AC's mistake on Same-Sex marriage

I have a lot of respect for Andrew Coyne. I find his articles well reasoned and balanced, keeping in mind he approaches things from a conservative perspective. Because he is such a smart guy, I derive extra satisfaction from finding flaws in his arguments. Many left wing writer's seem to lack any semblance of logic to their writing, making it too easy to deconstruct their arguments. For a good example, read anything by Sheila Copps in the National Post. (Note to the editors of the Post, why does she have a column and not me?)

Last week AC was writing about same sex marriage and the debate about the slippery slope. To summarize, his argument was that the Supreme Court ruling that preventing same sex couples from marrying was against the Charter of Rights, based on the discrimination on sexual orientation, was not the first step toward polygamy (his site seems to be experiencing technical difficulties, I will post a link when possible)

From a strictly legal perspective, this is correct. However, one should take a bigger view on the subject and not the very narrow one that Andrew takes. While I agree that same sex marriage will not lead directly to polygamy, this ruling overturns an institution in our society that has remained the same for a few thousand years. If you are going to end the traditional definition of marriage based on the the fact that the Charter states discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong, how is one to prevent polygamy, which is a religious practice with a much longer history in other societies?

If I was a lawyer looking to make a name for myself, I would find a Muslim client and challenge the law.

My personal feelings on this issue is that the state should get out of the marriage business. Government should allow people to enter into any type of civil union they wish (same sex, multiple partners, and may others most people have not heard about) and let churches decide who they want to marry in the eyes of God (or the supreme being, or whatever some are calling him now).

But to say that changing our definition of marriage will not lead to further changes is foolish at best.

Getting Back on the Horse

They say that if you fall off the horse, you have to get right back on.

The reason I started this blog was to get some experience writing. When I retired from the military, I was looking for something to do and I had always been interested in writing. By looking at how recently I have been updating this blog you now know why I did not become a writer at the start: lack of self discipline.

In my defense, there has been a lot going on recently in our lives (more on that later), but to be honest, it is not much of an excuse.

Time to get back on the horse.

You Lie like a Rug...

I know I said I would post more, but the holiday season was a bit trying for us.

First, the washing machine broke. Not usually a big deal, but when you let the laundry pile up like we do, it can cause problems when you finally realize it does not work.

On Boxing Day, the Gf's grandmother died. She was 89 years old, was confined to a bed and the family has been prepared for her passing for the last 3 years, so it was not really a surprise. However, it is still tough to deal with. We drove 7 hours to Saskatchewan and spend a few days going to the funeral and helping to clear up her affairs.

The day we got back, the car broke down. At least it was not 40 km from nowhere in the middle of the prairies.

The Gf is also finally selling her place. We have been living together for just over a year and the possession date is in a few days, so we are moving stuff, etc.

With all these goings-on and life changes, we have been getting on each others' nerves a bit more than usual and arguing about stupid things.

I need to do a bit of fence mending with her (as well as more posting). Hopefully there are no more big life changes coming up, so we can settle into some sort of routine.

Wait, I have to start looking for a job.