Walk a Kb or Two in my Moccasins- Nobody 'splained it to me like that!

Simple answers to Complex Questions and Complex Answers to Simple Questions. In real life, I'm a Greater-Toronto (Canada) Realtor with RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Ltd, Brokerage. I first joined RE/MAX in 1983 and was first Registered to Trade in Real Estate in Ontario in 1974. Formerly known as "Two-Finger Ramblings of a Forensic Acuitant turned Community Synthesizer"

My Photo
Name:

- Realtor (2nd or 3rd best you'll likely run into)
- Philosopher King of Real Estate Business in Ontario (self-assessed)
- Likes Public Policy & Governance Discussions
- Likes discussion on being an "Attestant" and First-Century Ecclesias(aka 'primitive congregations)

Sunday, March 13, 2005

The Emperor's New Homophile Epiphany

I suggest that the REAL REASON so many of the MP's who supported the "one man one woman" definition of marriage a few years ago (and the Modernization of Obligations and Benefits Act's s 1.1 "for greater certainty..." clause) AND HAVE NOW decided to support "two persons", is because 1) none of them were aware that no definition of "marriage" existed in Canadian statute law (or Great Britain's) and 2) they've just been caught up in the frenzy of the Homophile Activists final sprint to the finish line of their 30 year campaign.

The MP's KNEW (as does every school child) what marriage IS(WAS), and they assumed that somebody had taken the time to write it down and make it official - to endorse marriage was a no-brainer.

Then the Ontario McMurty court threw everyone for loop when they discovered (as the Quebec & B.C courts that deferred to Parliament, had NOT), that the ONLY "definition" of marriage in Canadian, American or British jurisprudence was the (off point) Hyde polygamy/bigamy case.

With glee, the McMurty made ground-breaking NEW Law and declared themselves NOT non-deferential to Parliament because they were only changing common law. Only those who read the decision know that the Court decision's Observations neatly dismiss the statutory "Modernization...Act's" s 1.1 "greater certainty" affirmation as NOT a definition "as agreed by the Parties".

The other provinces domino'ed - it's "the law all over the place".

Anyone who thinks differently is hopelessly stupid or unfit for their office or a HomoSexphobe.


The press have had a field day espousing "equal marriage" and the pollsters have found/created support for the notion of "marriage for all" - it seems that anyone who thinks different is hopelessly stupid or unfit for their office or a "HomoSexphobe".


Then the Supreme Court dodged Q#4 the issue (Ottawa forsook its legal appeal opportunity and many folks have relied on the provincial decisions - we don't want to create confusion thru a reference, but bring us a case and that might be different) and the head cheerleaders Colter & Martin launched an all-day every-day chant "the Charter, the Charter, ya cannot fight the Charter" the subtext being "anyone who thinks different is hopelessly stupid or unfit for their office or a HomoSexphobe and probably not an up-to-date secular humanist".

Many Canadians are shaking their heads saying "Am I nuts for thinking it is ridiculous to consider marriage as anything BUT, one man-one woman?" Hmmmmm, am I hopelessly stupid?? ... Am I unfit for my office as citizen/subject? ... Am I a HomoSexphobe? ... Am I stuck in the past ... is my "gut feeling" failing me?

Carol & Jean Canuck try to reconcile the "things they know in their heart and mind" with the things they are "being told" ... by the government .... all the governments ... and the Courts.

They say to themselves "Maybe I'll just say nothing and nobody will know" .... "I heard about 'don't ask - don't tell' in the US Army, maybe this is what they meant" ... "No that cannot be - these Canadian folks WANT to tell" ... "Oh my, it's so confusing - or has the world gone mad."

Finally they compose themselves and agree to not disagree with the multitude's clamour "Ok I'll go along - the advocates seem to have convinced everyone. I certainly don't want to be thought of as stupid, a HomoSexphobe or out-of-date."

Similar self-chat moves through the minds of MP's too - they are particularly vulnerable too, since the chap that is their buddy-MP's assistant and performs such a great job is one of those and there's a lot of them around Parliament Hill (and the provincial capitals and big-city Municipal Offices) - none of them are monsters. "Hmmm maybe I'd better go along, I'd hate to be thought of as hopelessly stupid, a HomoSexphobe or unfit for my office".

Then one little kid stands up in the gallery of the House of Commons and says "Don't be silly, Mr Paul Desmarais-Martin Jr, if your parents and their parents and THEIR parents had been homosexual, I don't think you'd ever have gotten to be Prime Minister."

Politics Blog Top Sites