# Federal Liberals defeated.



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well folks, they just lost their first vote on a bill in the House of Commons. It was a small defeat and won't actually bring down the government...but it WAS unexpected. And it shook up some of what's left of the once-mighty Liberal Party.

All of this at a time when both a sitting Prime Minister and his recently retired predecessor have had to sit on the witness stand during a Parliamentary Inquiry on massive fraud and theft of Canadian tax dollars. This is the first time in, what, a hundred years or so, that this has happened.

Add that to an already huge stack of scandals and massive boondoggles (the long list runs to several pages) that these crooks have been guilty of over the past decade or so. Not to mention the mess they've made of medicare and the military and the ridiculously expensive and totally inneffective long gun registry. Just to mention a few...

These guys are cooked. Spent. Done. It's only a matter of a few months until we go to the polls again. It could happen even sooner if a really contentious issue comes up for a vote.

They'll lose that vote. Sure as shootin. And then the government will fall.

Prepare yourselves.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I really doubt the Liberals are cooked, but the loss of the bill did remind the Liberals that they have be careful. Outside of that I wouldn't read anything more into what has happened, to do so won't be of too much value since we have no way to tell for certain when the Liberal government will have the country go to the polls.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The next big issue that has any sort of polarisation to it will do the trick, once it comes up for any sort of vote. This was just the opening shot across the bow.

Watch and see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Watch and see.
See Paul run.
Run, Paul, run.
Run, run, run.


If the vote on same sex marriage is not a polarizing debate, I guess that they could reopen an open debate and vote on abortion. The bringing down of the budget should be most interesting.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

The only crook that got cooked was Mulroney. Almost 20 years on his party has not recovered...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't think that the same sex marriage debate or the resulting vote will bring down the shaky minority. Too many conservatives like me who think that no one has any business telling anyone else what to do or who to like. Not enough traction.

It seems like a "hot button" but I doubt that it will be, in the long run. But, who knows? Anything could happen.

The budget might do it. Especially since the deer-caught-in-the-headlights Paul Martin doesn't seem toi be able to say "no" to anyone. This has GOT to be expensive. I'm guessing we'll all find out HOW expensive, in the coming days.

Any way you look at it, this current batch of Liberals is far beyond their "best before" date. And Paul Martin suffers from a serious leadership gap, by all accounts.

It's only a matter of time before the inevitable.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, the Conservative's stance on certain issues may bring back the same fears that caused this party a lack of national representation. I would not count out the Liberals so quickly. Acutally, I hope that the NDP has a resurgance in power and regains their status of our social conscience they once had under Ed Broadbent.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Too many conservatives like me who think that no one has any business telling anyone else what to do or who to like.


Alas, you may be out of touch with reality. I agree that many conservatives concur with your position however, the core of the "new" Conservative party tend toward authoritarianism imported from south of the border via the religious right. This group *strongly* believe that they have moral authority on their side and, as such, have no qualms telling anyone and everyone what they can and cannot do. *That's* precisely why they will not dislodge the Liberals anytime soon.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Precisely daBoss. Harper has put a lot of "faith" in counting on ethnic minorities supporting the anti-same-sex marriage stance his party is proffering. However, those same minorities are not so stupid to recognize that this is akin to a minority rights issue. The adverts targeting ethnic minorities in the big cities are not working and are, in fact, raising more doubts about how much Harper is being influenced by the Religious Right. He needs to shake that perception off if he is to make any headway. The ways things stand, Harper is being labelled as a regressive while the bumbling Martin is seen as progressive. Harper is an effective orator (far more than Martin) yet people do care about what comes out of these guys mouths.

It is utterly remarkable how the dithering Liberals are actually making ground where the Conservatives are losing ground - considering the situation. The reason has to be related to the Conservative platform. It is too rural and regressive.

I don't think anyone can call the result of the next election, but if I were a Conservative, I'd be looking over at the Ontario Conservative Party and wishing John Tory was standing where Stephen Harper is now. He is the wrong man for the wrong time. Indeed, his time was at least 20 years ago.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i wish we could stop calling them conservatives. this the reform party - remember the hostile takeover of the conservative party after peter mackay's betrayal?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

The US is becoming more and more conservative since Clinton left. Its talk radio that is having a big influence down here. Maybe it is spreading north.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

If the NEO-Cons bring down the government they will pay dearly for it as the Canadian public doesn't want another election so close to the last one.

Laterz


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dudireno,

Do you really think talk radio (and FoxNews, et al.) are having an influence or is it that people are not bothering to find the facts and just sucking in this dribble? After the US election, we had an excellent thread on the polarization of the US. Many people pointed out that although there are "red" and "blue" states, the distribution of voters was fairly even (and close). And there seem to be a fair number of left-wing commentators too (Al Franken, Michael Moore). I don't think these people lead public opinion, they follow it and over-simplify it.

We all need to take more personal responsibility to understand the issues. Almost nothing is black and white. Extremism of any kind is bad.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Oh I think radio has played a big role in the political landscape down here. There are tons of right wing tak show hosts with millions of listeners. Fox dominates the networks over CBS ABC NBC and CNN. Michael Moore is considered a hollywood type and loses credibility. Al Franken? Not even close to the influence of Rush Limbaugh. I mean not even close. These guys are not only on the radio but they are on TV and have best selling books. 

I wouldn't call it dribble, over simplified or extreme. They simply have a right wing opinion. They don't deny it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I agree that the right wing has used radio effectively in the US- there was a big splash a while back with Ms Clinton launching a radio counter attack for the Dems. Have not heard much.

What's the phrase ...tell a big enough lie long enough.............

The 4th estate has left the building. 

Oxymoron of the day for the US....Responsible journalism.

Some scary reading here

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/rightwing.htm

a sample



> Robert Parry: Bush and the Rise of 'Managed-Democracy, Consortium News, February 15, 2005
> 
> 
> "When conservatives talk of George W. Bush’s “transformational” role in American politics, they are referring to a fundamental change they seek in the U.S. system of government in which the Republican Party will dominate for years to come and power will not really be up for grabs in general elections.* Under this vision of a “managed-democracy,” elections will still be held but a variety of techniques will ensure that no Democrat has a reasonable chance to win. Most important will be the use of sophisticated propaganda and smear tactics amplified through a vast conservative media infrastructure, aided and abetted by a compliant mainstream press."* (2/15)


sounds accurate from what I can view from here........


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

All of this from the same guys who predicted that Bush would be defeated last november. Hmmmm...

Note here: I was speculating that the current Liberal minority government would fall the next time a major contentious vote hits the house of commons. I stand by that.

What happens next is anyone's guess. (But I certainly don't expect the NDP to come roaring back from oblivion and form the next Canadian Government. Sorry, Dr. G)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"All of this from the same guys who predicted that Bush would be defeated last november. Hmmmm..." Macnutt, this from the person that predicted the Liberals were going to get destroyed in the last Canadian election.

Re your comment about the NDP, I don't think that they will, in the foreseeable future, ever form the government. However, I would love to see them with 50+ seats throughout the country so that they would be able to direct the focus of the minority Liberals (or Conservatives). We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, an astute observation re the possible concerns that the ethnic minorities might have with Harper's stand on same sex marriages and the rights of certain people in our country.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Out of curiosity, have the Conservatives even had a policy convention yet?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Hey MacDoc are you suggesting that the Democrats don't want to do the same thing? 

I can assure you that the media down here is not vastly conservative. The radio is but not the rest. TV, print media, and Hollywood are overwhelmingly left wing. Maybe not to your standards but it is left wing. Like I have said in previous posts I am shocked you guys think our media is too right wing.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Policy Convention - sounds too PC. No chance of that. 

Stephen Harper's policy seems to be to conduct focus groups in rural Alberta and go with the majority. Peter McKay's policy seems to be to get Belinda to flutter her eyelids. Swoon 

P.S. Dudireno, at least in Canada, many of the best seller non-fiction books last year were from Michael Moore, Al Franken, and others critical of the Bush administration. The pro-Bush books were barely noticeable by contrast. I think the same is true of the NYT best seller list for 2004.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

I thought they were defeated because they didn't have enough sitting members.
NOT because of some especially profound reason.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

The Conservatives are meeting next month in Montreal. From what I hear, there is a growing divide between the 'Red Tories' (mostly members of the old Conservative party such as Peter Mackay) and the 'Reformers', old members of the Alliance which include a majority of the 'grass roots' members of the party. My inside source, who falls into the latter group, is very worried that Harper will not be able to hold things together and that the party could split apart at this convention. Same sex marriage and abortion are the touchstone issues that could ignite things. Interesting time ahead by the sound of it.

As an FYI, here's a link to the convention website:
http://www.primestrategies.ca/conservative/


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> P.S. Dudireno, at least in Canada, many of the best seller non-fiction books last year were from Michael Moore, Al Franken, and others critical of the Bush administration. The pro-Bush books were barely noticeable by contrast. I think the same is true of the NYT best seller list for 2004.



I didn't mean to suggest that Conservatives were the only ones selling books. I am suggesting that these radio talk show hosts have a big influence. There is no doubt that Rush Limbaugh will be in the History books and his influence will be discussed. Al Franken on the other hand I doubt will be a blip on the radar in the history books. There is just no doubt that radio has played a huge political role in the US in the last 8-10 years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your *talk radio media* is very right wing - Fox is as well - the rest quite left for the US - middle for Canada. PBS being furthest over and an admirable institution from a Canadian viewpoint.
It was funny watching CNN trying to make nice at the Republican convention. 

We've got our right wing wanks up here as well - just pick up a Toronto Sun.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just saw a short news piece about an NDP MP who is warning Paul Martin that he might just find this wednesday's budget defeated in the House of Commons.

That would, if I'm not mistaken, cause the minority government to fall. Would it not?

Interesting times.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Yes it would. Bet you it doesn't happen. For one, the Conservatives DO NOT want an election now. The PQ and NDP probably wouldn't mind.

FWIW, if the budget is defeated, this country will be a major limbo. It would be irresponsible to cause the government to fall on this issue. Much better to call a vote of no confidence. That way, you don't jeopardize about 50,000 jobs (that are dependent on extension of programs in the Budget).


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> That would, if I'm not mistaken, cause the minority government to fall. Would it not?


Not exactly. It would allow the opposition to put forward a motion of no confidence, though, which could bring down the government.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm no study in parliamentary protocol PosterBoy, but a defeat of the Budget is, I think, equivalent to a vote of no-confidence. This article seems to agree. Perhaps a defeat of the Budget automatically triggers a vote of no confidence? But what if the government won that but failed to approve a Budget?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Near as I can tell from the article I saw...it would be the _NDP_, and not the Conservatives, who would be actively attempting to defeat this upcoming Federal budget. Harper has said nothing publicly about it at all.

The Liberals need every single one of their own party votes, plus ALL of the NDP votes, just to approach a slim majority on a parliamentary vote. And they now have a couple of wild cards to deal with as well.

1)-Chuck Cadman, a BC independant who has always been a Conservative by nature.

2)-Carolyn Parrish, who USED to be a Liberal until she was canned by Paul Martin for her bizarre public outbursts. And who has loudly sworn that she will "get" Paul Martin.

This budget is going to be a roll of the dice for Martin. And it won't take much dissention on ANY side, to bring the whole house of cards crashing down. 

Like I said....interesting times.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

jwoodget, As it was explained to me, a vote of no confidence still has to proceed to after a budget fails, but I could be wrong.

MacNutt, the Conservatives, as pointed out by jwoodget and the article, are not interested in having an election right now (especially because they are <i>finally</i> having their convention in the spring. Plus, right now, if anyone stands to gain from an election, it is the NDP and the Bloc.

The NDP are probably the biggest threat to the Liberals if only because they are worried that the budget might drift too far right for their tastes in the Liberals attempts to please the Conservatives.

Also, I don't recall Parrish ever saying she wanted to "get" Martin. Can you back up that claim?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Considering how terribly close many of the Liberal/Conservative votes were...especially in the crucial southern Ontario region...I suspect that Harper and the Conservatives would be the biggest beneficiaries if the current Liberal minority government were to suddenly fall. Simply by default. 

Also...there's no question that Martin's weak leadership has persuaded rather a lot of fence sitters that he is NOT the guy to vote for, this time around.

And no one anywhere expects the NDP to come surging back from it's long oblivion (except perhaps Dr. G) and the Bloc is not all that popular even in Quebec, when all is said and done. It is unelectable outside of that single Province.

If the Liberals lose and are defeated on a Parliamentary vote...and they most certainly will be, sooner or later...then they will be soundly defeated in the following election. Count on it.

As for that silly root vegetable that so many southern Ontarians voted for...I recall that she was finally dumped from the Liberal caucus for loudly insulting Paul Martin in one of her many public outbursts. She said at that time that he was "going down" or something of that nature during her freaky shriekout before the cameras. I'll try to find a quote for you in the next day or so.

Also...there is some question as to whether a defeat on the budget would actually bring down any sort of majority government. But pretty well everyone I've talked to says it will cause an election with a tiny shaky minority one...like the one we have right now.

It is considered a "vote of non-confidence" I believe. And Paul Martin's Liberals are seriously outnumbered in the House, after all.

Although...here's a thought...if the very powerful Conservatives all voted along with Martin in his hour of need, then he'd have no worries at all. The budget would pass without a blip. And a big chess move would have been made.

Ponder THAT one for a moment.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> Although...here's a thought...if the very powerful Conservatives all voted along with Martin in his hour of need, then he'd have no worries at all. The budget would pass without a blip. And a big chess move would have been made.
> 
> Ponder THAT one for a moment.


Verrrry interesting thought MacNutt!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> Also...there's no question that Martin's weak leadership has persuaded rather a lot of fence sitters that he is NOT the guy to vote for, this time around.


Once again, facts get in the way of MacNutt's theories...



> As Prime Minister Paul Martin prepares to face divisive debate on same-sex marriage and the federal budget, it appears that he and his*governing Liberals are making some headway.
> 
> 
> A new poll by Ipsos-Reid/CTV/The Globe and Mail poll found that 47 per cent of those surveyed believe that the Liberals should return to power. That is an 18-per-cent rise since the June 28 federal election.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Just to be clear:*

But only in Ontario, as usual:

"While voter intentions are essentially unchanged at the national level, modest trends have taken place since October within regions. The Liberals have lost ground in every region except Ontario, while strengthening support in the Greater Toronto Area. The Conservatives have improved their voter support in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, while the NDP have lost ground in eastern Canada but made gains in the west (notably Saskatchewan)."

Source URL: http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=571


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

If they have any sense, the Liberals will orchestrate their own defeat later this year (soon into the Fall session but perhaps sooner) by bringing forward a bill that the Conservatives and Bloc cannot support but which is highly popular with the electorate. They would then have both the inertia, the timing and the support to win a majority.

The latest polls suggest the Liberals have picked up support (not just in Ontario!!!) and are in tune with the electorate on many of the most important issues (clearly not all). "An Ipsos-Reid poll shows that 47 per cent of Canadians think the Prime Minister and his Liberals deserve to be re-elected. This represents a jump of 18 points since the question was asked during last spring's federal election campaign, which saw the Liberals reduced to minority status."

The next election will be theirs to lose. If the Liberals are re-elected, expect to see Harper kicked out and a more moderate Conservative Party. This would be very good for the country and would likely lead to the demise of the Liberal "monarchy". The problem right now is that Harper is seen as a George W. Bush wannabe and Ontario and Quebec would rather stomach a ditherer than a idealogue.

Macnutt: the Conservatives cannot afford to block this budget. It would be suicide and everyone knows it. Some chess move....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One of Martin's election platforms was to end western alienation. He is failing miserably in that regard with trying to redefine marriage. Support here is less than 20% in favour.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

After a budget is defeated the government has several options.

The first is to accept it as a vote of non-confidence and ask the Governor General to call an election or offer the opposition the opportunity to govern.

The second is to introduce a motion of confidence, saying in essence that the defeat of the budget was not intended as a vote of non-confidence in the government. 

Pearson used this tactic after a defeat and won when the Creditiste MPs in Que. who voted against the budget then voted in support of the government. It was an option open to Clark that he did not take, earning him and his government double damnation -- once for not being able to count, and again for not using the option that might have kept the Conservatives in power.

It should be noted that many of the "rules" about our governing structure are not written down and consequently these unwritten conventions are constantly changing based upon whether Parliament, the courts and the public are willing to accept them.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Also...there is some question as to whether a defeat on the budget would actually bring down any sort of majority government. But pretty well everyone I've talked to says it will cause an election with a tiny shaky minority one...like the one we have right now.


A budget, whether in a majority government or minority, is always a confidence vote. It must be said though, that it doesn't necessarily mean we would head to the polls if a minority government fell on a budget. The Governor General could, in theory, reject a Prime Minister's request to dissolve parliament and request that the reins of power be passed to the official opposition or any other party that could gain the confidence of the House of Commons. See the King-Byng crisis for further details. In practise, the Governor General heeds the advice of the Prime Minister thereby reconfirming the supremacy of Parliament and the separation of the monarchy from the government.



MacNutt said:


> Although...here's a thought...if the very powerful Conservatives ...


The very powerful Conservatives? I think not. They are a divided caucus, a marriage of convenience between the moral conservative-God-is-on-our-side malcontents and the red Tories. The party will not last in it's current form. I predict that by 2015 (at the outside), the Reform/Alliance group will break away again and occupy the right wing flank, much like the NDP occupies the left. It gives voice to a certain constituency within Canada but certainly never enough to govern. The (Progressive) Conservatives will once again battle the middle ground with the Liberals and the NDP will continue to occupy the left wing flank. The Parliament of Canada will become more fluid in terms of shifting alliances and debate. We may even see some form of coalition governments from time to time, hopefully not as unstable as the Italian parliament.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I agree he is failing on the point of Western alienation from Alberta's perspective, but what is a guy to do when your province is so out of step with the rest of this nation (I'm assuming the 20% figure reflects Alberta and not BC or Saskatchewan which seem to be quite a lot more in favour of same-sex marriage). And Martin's point is that this is an issue of denial of rights. Supposedly, even if 90% of the nation was against this, he would still support it because not doing do would reverse rights already enjoyed by homosexual couples in 5 provinces (and would require execution of the Notwithstanding Clause). Despite his undeniable dithering, I actually think he would defend minority rights even if it meant certain electoral defeat.

Alberta is clearly more distinct from the rest of the country on this topic. Does this correlate with the rural/urban mix, the % of regular church-goers in Alberta? I don't know. I'd have thought Ontario has similar ratios and, here, the support is around 50% (and rising). Ditto for Quebec.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Alberta is clearly more distinct from the rest of the country on this topic. Does this correlate with the rural/urban mix, the % of regular church-goers in Alberta? I don't know.


I think it has more to do with the religion of disagreeing with Ottawa than any other religion. Most people I know have no problem with same-sex marriage. It doesn't affect them and they agree that it's a rights issue. 

I might as well ask some of my favourite questions again. How long does something have to be around for it to become a tradition? When is change good? Who's definition of traditional prevails? How does it affect you?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

daBoss said:


> I might as well ask some of my favourite questions again. How long does something have to be around for it to become a tradition? When is change good? Who's definition of traditional prevails? How does it affect you?



Rick Mercer's Monday Night Report had a skit on "traditions" that we no longer adhere to. You know...the proper place of women in the home...single parenthood...mixed-race couples...you get the picture.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

daBoss said:


> I might as well ask some of my favourite questions again. How long does something have to be around for it to become a tradition? When is change good? Who's definition of traditional prevails? How does it affect you?


Since the beginning of history.

Sometimes never.

Unfortunately the majority country by country, and we will be in the minority world wide if this bill passes.

It sullies the vows I made based on one man one woman forming a marriage.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

SINC, if you defined your vow of marriage in those terms when you were married, then nothing that happens today can undo them.

You cannot deny that the practical definition of marriage is different for different people. While the marriage vow commits a couple to stay together through good times and bad, unto death do they part, some see it as a temporary measure, as an arrangement, some divorce (repeatedly), others have affairs, others batter their spouses, yet others respect the sanctity of love. Marriage is not weakened or sullied by embracing human love between two people - it is strengthened.

The abolition of slavery took one country to make a stand against the majority. As did the right for women to vote. That the majority of the world doesn't recognize same-sex marriage is not a reason to deny this right to our citizens.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

SINC said:


> Since the beginning of history.
> 
> Sometimes never.
> 
> ...


When did history begin?

Change is the constant we've all had to deal with "ince the beginning of history." It's what drives us to grow, develop, design, migrate, evolve et cetera. Some people adapt to change better than others.

So you're showing your authoritarian or anti-democratic side of your personality.

How does it sully your vows? Are your vows sullied any more or any less when the likes of Britney Spears gets married? Isn't that a mockery of the "institution"?

Another question: How long has marriage been religious?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

JWodgett....

Please re-read my posts on this thread. At NO point have I said that the Conservatives are planning to block this budget. It was an NDP MP who said, in a news article on TV, that Paul Martin's wednesday budget might not pass. The NDP, if you'll recall, are the natural allies of the Liberals and they cannoy govern without the NDP votes. 

In fact, I think that the Conservatives might just vote WITH Martin on this next budget. Again...please re-read and confirm for yourself.

Also...by "powerful Conservative party"...I was referring to the large number of votes they could bring to the table. Not the current or percieved status of the party itself.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I said: "Macnutt: the Conservatives cannot afford to block this budget. It would be suicide and everyone knows it. Some chess move...."

This was in response to your comment: "Although...here's a thought...if the very powerful Conservatives all voted along with Martin in his hour of need, then he'd have no worries at all. The budget would pass without a blip. And a big chess move would have been made."

In other words, the "tactic" of voting with the government is hardly a chess move since it would not be in the interests of the Conservatives to not do so. Hope that is clear....

The Conservatives are also no more powerful than the Bloc or NDP when it comes to being capable of providing enough votes to tip the balance for the Liberals. They have more seats than the others (combined) but each has enough to give the Liberals a needed majority (assuming a bloc vote).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Following your line of reasoning then...

Would it be "suicide" for the NDP to block the budget by attempting to defeat it? They are, after all, the ones who seem to be indicating that they may do this on wednesday.

And, if so...then where would that leave the shaky alliance that currently exists between Martin and Layton? You know, the one that actually allows Paul Martin's Liberals to govern this country?

Interested in your thoughts on this. As always.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Just found some references to these "traditional" rules/forms of marriage. Opinions please.

In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your father drunk and have sex with him. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female.
*Gen 19:31-36
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.* 

Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives.
*II Sam 5:13
13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.
II Chron 11:21
21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)* 

A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. 
*Deut 22:13-21
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.* 

If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
*Gen. 38:6-10
6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.* 

*Deut 25:5-10
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 
6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.*


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Following your line of reasoning then...
> 
> Would it be "suicide" for the NDP to block the budget by attempting to defeat it? They are, after all, the ones who seem to be indicating that they may do this on wednesday.
> 
> ...


Actually, I find the dynamics and the mathematics of the current house very interesting. It's so different from other minority governments and tests the political wills of all parties. Predictable, it is not. Interesting, it is.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The NDP cannot commit suicide since they can hardly do worse than the position they are currently in (unlike the Conservatives who could lose a lot of seats). Martin has a shakey alliance with all of the parties - that's the way they try to influence decisions in parliament. They'd be irresponsible not to. If the NDP voted against the Budget, it will have no effect except to demonstrate their opposition to the fact that the Liberals have put tax cuts ahead of daycare or whatever. They wil play to their potential voters but will not bring the government down. The only way the Liberals can be defeated is by all of the opposition parties voting against the Budget.

As I said before, the most likely scenario is that the Liberals will engineer their own dissolution of parliament at a time that best suits them - and they'll pin it on the Conservatives.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Probably right.

But it IS an interesting time, eh?

And the Liberals don't seem to be actually in control of very much these days. I wonder if they will be able to choose the day and date of their own departure? Or will it be something that surprises everyone?

Stay tuned.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Just found some references to these "traditional" rules/forms of marriage. Opinions please.


Those appear to be only religious traditions, but I don't see a same sex couple among 'em.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm thinking we have two rather different threads going here right now. Anyone care to split them up?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> But it IS an interesting time, eh?
> 
> And the Liberals don't seem to be actually in control of very much these days. I wonder if they will be able to choose the day and date of their own departure? Or will it be something that surprises everyone?


Yup.... It's easy to underestimate the Liberals. They may be lacking in government but they have remarkable skills in retaining governance. It wouldn't surprise me if they had somehow engineered Stephen Harper's election as leader of the Conservatives.....


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> I'm thinking we have two rather different threads going here right now. Anyone care to split them up?


Perhaps but the issues are inextricably bound.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> I don't see a same sex couple among 'em.


You did see the incest, though, right?

Out of curiosity SINC, how exactly would allowing same sex couples to be married sully your existing vows?


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

SINC said:


> Those appear to be only religious traditions, but I don't see a same sex couple among 'em.


The point being that most opponents of same-sex marriage base their views upon religion. In response to my question _How long does something have to be around for it to become a tradition?_ you answered _Since the beginning of history._ I was simply pointing out some "traditional" rules of marriage culled from the Judeo-Christian reference that is the primary source used by many of the opponents of same-sex marriage. I was taught that the bible was written after the 'beginning of history".

It is not an issue of defending a traditional definition of a word, after all, word meanings change and evolve over time. It IS a rights issue. No different from the right of women to vote, the right to marry inter-racially, the right not to be held in slavery et cetera.

By the way MacNutt, I am not attempting to hijack this thread, simply responding to the likes of SINC.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Boy, this "Minority Government will Fall" stuff is all over the TV news tonight. Practically every Canadian political pudit is weighing in on this subject. Loudly and profusely.

While I don't actually think that the Martin Liberals will get turfed when they attempt to table this budget on wednesday...I DO think it will be an interesting day.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

PosterBoy said:


> Out of curiosity SINC, how exactly would allowing same sex couples to be married sully your existing vows?


I took my vows based on the sanctity of a one man one woman relationship. Two men or two women sully that sanctity. Homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist, namely the union of a man and a woman.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

See, when I finally get married it'll be based on the sanctity of my love for the person I marry. I guess that makes all the difference, doesn't it?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

For me, the whole anti-same-sex marriage argument breaks down when you finally get to the bottom of why people are against it. The argument is that love is apparently less important than a selective (and by no means only) "traditional" definition of marriage being between a guy and a gal.

This is why same-sex marriage will be approved at some point in time (the sooner the better).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Strange, but if we use the "traditional" definition of marriage, when and how did these traditions start? As well, mating has been going on for far longer than these "traditional" and "sanctified" marriages. I am with Jim in seeing that love and a real committment of togetherness is crucial in a marriage, not a piece of paper to say that it is sanctified. Still, I favor extending this "piece of paper" recognition to all persons, regardless of their gender. To lessen their rights lessens the rights of ALL of us. Paix.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think it's none of anyone elses business who likes whom or who chooses to marry whom. Simple as that.

But I expect that "same-sex" divorces will be on the rise if this trend continues.   

A lawyer friend of mine is dreading this, BTW.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> A lawyer friend of mine is dreading this (same-sex divorce)


Why? It's more business for her/him and it's one of the areas few people are talking about throughout this debate.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm gonna catch hell for this...but I will share with you what this highly experienced divorce lawyer actually told me, on the subject of same-sex divorce:

"I am used to dealing with one "bitch" in the trial process. I am not looking forward to a messy divorce proceeding with TWO bitches!"

He's thinking about becoming a dog catcher. Or a toxic waste cleanup worker. Just because it might be an easier and more rewarding profession.

At least that's what he told me.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

You guys seem to be in agreement that love is the only criteria for people getting married. That being said, would I assume you'd have no problem with a guy marrying his mother when dad dies? After-all he loves her dearly. She could use his family drug plan from work and he'd have the benefit of avoiding that nasty inheritance tax when mom dies too. What about two widowed sisters or friends that live together, why couldn't they get a marriage license and enjoy the benefits alloted to married couples (spousal benefits, tax breaks etc.) They love each other so why not? After-all, the new definition of marriage will have nothing to do with sexual differentiation and complementarity so these people fit the new definition just fine. They love each other. In fact some opposite sex unions could fit the current definition. They won't be producing any children but neither will Bob and Fred or Mary and Jane. If they want one they can follow their gay friends to the adoption agency and pick one.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacGuiver, no one is proposing to change the prohibitions on close relative marriages for the simple reason that such relationships are genetically disastrous (nevermind the ethical and moral issues). Allowing same-sex couples to marry, does not change this prohibition one iota. Brothers cannot marry each other. Mother and daughter cannot marry, etc. Like the polygamy issue, this is a non-starter. The only issue is allowing same-sex couples to marry - all other restrictions apply. 

Where are these ridiculous arguments coming from? The pulpit?

BTW, MacNutt, your post strikes a new low (so what's new?). Your "friend" clearly needs a new job - scaping out pig troughs.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Anyone else catch Rick Mercer's Monday Night Report when they did a skit on same-sex marriage in Denmark? "Come for the scenery...stay for the moral chaos".


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Most religions had a laissez-faire attitude towards marriage until the 16th century. The Council of Trent declared in 1563 that all Catholics must be married by a priest in a cathedral with two witnesses. By the 18th century all european religions had followed suit.

The concept of marriage has changed dramatically through the ages. People claiming that marriage has been a religious institution from time immemorial are either misled or are trying to rewrite history.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

UTBJWG
The only requirement you gay marriage supporters seem to state is that two people love each other. You failed to mention the intercourse requirement. I was in no way suggesting these unions were sexual at all. They simply met your stringent requirements for marriage, two people loving each other.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Love is important but not the only criterion - obviously. There are good biological reasons for prohibiting inter-family relationships and no one is stating that these barriers should be relieved. Indeed, while about 50% of Canadians do not oppose same sex marriage at present, I'd bet 99.99% would oppose inter-family marriages. That wound undermine the "sacred family unit".

What "we gay marriage supporters" are stating is that it is inequitable to deny same sex couples the right to marry. The courts in 5 provinces agree its against the charter of rights.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You might find some dissention in the ranks when it comes to opposing inter-familial marital relations...especially in the more distant Newfoundland outports. A surprising number of my Newf buddies have told me that their parents were first cousins or better...and that they had to get special permission from the local preist to get married. I'm being serious here.


----------

