|
| quote: | | Originally posted by MarkT Harper said that, in a free vote, he will vote for a return to the traditional definiton of marriage, despite the Supreme Court ruling that definiton unconstitutional. Why? |
I guess the issue with me is that I view a marriage from a Christian perspective. In my mind, deeming that a WORD (as marriage IS a word) is unconstitutional is laughable. Sure the 'legal' definition can be, but it's based on a word in the English language that is defined as being a union between one man, and one woman. I've no problem with gay people taking it upon themselves to get 'married', but in my mind, whether they are or not, they simply are not, because for a marriage to actually BE a marriage, it must be recognized by God. Then again, who am *I* to say what makes a marriage one that is recognized by God (after all, I am not God). However, I think the BIble makes it pretty clear that members of the same gender are not to partake in sexual acts together.
I guess the point is, in the grand scheme of things, even though homosexuals can SAY they are 'married', they're really just part of a civil union that is recognized by the Government as a 'marriage' for the sake of gaining a few votes. And, being that it's more a matter of semantics than the actual right to be recognized by the Government as being 'married', the issue isn't all that important to me. However, when electing someone to be the Prime Minister of my country, I prefer that the man have a backbone, be able to stand up for what he believes in, and not sway to public pressure over a matter that he holds close to his heart (in other words, I like a man of integrity to be in office). Paul Martin has swayed with the breeze on every issue from Gay marriage, to crime prevention, depending on which way the political wind is blowing at the time. This is not reminiscent of a man of integrity. In fact, it clearly stands out in my mind as a PROBLEM with the man himself, since he flip-flops so regularly, it's hard to say whether his promise today, will be the same promise he keeps 6 months from now. At least Harper stands by comments he made in the past, or admits to changing his mind for one reason or another, which Paul Martin has never done, according to him, everything he's changed his mind on, he's ALWAYS felt that way about (RE: Not Withstanding Clause).
In other words, whereby I'm willing to give an untested Harper the benefit of the doubt and believe that he is a man of integrity who has good character until he PROVES otherwise. Martin has ALREADY proven to me that he is neither, and that translates right down the ranks of his party.
I think that intent is VERY important behind a decision like granting a right. I want to know WHY a politician believes what he is doing is right. Politicians NEVER have to defend their beliefs anymore, maybe it's because no one wants to offend eachother, which is sad... if no one was ever willing to offend others, we'd never have discovered that the Earth was round, we'd never have created democracy, we'd never have discovered that the Earth ISN'T the center of the universe and etc. etc. It seems every time a politician has a new idea, it's struck down as being 'Un-Canadian', as if we have a culture to call our own in the first-place!!!
|