Liberal Leader Stephane Dion continues to contradict himself on same sex marriage as he stumbles through his first week on the job.
In 1999, Dion voted against same sex marriage.
Then the flip flops started.
On Monday Dion told reporters that same sex marriage is a matter of fundamental rights: “You don't pick and choose rights” (Toronto Star, December 5, 2006)
On Tuesday, Dion told CTV that deciding how to vote would be “a matter of tactic. It’s not so fundamental.” (Mike Duffy Live, December 5, 2006)
On Wednesday, Dion said he would give Liberals a free vote on this week’s same sex marriage motion but would whip the vote if the issue comes up again. (CBC Newsworld, December 6, 2006)
So, Stephane Dion has now taken three different positions on same sex marriage.
And what will Dion do with Liberal MPs who support the motion today in the House of Commons just as Dion himself did in 1999?
Judging from his performance so far, the new Liberal leader probably can’t decide.
Just five days into his new job, Stephane Dion has established himself as the weak and indecisive leader of a party divided on the tough issues.
Canada’s New Government will honour an election promise to hold a free vote for all Conservative MPs when the motion comes up in the House of Commons today.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2459/62435
This one's long enough to need to be a series.
There was recently a big fluff at CF over the "definition of marriage". I'm going to start with a bit of an old-history overview. This applies to various things at the site, such as a user's profile (where they can indicate whether or not they are married) or whether a given thing constitutes "extramarital" sex in a debate.
ChristianForums has often made use of a definition of the word marriage. In 2003, around the time of the great crash, a spectacularly stupid rule was put in place, that prohibited "promoting sin". The language of the rule said that it was prohibited to "promote anything that may be considered sin according to the Bible" (a quote from memory, not an exact quote, but definitely not my own words). This convoluted wording was followed up by a specific list. As you might guess, everything on the list was sexual in nature, except abortion -- and abortion, as understood by these people, is all about sexuality. Despite the in-theory sweeping nature of the rule, it was never once cited by staff in reference to usury or murder. It was not used in reference to torture, either. No, just sex. Lots and lots of sex.
read more http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000381.html
