Totalitarian Impulses at Carleton University Student Association

Carleton University's Student Association (CUSA) decision to prohibit 'anti-choice' groups from funding, meeting space, or even forming a university association is a tremendous opportunity to advance the pro-life cause at that university. Despite the fact that it comes as a heavy-handed and totalitarian response to reasonable debate at that venue, pro-lifers should only see this as an opportunity to ask some much-needed questions, and to do so very publicly. Why are those members in power at CUSA (all pro-choice) so afraid to allow their students this opportunity to advance this particular debate? Despite any rhetoric they can offer, there is no reasonable excuse for this particular decision - it seems to be grounded in fear. As I understand it, just previous to this vote, there had been a university debate between representatives of local pro-choice groups (Planned Parenthood and another I forget), which many observers (including pro-choice) concluded was easily won by the pro-life debater. The fact that the CUSA leaders responded by crippling future debate on this issue shows that they lack confidence in their position. What CUSA has done by this decision is exposed in a very public way the weakness that many pro-choice people feel for their arguments, when exposed to pro-life arguments. For a debate that was supposedly 'closed' a generation ago, it sure seems like some people sit very uneasily when they are exposed to the pro-life position.

To these and all pro-choicers, we should be ready to say, at every opportunity, 'bring it on'.

SSM Vote Defeated

Well, it's widely-known that the recent (but strange!) vote by Canada's Parliament to decide whether to introduce a bill turning back the clock on Same-Sex "Marriage" (no, I won't stop using the quotes) was defeated, relatively decisively. Reading Andrew Coyne's blog, he comes to the conclusion that the issue was finally decided through the correct procedure and with the 'correct' outcome. According to him, 'the issue is settled'. I've tried leaving comments similar to the following on his blog, in particular, and since they're not getting through, I thought I'd drop them here, on my own blog (what a concept!).

Marriage is a privileged institution because it provides the best environment for the bearing and raising of children, which the State has a definite interest in promoting. Excluding those who cannot, by their choices, participate in the full meaning of an institution cannot be seen as discriminatory.

To get to the question of SSM being covered under the Charter, though - Coyne makes it sound like the Charter is a divine document. If divine, it could use some real input from the religious traditions that gave rise to it. If it's not, then there is no higher source of justice or 'rights' that we can appeal to than the changing relativistic views of our citizens. In either case, the rulings of our black-robed justices don't offer very compelling reasons to bow to their authority.

I find myself quite envious of the referenda our southern neighbours are undergoing for this particular issue.

In considering the politicization of this issue, why is it not seen as crassly political that so many of the Liberal Party voted (and spoke eloquently) a scant 7 years ago - only 5 years before the most recent SSM vote - to overwhelmingly (much moreso than the recent vote) assert that marriage is, and should always be considered to be, as between one man and one woman? The court decisions being handed down at the time were the reason the parliamentary vote was held - they shouldn't be held up as some kind of compelling reason to change their minds. The wording of the 1999 statement made it sound like Parliament would use the NWC if need be. I, for one, am still in shock that that absolutely clear mandate was so quickly changed, without any clear reason to do so. To those who say that the issue is now closed, why was it not considered closed in 1999, when Parliament voted, more strongly than this past week, to reaffirm traditional marriage, precisely in the face of court decisions hostile to its maintenance?

FWIW, I tend to agree with Bishop Henry. We should allow some kind of 'dependent relationship' status that dependent relationships can avail themselves of.

So-Con Squadron & Anti-SOW Blogrolls

Just a quick note to say I (think I've) joined the So-Con Squadron Blogroll. I'm not a frequent poster, as my post-dates will show pretty quickly - really more of a blog-consumer than provider. Anyhoo, the SCS blogroll is on my sidebar, and I'm posting this to check if I show up on it.

Update: Well, no success thus far (maybe they don't check their e-mail often?)(or maybe I'm just not popular enough; this is like high school again!). But I've gone and joined the anti-SOW blogroll too.