Assertion, unsupported by fact, is nugatory. Surmise and general abuse, in however elegant language, ought not to pass for truth. Junius

2006/10/26

Reason No. 2349 to Vote the Beggars Out

Right-wing Christian groups met Tuesday in Ottawa, tested the political winds with their collective fingers and decided having a Parliamentary vote to reopen the same-sex marriage debate maybe wasn't such a good idea after all. According to the Globe and Mail:
Instead, they arrived at the House of Commons yesterday to say they would be happy if politicians would merely study the impact that expanding the institution to gay and lesbian couples has had on Canadian society -- a move they hope will keep the debate in the public domain.

"We wish that they would study it, we wish that they would have proper hearings," Dr. Charles McVety, a senior director of Defend Marriage Canada, said at a news conference.

The act that introduced same-sex marriage "went through without the proper studies and it's impacting our lives. It's impacting people."

Uhuh. For "merely study the impact" read "we're waiting for a Conservative majority government so we can have another kick at the can". You'll get something more closely approximating the truth.

They've realized, evidently, that strategically it makes no sense to remind Canadian voters where the Conservative party base truly lies. The narrow-minded and bitter speechifying that will surely accompany the marriage debate in the Commons will not help Conservative chances in any upcoming election, and will only serve to confirm the impression --- rightly or wrongly --- that the party is populated by bigots. Better to keep the marriage issue under wraps for the time being, and hope for a better outcome in the projected election next spring or summer.

Besides, what a better way to mobilize the base to vote Conservative than on a campaign to rescue "traditional marriage"?

As for "impacting our lives", how so, exactly? Is there a flood of male evangelicals running off to marry the guy of their dreams? And vice versa? Are fundamentalist marriages that flimsy that they can't stand the competition?

Maybe there should be a parliamentary inquiry on the deleterious effects of pointless and inflammatory rhetoric on the body politic, with Charles McVety as the lead witness. It would certainly be more useful.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Conservatives in government have been clear all along, that the promise was made during the elction campaign, that they will allow any individual MP to bring forward one question first.

That question would be whether there was any consensus in The House, at all, to re-open that debate.

As we have seen, the appetite for further debate is gone, by the vast majority of MPs, Conservative ones included.

And that would end it. Done. Finished.

Thursday, 26 October, 2006  
Anonymous Niles said...

Hyah...trotting out the old 'there's been no debate, no studies' smoke and mirrors in their hand wringing concern over 'the children'.

McVety and ilk manage to make it sounds like children are being ripped away from their 'natural' parent (what does that /mean/? The genetic parent? Some adult of the 'proper' gender?) and handed over to hulking shadowy things that slither in the night, muahahahahh.

McVety is really starting to be emboldened as the camera happy chef du fromagerie at the forefront of the Canadian 'don't think ,just fear everything' religionists.

Monday, 30 October, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home