The Alliance policy is the problem.
Some Alliance policy is a problem, some is absolutely necessary if we want to preserve our economic and cultural life. Since we have only one choice to make at election time, we have to weigh our various policy desires and match them to the nearest party.
Do you take issue with actual Alliance policy, or with the perceived policy as presented by the CBC?
Like any party, the Alliance includes a wide spectrum of opinions, experiences and knowledge. To hear the Alliance reps speaking of ranking native governments at the level of municipal governments, for example, makes me shake my head. Not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with that particular arrangement, but it is impossible to achieve within our system of law.
There is no way I would condone a man like Day as PM (although I still voted Alliance - after all, he was just one man among many).
As far as gay marriages go, I could care less. There are lots of words used in the legal field that have different meanings to laymen. If the legal definition of marriage is changed, it doesn't mean lay people will be forced to use it that way. And there is absolutely no risk that the state can force, or even pressure, churches to perform gay marriages. Church marriage and legal marriage are distinct. One needs a legal marriage license to take on the state-sanctioned marriage. If a couple has such a license, they can go almost anywhere (justice, court, church) to exercise it.
-g |
