The father was genuinely outraged when police charged him with a variety of offences. He considered this the ultimate infringement of his parental rights and for the life of him he simply could not grasp the nature of the crimes he stood accused of. Why this case stuck so seriously in my memory was the father’s outrage.

He really had no idea the extreme measures he took to discipline his ‘wayward’ daughter was never allowable or justified under Canadian law. I have no idea how the case was ultimately resolved and for my purposes – it doesn’t much matter. Although, what does matter is that immigrants to this country fully realize we are a wide, diverse place and while there are obviously similarities in civil or criminal code offences between Canada and the so-called ‘motherland’ (think theft/robbery) there are also potentially a number of what may be unique rights granted in Canada to children, women, wives, minorities and gays/lesbians.

And yes, I do think it’s of paramount importance to mention rights granted to gays and lesbians in any documents prepared for immigrants to understand and discover Canada. Considering the vast majority of the world’s countries do not extend or grant the most basic legal protection to homosexuals. In fact, as long as there are countries which still consider homosexuality to be a criminal violation punishable by death; I’d say it is of the utmost importance to emphasize this potential difference between an immigrant’s ‘motherland’ and his adopted land. All of which makes me emphasize another reason why I feel Stephen Harper’s government is still not ready for prime time nor able to adequately safeguard and protect the rights of all citizens of Canada.

During Canada’s own ‘gay marriage’ debate I proposed that the government of the day and the opposition was going about this issue all wrong. What the government should have proposed was a reform of marriage laws whereby civil partnerships were the rule of law in the land and leave ‘marriage’ strictly in the realm of religious institutions.

Quite frankly, in this way we don’t get bogged down in moral murkiness of the state attempting to define a one size fits all solution which compromises both secular and religious institutions. Eventually, the day will come in Canada when we will see religious institutions which define marriage according to tenants of their faith sued in secular civil courts for discrimination. It hasn’t happened yet, but given enough time, and it will be. I have no idea how the Supreme Court of Canada will rule but I am not optimistic that freedom of religion and conscience will trump equality rights. Besides, with civil partnership agreements as the norm; it also allows anyone to form any kind of ‘partnership’ with anyone else.

I understand completely the desire of Lesbians and Gays to have their partnerships recognized by the state. Besides, property, inheritance, divorce, custody and health benefits/rights which are extended and entrenched by state recognized ‘marriages’, there is also the question of taxes. But let’s take it a step further, why shouldn’t consenting adults be allowed to make any manner of arrangements for their living conditions? For example, what about the case of two elderly people, whether related or not, with limited resources, who decide that forming a civil partnership agreement would raise their standard of living? I do not believe the state should be making laws which would hinder their ability to ensure a private comfortable standard of living by merging resources. Go ahead, take your best shot but I really cannot think of one compelling case whereby the state should stand in their way.

Although I get a certain petty pleasure in having the liberal party’s dirty laundry exposed to the light of day and of all my election options the current Conservative Party has my ‘hold my nose and vote’ vote; I am uneasy with the concept of defections from the Liberal Party. I want the Conservation party to take the path to the right; small government, minimum taxes, a two tier health care system just to name a few, but I can only see the dialogue moving further to the left if the ranks of the Conservative party plumb out with former Liberals.

Frankly, the Conservative Party has disappointed me with many of party’s positions on social issues. I believe that having no law governing the procurement of an abortion is just wrong. Take a stand and lead. We will never return to the days of the back alley despite what the pro-choice supporters would want you to believe. Current birth control methods and ease of availability are far too effective for that but I want a government that promotes personal and not governmental responsibility for all your quality of life choices.

Let’s talk about same sex marriage – everyone can do the big yawn now. There is no turning back the clock though there are many who want too. My first choice is that government gets out of the marriage or domestic partnership business in the first place but as I said – there is no turning back the clock. So where do we go from here? The Conservative Party’s position is like putting a finger in the dyke and hoping you can hold back the wave set to crash over the wall. At best, it buys the marriage is between a man and a women crowd a few years but that’s it. Ultimately, any law passed in parliament by the current Conservative Party position is doomed to failure in a few years time when the issue hits the courts.

But there is human side to this debate that I think opponents of same sex marriage overlook or have a tendency to trivialize and that is lesbians and gays are people with feelings, longings and aspirations just like the rest of us. Marginalizing or shutting them out is not the answer nor do I wish to live in society that draws that kind of a line.

My faith teaches me that there is an intrinsic value to all human life. No one is here without a reason or purpose though I might not fathom all the reasons and all the purposes of each individual. I cannot blindly cast out anyone because of who they love. At the same time, the rights of the religious must be respected. When the courts or the state starts to rule what morality the religious must promote or teach. we march one step closer to enacting thought crimes legislation. Let’s not mince words. There is an intrinsic value to being married from a societal and individual viewpoint. How we define it is of the utmost importance.

My personal viewpoint is that if the government cannot get out of the marriage business than civil unions for all and marriages for the religious (and that does mean if your wiccan priestess blesses your same sex union – your married) and since we are on the topic of marriage its time for the government to stop tax benefits for those who have formed common law unions. Nothing has been so costly than to reward individuals who are so lax that they refuse to make a formal commitment but want all the benefits of marriage without the very real legal obligations. Nothing has done more to undermine the concept of marriage than granting common law union’s de facto marriage status. If I meet one more couple with children who are not married and say that marriage is a big commitment and they aren’t ready for that I will scream and start swatting with my handbag. There is no bigger commitment than having children. If you aren’t ready for a formal union then you are certainly not ready for children – straight or gay.