But the "hey, let's legalize gay marriage" certainly is what I call "socially liberal" and certainly and most definitely why many people, especially newer Canadians are a little upset. The further Canada removes itself from good old family/traditional values, the more upset immigrant parents are going to be with their Canadianized children.

Well I being socially liberal myself, I strongly disagree with you on this issue.
If immigrants have issues with Canada's social policies, then maybe they shouldn't move her. I don't want to sound mean and ignorant, and I am certainly not saying "let's refuse entrance to all immigrants", but this is what Canada is. We're socially liberal. For the most part have always been.
Gay "marriage" is not a problem for me. It's semantics really. You don't have to call it marriage if you don't want to. My biggest problem is people saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to spend the rest of their lives with the partner they love and cherish and that they shouldn't get the same rights and freedoms as the heterosexual population of Canada.
Fine, don't call it marriage. I doubt that they would care, to to deny homosexuals the same rights that you or I have is down right wrong and I personally won't ever elect anyone who ever says that it is.

It just bothers me that we have danced more and more towards the left in these past few years, that's all. I am worried that soon, all provinces will adopt the law they have in Quebec where one cannot change their last name, meaning that a married woman will have no choice but to keep her maiden name, even if she hates it! (but that is a whole other topic, to be found in the relationships folder) Sometimes I think Canadians just need some good polish and a boost to the right of centre.

I think being centre is good. We need to be socially liberal (after all if we weren't we wouldn't have the social programs that we rely on) and fiscally conservative (we can still have social programs with out spending too much...which means no more 12% raises for MPs, for example...which is also why I like the Green Party platform on healthcare. Stop spending money on treaments that we don't nee, ie. people running to the doctor for every sniffle, and start spending on preventative medicine... It's not just about the environment.)
I think in some respects we might have gone too far left, but I'll be damned if we go too far right and they start taking away my right to choose.

Don't think that's going to happen, because there'll be enough MPs to vote the bill down.

Some great reading for all:

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analys...spincycle.html


I have to say I've read three of the columns are they are great. If only we could get everyone to read them and increase their media (and spin) awareness.

Quote from the today's column: {discussing how the opposition would take the long-winded truth}

Isn't that more of a right wing move? Quashing someone's right to choose? The more left you go the more your right to choose and the furthur right you go, the less your right to choose.

This is more of a rhetorical question as I studied political science (with a focus in Canadian politics).

ETA: ofcourse, once you go to far left, then you loose your right to choose, because of the political spectrum - eventually far left will join up with far right. Personally I like the Canadian government centre or just right of centre.

But aren't many feminists left-winged? I think forcing a woman to keep her maiden name is sort of forcing stereotypical women's rights onto the most old school of women. I'd rather have it the other way.

I personally think that is a misconception, as I know many feminists that would be classified as right-wing too... feminism is all about empowerment and equality, which can be achieved now by both right or left philosphies.

But are they really "right wing"? Not according to those who believe in more traditional values.

Not all feminists are "feminazis: out to kill all fetuses" (as Rush Limbaugh would say).
So women who have more tradition values do consider themselves feminists, because they had the ability to choose.

That's right, they CONSIDER THEMSELVES FEMINISTS. However, there are also women who think that they're not feminists because of their traditional views. If a woman chooses to keep her baby regardless of what the risk to her and/or to the baby is, these feminists would probably think of her as "dumb".

But that's what RACooper was talking about. The women he knows were right-winged AND feminist.
There are many woman who don't consider themselves feminist (Myself included), but there are different types/degrees on feminism, that pretty much any woman can be considered a feminist.

So we should judge the entire women's movement based off of the most extreme members?

It was an example. Besides, most "women's study experts" would probably consider pro-life women "off" or "odd" or even "dumb". I'm sick of hearing these ladies say that "Canadian women don't do this" because many do and are pro-life, even young women. It sucks to be an "old fashioned girl" these days.