Fidel Castro and straight marriage were not two images I wanted to have at the same time, either, matt. Where’s Puking Smilie when you need it?
Tsk, tsk. Whatever happened to openness, matt? If Fidel is finally going to take the big step of coming out of the closet, and announce his long-term commitment to some comrade in arms from the Revolution, don’t you think he needs support, not criticism? 
I think my roommate and dear friend has mixed up two headlines – the other being “majority of young Canadians [aged 25-34] support gay marriage.” Pollara found that figure to be 65%. The pollster said that given the enthusiastic support among young people, gay marriage in Canada was “inevitable” because it would only gain support in the long term.
The poll was taken by the Liberal government because of an Ontario ruling that concluded that not allowing same sex marriage was unconstitutional. The Liberals have two days left to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. They commissioned the poll to get a sense of the public’s opinion.
If the Liberals do not appeal, the government has two years to write a non-heterosexist definition of marriage that allows gays and lesbians to marry. If the government doesn’t do it, the court will write it at the end of the two years. If it does, the Supreme Court will simply pass down the same decision – everyone knows that, including the Liberals. But Prime Minister Chrétien wants to know if he should stall for a few extra years or let it happen.
So gay marriage will be here, sooner or later, in this country. We’ll know Monday if it’s sooner or later.
ahem
To clarify – sentence two means “If the government doesn’t write a non-heterosexist definition of marriage…”
Sentence three should read, “If the governement does appeal…”
I’m certainly not surprised. I knew this was coming. I think the next thing will be legalizing pot - for everyone.
Even though I’m convinced I’ll die an old spinster, if I do meet the man of my dreams, I’ll certainly consider marrying him. Why not? Hell, let’s have a huge part-ay! matt_mcl, will you be my bridesmaid? I’m thinking lavender and frilly for your dress… 
Really, matt, I thought you were more sophisticated than that. It’s not a real marriage-- it’s just a beard.
[sup](Feel free to throw fruit.)[/sup]
I always pictured Matt in peach myself…
Perhaps with a butt bow. (I wonder if they can put a butt bow on a tux?)
“I, myself don’t have any phobia against
homosexuals. I’ve never felt that phobia and
I’ve never promoted or supported policies
against homosexuals…I’ve always had a
more rational approach, considering
[homosexuality] to be one of the natural
aspects and tendencies of human beings
and should be respected…I am absolutely
opposed to any form of repression,
contempt, scorn or discrimination with regard
to homosexuals.”
-Fidel Castro, in “Face To Face With Fidel
Castro” by Tomás Borge Ocean Press,
1992
(Of course gays were still purged despite this rhetoric.)
Would you care to shed a little light on that stunning bit of prejudice?
flees in terror from male and female Ladies Gone Mad
Hum, here’s something interesting:
Butt bow on a tux?
No, he’ll be wearing a dress. Frilly, lacy, and dainty, just like he is.
My maid of honor will be my best friend Ryan (the guy who foisted Bunny on me), and the best man will be depgrl.
Hilarity shall ensue! 
matt, that’s one of the most ass-backwards things I’ve seen in a while. Grasping at straws there.
“We can’t get away with being blinkered and reactionary, because governments are supposed to be above that… Let’s delegate this one to people who are supposed to be blinkered and reactionary.” 
Hmm.
If they hand marriage over to religious institutions, how can atheists marry?
You’re right Venoma. Something like that would violate sections 2b (the right to freedom of belief and opinion) and 15 (freedom from discrimination – religion) of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, and it would implode with the first court challenge.
That’s not to say Chrétien wouldn’t do it – his government’s passed unconstituional bills before as a stalling tactic so he could put off debate.
And since when is the CBC quoting the National Post? That paper has editorial standards that make The Enquirer look like the New York times.
From the Canadian Press:
I say again: argh. :mad:
You know, there was never any consensus on official bilingualism, either. Still isn’t. We went ahead and did that anyway, because it was JUST, dammit. Wake the smeg up.
:smack:
This appeal clears the way to provide same sex marriage across Canada without the government having to take a stand on the issue.
The Ontario court decision is not binding outside of Ontario. If the SCC makes the same ruling, it will be binding nationally.
It’s a great pity that the government will not take a stand in support of families and equality for all regardless of orientation, but seeing as it is unwilling to do so, at least the SCC can deal with the issue.
Gay marriage may be coming in the back door, but at least it’s coming. (Don’t 'cha love puns!) Pity the government is unwilling to take the lead.
Hee hee Does this mean Chretien’s a bottom?
Hold on. I already know the man’s an ass, I guess I answered my own question!
(Don’t mind me, I’m feeling rather giddy this morning…)
I have two questions here I would like to ask, just to satisfy my own curiosity, if I may: What was the exact wording of the poll? The article linked in the OP didn’t say. Also, on what clause or clauses of the Canadian constitution (Is that the right word? Or should I say “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”?) was this ruling based?
Also, I think the point WV_Woman was trying to make, however ham-handedly, was that just because a majority, or a plurality, of people believe something doesn’t make it right. I am quite sure that all of us here can think of issues on which we disagree, even disagree passionately, with the majority.