 |
|||||||
|
Is Belinda Stronach the next leader |
|||||||
| Edmonton - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - by: Ron Thornton Marriage, Be It Same Sex, Same Family, Same Harem | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
| I liked the thought of Belinda Stronach becoming
the new leader of the Conservative Party. I mean, she looked like a million
bucks, which is apropos considering that she has a million bucks or more. Now, if
only she had a million dollar intellect to go with it, I thought, then we might really
have something. Sadly, the more she talked the less I was reminded of Margaret
Thatcher and the more she reminded me of Paris Hilton. Her latest two brainstorms have not changed that opinion, I'm afraid. First, she came out in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, as defined by the Liberals. Now, any committed gay couple who wishes to solemnize their relationship should be able to do so. We need more committed couples, so I am in favour of legislation that would sanctify such a union. Unfortunately, by taking the step of making same-sex and heterosexual marriage one and the same we simply open a Pandoras Box of troubles that no rational individual, certainly not anyone of a conservative mind set, could possibly go for. For example, in making marriage the union of two individuals of any sexual combination, without any prejudice or reservation of any kind, we are just one court case away from sex education that instructs students about both homosexual and heterosexual practices without prejudice or reservation. Under what rationale argument, after this same-sex marriage legislation passes, can such an argument be denied? Forget about ethical, morale, or religious grounds, for they will no longer be relevant under our Charter of Rights, as the redefinition of marriage illustrates. We will have opened the door to both heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles to be taught as equally desirable, again without prejudice or reservation. To do otherwise would no doubt demonstrate discrimination against an identifiable group, and it will take only one court case to once again alter the law of the land. Some claim that the redefinition of marriage will open the door to a successful challenge against the ban on polygamy, though some bright bulbs in the Liberal government claim that this can not happen for polygamy is against the law. If being unlawful was a perpetual impediment of something happening, then we would not even be having the present discussion. Homosexuality itself was once deemed an illegal practice in Canada, at least until Pierre Trudeau decriminalized it in 1969. I wonder if Belinda Stronach has ever thought about the can of worms this Liberal bill will open? I wonder just how much thought she put into any of this? Probably about as much as she invested in her latest attempt at demonstrating enlightenment. When a Grit launched a private members bill to give 16-year olds the right to vote, among those offering their support was none other than Belinda Stronach. The rationale offered, if you can call it that, defies logic. The bill's sponsor, Mark Holland, offers that "We're asking them to be responsible, yet at the same time we're sending a contradictory message, saying you're too young to understand..." Mighty good reasoning if the statement could not be equally applied to a ten year old as much as it does to a 16 year old. As for Belinda Stronach, she chirps in with "I've met many 16-year-olds who are highly intelligent, committed and thoughtful. Given the opportunity, they would take that responsibility very seriously." Sadly, I believe she believes it. Most other folks who have passed their 38th birthday and beyond would see these teens as kids with limited life experience who would be ripe for exploitation by those who have turned manipulation into an art form. I know I am far more mature in my reasoning ability today than I ever was at 16, better equipt to identify a reasoned argument from a pile of bull droppings. Would it not be nice if we could say the same for some of our Parliamentarians? I wonder if anyone supporting this bill has even considered that once 16-year olds receive the vote, a Charter of Rights challenge will also deliver to them the right to marry and enter into contracts without the safeguard of requiring parental consent? Talk about leading lambs to the slaughter. To tout such policies with what appears to be an appalling lack of forethought or a thorough examination of their potential consequences is, in my opinion, nothing short of reckless. If Belinda Stronach in any way represents the future of the Conservative Party of Canada, then might I suggest that her vision of conservatism is something already shared by Paul Martin and Jack Layton. Rather than continue down this nonsensical path, what we need is leadership that will present policy that is based on something more than a dare; on something more like contemplated reason. |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
| References: | |||||||
| Stronach, Belinda, Statement on Same Sex Marriage, February 3, 2005, Belinda Stronach's web site | |||||||
| CBC News, The Supreme court and same-sex marriage, February 17, 2005, CBC | |||||||
| CBC News Martin, Harper kick off same-sex debate, February 17, 2005, CBC | |||||||
| CBC News Colter unveils 'landmark' same-sex law, February 2, 2005, CBC | |||||||
| CTV News Staff Same-sex marriage split as voting factor: poll, February 21, 2005 CTV | |||||||
| CTV News Staff U.S. Christians help lobby on same-sex marriage, February 20, 2005, CTV | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||