," Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said yesterday. "We are undertaking our responsibility as a Parliament to give expression and protection to minority rights, equality rights, protection against discrimination, all of which are in the Charter."
(Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, quoted in the Globe and Mail Tuesday, Feb 1, 2005 on same-sex marriage)
Ah, the ‘Charter’ according to Cotler. A document imposed on the people of Canada without a vote by ALL the people. Now same-sex marriage is being imposed without a free vote by ALL the members of the Liberal Party or a referendum by ALL of the people of Canada. Now we know what these Liberal hypocrites mean when they talk about the “democratic deficit.” Liberal Justice Minister Cotler is a prime example of democratically challenged Liberals. Using the courts and the Charter as an excuse to impose “same-sex marriage.” This corruption of words was never in the Charter. He is attempting to deceive the Canadian people as are the courts. What we are seeing is an, “… open conspiracy involving the courts, the Justice Department and the gay lobby…” as stated in the National Post editorial. These people need to be held accountable for the lie they are perpetrating upon the people of Canada. Certainly, on the evidence available there could be questions raised about this aberration called “same-sex marriage” and how it is being imposed. In fact, could it be called a political, judicial and ‘gay lobby’ conspiracy?
Stephen Gray
Feb. 11, 2005.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-01-11 8:40:29 PM
Well done SG. Also Remus.
Conspiracy is not a stretch. Marriage is not the only thing on list, nor the first thing. The dissolution of a morals based society, in touch with nature , reason and truth is the goal. How are they doing so far? Abortion lobbies, feminist groups, and gay lobbies often work together . They share a philosophy. Their 'center' is 'me'. Man(sorry-woman)as God, individual desires rule, this life is all we get -so get it. All claims to be concerned for the welfare of others are false propaganda. Of course, many other Canadians also share this philosophy (let's call it secularism) and are only too happy to pat themselves on the back for being 'good citizens' by supporting the destruction of the family- supported also, of course, by tax dollars at every turn. Culture of Life versus Culture of Death.
But lets not dwell on all this nasty stuff when we can have such fun anticipating some fresh air:)
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-01-11 9:40:59 PM
Please see The Journal of Homosexuality, which besides the link below can be accessed through Pubmed.com, the National Libary of Medicine in the United States. (http://www.haworthpress.com/store/Toc_views.asp?sid=5CMMB18SKAA18LQKTCTVUXCR00DQA9CD&TOCName=J082v20n01_TOC&desc=Volume:%2020%20Issue:%201/2). Here you will find more of the agenda.
Posted by: Aemilia Smith | 2006-01-11 10:28:57 PM
"2003 US stats from Center for Disease Control: 7.5 marriages per 1000 population. 3.8 divorces per 1000 population."
Did you actually read what the numbers mean?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf
is a link with the summary data.
it lists the number of NEW marriages granted (licenses etc) for each year (or month) vs. the number of divorces for each year (or month). NOT the total number of marriages in each time period.
for your implication to be valid, that means that the TOTAL number of marriages in the US would have to be 2,187,000 (or 4,374,000 total people married in the US) in order for the divorce rate to be 50%. Of course the census shows that there are ~55 million married couples in the US, so that does not make any sense.
There have also been reports done by the census bureau that look at the number of 'new marriages' vs. the number of first marriages that end in divorce. the rates for that stat reach a max. level of 36% (and that was in the 80's, the rates have been dropping since then).
Posted by: stuckInVancouver | 2006-01-12 11:34:04 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.