Originally posted by Aviator902S in every thread he's ever responded to

Yes, and when you factor in bad dilithium crystals and the blown side seal, you'll understand while you're getting lousy gas mileage.


And did I mention that my wife is a Korean hottie?

I would like to take this opportunity to thank-you for your recent correspondence with regards to Bill C-38. I appreciate your thoughtful comments and interest in this very important issue. I will continue to listen to the dialogue of my constituents on this legislation.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada decision, I have embarked on an extensive consultation process, fulfilling a commitment I made to my constituents in Calgary Centre-North during the 2004 federal election.

I can confidently say, after consultation with hundreds of people, that Calgary Centre-North reflects very diverse views and opinions on this subject. Enclosed are my thoughts, as put forward on February 2nd 2005.

I encourage you to stay in contact with my office to voice your comments.

Regards,
Jim Prentice


STATEMENT ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE
Jim Prentice, M.P.

February 2, 2005, CALGARY – Yesterday the Liberal government introduced their much-awaited marriage legislation.

The decision I have come to has been a difficult one. I have spoken to many hundreds in my riding of Calgary Centre-North. I have met with many community leaders including religious leaders from Calgary and representatives of the gay community. I have held an open Town Hall Meeting and I have done my best to understand the legal and theological issues that this decision has raised.

For me, the marriage question is one of individual liberty – of constitutional liberty.

Let’s be clear. I have been married to the same woman for 21 years, reflecting my own personal definition of what marriage is. It is also the definition of my own church, the Presbyterian Church of Canada.

It is not, however, the personal definition of many of our fellow citizens who are homosexual and who have sought the protection of the Charter to obtain civil marriage licences from the government.

Fundamentally the question is this: what right do we as a society have to refuse gay Canadians something that the rest of us are entitled to – namely, a civil marriage license.

Set aside the legal debate, and ask the very simple question. What moral or political authority do we have to deny gay Canadians the issuance of a government marriage license?

The answer in my mind is clear. We have no such right at all because whether two people of the same sex marry, and how and whether their gender enters into the relationship, is none of the government’s business, providing they do no harm to anyone else.

“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” – John Stuart Mill

I am a conservative, and this is the philosophy that guides me in public life.

Each of us has the right to fashion our own life to suit our own character without impediment from others, providing we harm no one else and providing we accept the consequences of our own decisions.

If we have the right, as a society, to prohibit homosexual Canadians from civil marriage because their idea of a marriage differs form ours, do we have an equal right to prohibit some Christians, Muslims, or Sikhs from preaching aspects of their faith, which are not shared by the majority of Canadians? By parity of reasoning, would we not have an equally valid entitlement to suppress the literature, political opinions or political association of those who hold views different than our own?

These are the modern liberties of our western society. They are the very liberties that underpin western society, and they are owed to each of us equally and unconditionally.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that all Canadians must be treated equally at law, including the right to marry. Equally the Charter protects the rights of religions to carry on their faith according to their own doctrine.

The vote for Conservatives is a free one. Stephen Harper has shown courage and leadership and his position has been very clear to Canadians. It is particularly disappointing that Mr. Martin did not have the strength of leadership to allow his entire Caucus to have a free vote on this issue.

I have come to the conclusion that I will stand in defence of the constitutional right of homosexual couples to civil marriage, even though their definition of marriage is not my own. I will be equally vigilant in defending religious marriage and religious freedom, for it is equally clear that neither the Christian community nor the other communities of faith can be compelled to accept or perform same sex marriages. Religious freedom must stand sacrosanct and religious marriage must stand as the exclusive preserve of our communities of faith.

I intend to vigorously support the Conservative Party amendments that would strengthen these protections of religious freedoms.

This decision has been a difficult one. My riding has a diversity of opinions on this question. I appreciate that my decision will not make everybody happy. I will be accountable.

In the final analysis, I have concluded that religious marriage is the authority of the church and that jurisdiction must be jealously guarded. But civil marriage, or governmental marriage, of two Canadians, must be available equally to all. Therefore, I will be voting in favour of this legislation and I will support Conservative Party amendments designed to protect religious freedoms.

Thank you for sharing your concerns and support of Bill c-38.

While Michael supports the traditional definition of marriage,he also recognizes that gays and lesbians are full participants in society and deserve to have their relationships formally recognized and their rights and responsibilities outlined. It is a position that he came to in consultation with a number of people, including those in the gay community. It is also a position he publicly stated during the election of last year.

Again thank you for your comments and if we can be of any further assistance please let us know.

Jim Smith,

Constituency Assistant to

Michael Chong, M.P.

Wellington - Halton Hills

OTTAWA - A Conservative motion to kill the controversial same-sex legislation has failed, but in the process the move has once again exposed a deep rift within the Liberal ranks.

• INDEPTH: Same-sex Rights

About 30 backbench Liberal MPS voted to kill their own party's legislation. The final vote was 164 to 132.

Tory Leader Stephen Harper introduced the amendment to scrap second reading of Bill C-38, which will establish the Civil Marriage Act, arguing that the proposed legislation "fails to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." The Conservatives said they wanted to bring in a new bill, reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage.

But Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said Monday that the Liberals have enough support from their own members, the NDP and the Bloc to defeat the motion, which proved to be correct.

The issue has become divisive within the Liberal party, because a number of MPs oppose the same-sex marriage legislation on religious and moral grounds. A recent CBC poll suggests Canadians are deeply divided on the issue, with slightly more than half saying they disagreed with the Liberal government's plan to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.