The new Tories, sleeping with Belinda Stronach

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's a poor reason to oppose representation. It's more about fairness.

I would not oppose representation - in fact, I think its much more of a necessity for the US - we in Cali are oppressed by all the empty Republican states

I was just pointing out that such a change probably would do didley squat to Canadian government's willingness to allow same sex marriages.

[Ben Kenobi]

You asked me if I liked the current political system, and this is one way I would improve the system.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You asked me if I liked the current political system, and this is one way I would improve the system.

Ok - change, yay

Now, back on topic, did you concede that it is the government's right to define marriage?

[St Leo]

Whose elses? Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Religions may perform silly rituals when it comes to marriage, but they also perform silly rituals at births and deaths and that doesn't give them dominion over birth and death.

Marriage is a purely secular concept that handles an alliance between two people.

If certain religious whoevers don't want to perform their version of a rain dance for someone's marriage, they don't have to. Boo hoo. However, proper government authorities must treat everyone equally.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage is a purely secular concept that handles an alliance between two people.

According to whom? Plenty of people here in Canada would beg to differ.

did you concede that it is the government's right to define marriage?

Actually, that's not the case. The judiciary has given itself the right to define marriage.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Actually, that's not the case. The judiciary has given itself the right to define marriage.

And since when has judiciary stop being part of the government? Besides, don't worry, I'm sure Parlaiment will follow suit soon enough.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
OK:

About representation of the West, I would contend the opposite, that Western Canada is underrepresented in parliament.

I'm not sure how valid it is to use the 2001 census for seats determined by the 1991 census (redistribution happens every 10 years based on the '01 census). It can take 5 years for the process to complete after the census is determined. However, the trends are there. Here are apples and apples with 2001 census and the number of seats which will come into effect in any election coming after 25 Aug 2004.

2001 census
Total Population of Canada 30,007,094
British Columbia 3,907,738 13.02%
Alberta 2,974,807 9.91%
Saskatchewan 978,933, 3.26%
Manitoba 1,119,583, 3.73%
--The West 8,981,061, 29.92%
Ontario 11,410,046, 38.03%

Total Seats in House of Commons after redistribution 308
British Columbia 36, 11.68%
Alberta 28, 9.09%
Saskatchewan 14, 4.54%
Manitoba 14, 4.54%
--The West 92, 29.87%
Ontario 106, 34.41%

That looks fairly balanced from the POV of the West.

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/fedr...pendices_e.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

I hope they pass the bill.

Until they do, I have to go with the 1991 apportionment.

[Ben Kenobi]

Besides, don't worry, I'm sure Parlaiment will follow suit soon enough

Not the way things are looking. Probably have to wait until after the election in May.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not the way things are looking. Probably have to wait until after the election in May.

Not too far off And hypothetically speaking, if the Parlaiment passes the act, will you accept that?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I hope they pass the bill.

Until they do, I have to go with the 1991 apportionment.

It is passed. It can't come into effect until a year after it is passed. Passing these things is a matter of form now. Parliament is not directly involved in the process, except groups of MPs can complain about the plan (10 of them must agree to the complaint) and Parliament as a whole has to rubber stamp it.

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

After the 1991 census, they added way more seats, than now. Why did they add so few seats?

[Ben Kenobi]

if the Parlaiment passes the act, will you accept that?

Accept what? That Canadians as a whole want to redefine marriage?

[notyoueither]

Actually, I messed up. No act is required for each redistribution. The current process was defined by one Act in 1985. The base number of seats was established by that Electoral Boundaries Act of 1985.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Accept what? That Canadians as a whole want to redefine marriage?

Accept the fact that society as a whole chooses to define marriage to include same-sex couples and that benefits of marriage should be extended to them as they would be to any heterosexual couple.

[Ben Kenobi]

benefits of marriage should be extended to them as they would be to any heterosexual couple.

This they have, for the most part. Common law couples are given the same tax benefits as married couples here in Canada.

that society as a whole chooses to define marriage to include same-sex couples

That the majority of Canada, chooses to define marriage in this way I would accept, if parliament affirms gay marriage. Even if it passes, significant segments of Canadian society would reject this definition.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This they have, for the most part. Common law couples are given the same tax benefits as married couples here in Canada.

But not the same insurance benefits, etc.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This they have, for the most part. Common law couples are given the same tax benefits as married couples here in Canada.

What about emotional benefits? People who want a right to get married clearly think it's important.

As for your private definition of marriage - no one intrudes on that. You can choose not to recognize somebody's marriage - but the state should.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can choose not to recognize somebody's marriage - but the state should.

Can I? Suppose I work with Vital Statistics. Now I lose my job because of what I believe. Clearly the state says I do not have the right to believe what I want.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Can I? Suppose I work with Vital Statistics. Now I lose my job because of what I believe. Clearly the state says I do not have the right to believe what I want.

You as an individual can continue to treat those people as being single. You, as government employee, have a function to perform. Perform in accordance to the guidelines your employer sets for you and you'll be fine.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think they can fire them.

Why not ask them to pass on what they cannot sign? Or to leave the ones they cannot sign for others? That would respect freedom of conscience more so than firing them. I can see a court case coming from the frist person in the vital statistics brach to get fired for what he believes.

[St Leo]

Redefine, shmedefine. The definition of marriage remains exactly the same as far as I am concerned.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't think they can fire them.

Why not ask them to pass on what they cannot sign? Or to leave the ones they cannot sign for others? That would respect freedom of conscience more so than firing them. I can see a court case coming from the frist person in the vital statistics brach to get fired for what he believes.

When was a Catholic fired for refusing to sign a license for a divorcee? Oh wait, the Catholic Church isn't allowed to force its definitions of marriage on others and so no one would ever try.

[Ben Kenobi]

When was a Catholic fired for refusing to sign a license for a divorcee?

That's an interesting question. A very interesting question. I shall have to inquire further.

Thanks for the excellent point, NYE.