[lizard]

Posted by Gibble:
I don't know what it's like where you are, but the only way I know what my rep's policies/stances are, is by looking at the party they are a member of.

I was still commenting about the article...
I think these reps. should resign from the party If they find that the favour of their constituents is at odds with the party.

But since you asked.. what it's like where I am, it's like this...I think you missed it...
__________________
At one time, a separatist government (the 'Parti Quebecois') was elected here in Quebec. Their electoral platform was based on separation from Canada. The 'Parti Quebecois' believed that the general population of Quebec, being a large majority French-speaking, was a 'distinct society' in it's own right. Once elected, they held votes (referendums, three in total, I think, might be two) to ask the population if they wanted to separate from Canada. The condition to hold a referendum was, I believe, put upon them by the Federal Government. Each time they held a referendum vote, the answer was 'NO'.

You see, although the people voted for a separatist government, they didn't want to separate.

IMHO, electoral results in no way measure the opinion of a population on all issues. I think most people are just voting for general government. The ballots we cast in an election only address one issue. We don't have multiple questionnaires. (well, in Quebec, anyway).

I believe the issue of same-sex marriages is where it is today in Canada because it has passed through most of the provincial court systems. At this point, I don't believe that our honourable elected officials have done anything other than posture and debate, and it seems it is politically correct to just say yes, anyway.
__________________

In the election that got them into power, there were basically two parties to vote for. The 'Liberal Party' or the 'Parti Quebecois'. The 'Conservative Party' was present but was not an option for most people. The Liberal party was looked upon as the Federal representative and the Parti Quebecois was looked upon as the rep. for the majority of the French people in Quebec.

So, at that vote, the issue was separation, not all the other policies that the parties supported.

But, as it turned out, it seems the population actually liked the other polices of the Parti Quebecois more than their policy of separation!

We sure don't have a different Political Party with each difference in policy.
Sometimes, you might not have such a big choice. Especially here.

_

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by alex_holker

I probably should have described it as the positive and negative externalities. Say you are building a factory, and you ignore the externalities. That effectively means you don't worry about any pollution, the costs of cleaning it up, or the material and energy usage of the process, just the costs to you and the company.

Alex

Well?... "externalities" have a very specific meaning in Economics, and that's not quite it, but I DO understand your meaning. And you are describing more of the "dynamics" of the situation, which the "free market" does not ignore, but they have a "different value" in the PRESENT MOMENT, when trades are made,... that same free market which "valued" building that plant in the first place, KNOWING that it would have polution and such down the road, values it ENOUGH to build it anyway, and, this is going to sound odd, that IS "economically efficient", because of the meaning of "relative values", and "free market" determination of them,... However, that SAME market (community) which first built that factory, will experience a change in values over time and eventually CLOSE IT, then REMOVE IT! And that is "economically efficient" too.

I'm not saying your wrong Alex, not at all. In fact, you're very correct and entirely rational. I'm just saying that my meaning was very specific, and it includes both instances really. It's a subtle thing, and I don't wanna talk your head off tonight with it (I've got a plane to catch anyway).

It's the old problem of being an economist,... they are usually "EXACTLY right", and it typically, "DOESN'T HELP at all!..."

You're not wrong. We're just not exactly talking about the same things. But I'll have a closer look at it again later, to see if perhaps I have not presented it wrongly myself!!? (I don't think so? But it's not impossible!)

Have a GREAT Holiday guy! Thanks for the GREAT discussion, as always.

All my best,
J

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

I've never said I "liked it" either,... (I guess I really don't care about it in that way?)

But I DON'T like knowing that my own Freedom and Equality is dimished by restricting it in this way!

And I'm pretty sure, from your own arguments even, that the "moral question" of the issue, is not for me, or you, to answer, it is up to those individuals involved in that decision. Same for an inter-racial marriage. Same for DIVORCE!... (I'm listing things in reverse order of their stigmatisms in recent history,... I'm NOT arguing how moral they are or not,... I'm just trying to show how THIS issue has the SAME arguments, and can easily have the SAME solution,... let individuals answer for the morality of their OWN lives, THEMSELVES, when it comes to such issues as these.)

EDIT: And that's a MAJOR BUMMER about the scouts man!... Wow, sorry to hear that one. Man oh man am I sorry to hear that,... I LOVED being in Scouting!!! Girls would have changed it a BUNCH!

But, as I said earlier, no one said it would be easy, and mistakes will be made in a democratic-republic, free, open, and equitable society. And I think that judge DID make a mistake. (If they had Girl Scouts too,... )

I don't know the particulars, but it just sounds like pretty sad news to me.

Yeah I C what you are saying let another person decide on the Morals that they have. I just find the Government has to make that Decision now. Anways about the Scouts it changes everything now. We were just starting to have Girls into Ventures at the time of course that is when you take a MAJOR interest in Girls so NO ISSUES were there LOL

Tim

[Tipacanoe]

Dec. 31, 2004. 10:03 AM

Martha McCarthy led same-sex battle


Martha McCarthy: For changing the face of Canada.

This 39-year-old Toronto lawyer has played a leading role in helping gays and lesbians win the right to marry in Canada.

McCarthy has represented gay couples who successfully challenged the traditional definition of marriage in courts in Ontario, Quebec and the Yukon.

And this fall, in the culmination of years of work for gay and lesbian clients, she made the case once again before the Supreme Court of Canada in a reference hearing that is now paving the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

McCarthy scored her first major win on the issue in 2003 when she helped convince an Ontario court that the opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the Charter of Rights. That precedent-setting ruling allowed same-sex couples to walk down the aisle immediately.

But it was not her first ground-breaking case. McCarthy, who has a husband and three children, was a rookie family lawyer in the early 1990s when a woman walked into her office and "changed the course of Canadian legal history." The case, known as M. v. H., went to the Supreme Court and forced governments to amend many laws to recognize same-sex couples.

In January, Ottawa will table a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, making Canada one of a handful of nations to let gays and lesbians wed.

Clearly, gay marriage is controversial. Many Canadians still oppose the idea. But when historians look back at 2004, they will view same-sex marriage as a legal and social shift that forever changed this country.

Thus, for her continuing work on this landmark issue, Martha McCarthy deserves the Laurel of the Year.

[LittleNipper]

Clearly Canada is well on the way of being a Humanistic Secular Socialist State.

[dugq]

Really? I'll start packing my bags

[angelize56]

I think the worse part of this is putting the two little boys through such an ordeal!

Parents Angry That Children Of Gay Couple Admitted To School
Superintendent Says If Boys Barred, Other Students Would Be Too

POSTED: 7:44 am EST January 3, 2005

COSTA MESA, Calif. -- Some parents and parishioners have accused the Roman Catholic diocese in Orange County of violating church doctrine by allowing a gay couple to enroll their children in a church school.

The group demanded that St. John the Baptist School in Costa Mesa accept only families that pledge to abide by Catholic teachings, the Los Angeles Times reported in Sunday's editions. Church doctrine opposes gay relationships and adoption by same-sex couples.

"The teachings of the church seem to have been abandoned," John R. Nixon told the Times. "We send our children to a Catholic school because we expect and demand that the teachings of our church will be adhered to."

School officials rejected the demand, and issued a new policy stating that a family's background "does not constitute an absolute obstacle to enrollment in the school."

The parents' demand would presumably prevent two adopted boys whose parents are both men from attending the school's kindergarten.

The Rev. Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of diocese schools, said that if Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to, then children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church would also have to be banned.

"This is the quagmire that the parents' position represents," he said. "It's a slippery slope to go down."

The boys' parents, who enrolled their children at the beginning of the school year, declined to comment to the Times. Some parents have promised to ask the Vatican to intervene and some have threatened to pull their children from the school. Others are worried the boys' attendance will set a precedent, saying their presence is part of a larger effort by the gay community to change the church.

"The boys are being used as pawns by these men to further their agenda," said Monica Sii, who has four children at the school.

Some parents backed the school's position, according to the Monterey Herald.

''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,'' said Katie Flores, whose daughter is a classmate of the boys.

The Herald reported that the group of parents planned to continue pressing their demands.

''We're taking a stand for the faith,'' said parent Ken Stashik. ''This is much larger than what's going on in a small Catholic school in a small town.''

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Clearly Canada is well on the way of being a Humanistic Secular Socialist State.

fearmongering

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by dugq

Really? I'll start packing my bags

Please do.

[dugq]

Oh, be nice

[Deathblow]

Your right, that was uncalled for. Your already across the sea in the UK, don't need you getting any closer.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by angelize56

I think the worse part of this is putting the two little boys through such an ordeal!

Parents Angry That Children Of Gay Couple Admitted To School
Superintendent Says If Boys Barred, Other Students Would Be Too

POSTED: 7:44 am EST January 3, 2005

COSTA MESA, Calif. -- Some parents and parishioners have accused the Roman Catholic diocese in Orange County of violating church doctrine by allowing a gay couple to enroll their children in a church school.

The group demanded that St. John the Baptist School in Costa Mesa accept only families that pledge to abide by Catholic teachings, the Los Angeles Times reported in Sunday's editions. Church doctrine opposes gay relationships and adoption by same-sex couples.

"The teachings of the church seem to have been abandoned," John R. Nixon told the Times. "We send our children to a Catholic school because we expect and demand that the teachings of our church will be adhered to."

School officials rejected the demand, and issued a new policy stating that a family's background "does not constitute an absolute obstacle to enrollment in the school."

The parents' demand would presumably prevent two adopted boys whose parents are both men from attending the school's kindergarten.

The Rev. Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of diocese schools, said that if Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to, then children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church would also have to be banned.

"This is the quagmire that the parents' position represents," he said. "It's a slippery slope to go down."

The boys' parents, who enrolled their children at the beginning of the school year, declined to comment to the Times. Some parents have promised to ask the Vatican to intervene and some have threatened to pull their children from the school. Others are worried the boys' attendance will set a precedent, saying their presence is part of a larger effort by the gay community to change the church.

"The boys are being used as pawns by these men to further their agenda," said Monica Sii, who has four children at the school.

Some parents backed the school's position, according to the Monterey Herald.

''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,'' said Katie Flores, whose daughter is a classmate of the boys.

The Herald reported that the group of parents planned to continue pressing their demands.

''We're taking a stand for the faith,'' said parent Ken Stashik. ''This is much larger than what's going on in a small Catholic school in a small town.''

I wonder how many of the parishoners of the Church actually live by Catholic teachings---??? Probaby 3-4 because in the modern world it is almost impossible too.

[dugq]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

Your right, that was uncalled for. Your already across the sea in the UK, don't need you getting any closer.

Thats ok, I didn't take it personally

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Clearly Canada is well on the way of being a Humanistic Secular Socialist State.

Is the U.S. a theocracy?????? poltical thought aside????>f

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

fearmongering

Why, did I scare you?