More Wank

Can we imagine for a second that C-38 didn't pass a largely whipped House of Commons the summer before last, to become the Civil Marriages Act? And can we then imagine that the Conservatives had been elected to government on a promise that they would reopen the defeated motion to debate, that it might be voted on according to the consciences of the individual members? ... Stop moaning about likelihood. Just imagine, will you! I have a point.

Were this so, do you think that the Toronto Star would be saying this:

But political posturing is a bad reason to meddle with constitutional rights. With little hope of passing, this motion promises only to resurrect a divisive debate that Canadians across the political spectrum hoped had been settled for good.

Erm ... I think not. I suspect it should look a lot more like this:

But the accusation of political posturing is a bad reason to avoid settling a matter of constitutional rights. Even if it had little hope of passing, this motion promises to bring to the fore a necessary debate that Canadians across the political spectrum have, as yet, to settle for good.

I mean honestly! How does the Star figure that Canadians across the political spectrum hoped that a ruling that was unconstitutional right up until the moment it was (rather shadily) jury-rigged to be constitutional settled this matter for good? How does it figure that a majority's* support of a party that ran on a clear promise to reopen the same-sex marriage debate (notwithstanding the whole notwithstanding thing) qualifies as a passive acceptance of SSM?

And since when has the Toronto Star done anything but fan the flames of divisive issues? Often not merely resurrecting them, but pulling them directly from the thin, reeking air seeping out of their editorial board's poop chutes.

Wrong questions, obviously. When you omit half the political spectrum from your idea of the political spectrum, hypocrisies do look uncannily like righteousnesses.

________________________

ADDENDUM (December 6th)

*Jay Currie takes issue with my use of the term "majority" here, and I am willing to concede this. I should perhaps have used the word plurality.