Resisting the pull of cynicism since 1969.

Monday, August 28, 2006

I choose to call Lyle Oberg a blithering idiot

Alberta Conservative leadership candidate Ted Morton has sponsored a private members' bill that would--among other things--allow marriage commissioners to opt out of performing same-sex marriages for religious reasons. The bill is up for third reading today. Lyle Oberg, one of the other leadership candidates, supports the bill. Why? Because "no one should have the ability to make anyone do anything against their will."

No one should have the ability to make anyone do anything against their will.

He must have misspoken, you're probably thinking. Oberg doesn't really believe that literally--that would be ridiculous. But no, he actually rephrased the sentiment and repeated it a second time: "Nobody should be able to litigate against people who choose not to do something."

Okay, well, then I think I'll just choose not to put my kid in school this fall. When tax time rolls around this April, I think I'll choose not to file, and when my next Alberta health premium comes due, I'll choose not to pay the bill. Oh, and I think I'll drive down to Brooks and break into Lyle Oberg's house. When he tells me to leave or else he'll call the police, I'll just tell him that I find it quite comfortable there and choose not to listen to him.

(You know, it's not even these people's policies that get me so much as their pure, unadulterated stupidity. Why, why are they like this? The federal Tories manage to be right-wing without being stupid, so why are there seemingly no Alberta Tories with brains in their heads? It just baffles me.)

The article goes on to talk about how the bill isn't expected to pass because there's not expected to be "enough time" to debate it. Hmm, interesting that if they know there won't be enough time, that they wouldn't find some way to allow enough time. Might there be something being cooked up that they're not giving us the details about? Hmm, there might.

And I just might have pictures to share later on today. *grin*

Update: The pseudofilibuster, in which the Alberta NDP and the Alberta Liberals jointly organized to make sure procedural matters took long enough that the bill couldn't pass, was a success. The best part was the way in which they officially introduced all the members of the public in the gallery (we had to register ahead of time, and provide brief biographies to be read aloud). There were so many people there that the introductions alone took over an hour! It's sad that the Tories outnumber even a combined Opposition to such an extent that tricks like these are necessary, but it was still an incredibly creative use of parliamentary procedure to achieve political goals, and I was quite impressed. And I'm most impressed of all by the fact that the Alberta Liberals and the Alberta NDP were willing to put aside partisan differences and join forces for long enough to do the right thing.

I wasn't allowed to take the camera into the chamber, but the best pictures I could get of the enormous lineups to get in are over here. Too fun.

12 comments:

West End Bound said...

Alberta Tories may be the stalking horse for the Federal Tories??

Perhaps the feds float topics there in Alberta to see if they've got "legs"? Just a thought . . .

Greg said...

IP wrote: The federal Tories manage to be right-wing without being stupid...

Do you include Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day in that statement.

Idealistic Pragmatist said...

Greg,

Oh, come on now. Those two have done some stupid things, but neither one of them is quite on the Alberta Tory level of stupid.

Rob Anders, though--that I'll give you. But he really belongs in provincial politics anyway.

Greg said...

LOL IP, you are setting the bar pretty low, if Rob Anders is your baseline. That would make Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney the braintrust of the CPC. ;)

Anonymous said...

lol...it is amazing what you find on the web...like this...a blithering no mind, insecure coward thinking they are intelligent. Made my night tonight...laughing about how amazingly stupid you are.

Hope your salute to the KKK went well you anarchist.

I hope we can rid the world of your bigotry. I hate knowing you are a racist.

Since no one reads you...Google will increase your hits as a racist and bigot and KKK. Good news for you loser. Sleep tight

Anonymous said...

wow what a group of losers that post here

DazzlinDino said...

I seem to remember one of the largest fear of those on my side of the fence about SSM was people being forced to perform SSMs' against their will, and the entire left up in arms saying "NO, that will never happen". Now a bill has to be passed?.....nice....I'm not happy about SSM, but it's here and I've moved on, until of course the ability of Canadians to choose is removed, such as a persons right to beliefs.

What would the left of center say if an SSM couple demanded to be married in a mosque by an Imam? You'ld be in a pickle because on way or the other someones rights would be trampled on. Why is it then different for someone of another faith?

Idealistic Pragmatist said...

Dino,

Members of the clergy--of whatever stripe--have always been allowed to refuse to marry people in their places of worship. Reasons given can range from not being "strong enough in the Lord," to not undergoing that church's marriage training seminar, to being too blond--it's entirely up to the clergymen. That's as it should be, and no one's objecting to it, so there's no reason to pass a law allowing clergymen to continue to make their own judgments about whom they allow to be married in their respective churches. Civil marriage commissioners, on the other hand, may not claim religious or any other grounds to refuse to marry people, whether it's because they're too blond or because they're two men. That is also as it should be, and the fact that this bill was defeated means that it will continue to be that way.

As for your last paragraph, you constructed an entirely ridiculous picture of what the "left of center" (nice American spelling there, by the way) would "get in a pickle about," and then tried to trip me up by trying to prove that the straw-IP was being logically inconsistent. Problem is, I'm not a straw-IP, I'm a real IP, and like I said above, I have no problem with clergymen in either churches or mosques opting out of marrying people for whatever random reasons they've always used. (I've seen you make some pretty decent comments at other blogs, but that was some pretty Lyle Oberg-level logic, there.)

Josh Gould said...

Rob Anders, though--that I'll give you. But he really belongs in provincial politics anyway.

Or, rather, he doesn't belong in politics, period!

Jen said...

Klein has endorsed the bill, saying it would simply enshrine government policy and assist those who wish to follow their conscience.

Wonderful. Marvellous. Please do follow your conscience! But if your conscience is going to cause you to not be able to do your job, then please resign. It would be the only conscionable thing to do. Is it just me, or would it be more logical to try to pass legislation making it illegal to marry a non-opposite sex couple? Perhaps I should not be throwing these ideas out there...

And don't forget that part of the federal Tories are actually federal Reform, and they are more closely related (or perhaps only in my mind?) to the Alberta PCs...

Jen said...

Ok, I should really reread before posting - what I meant to say up there was that the actual job description of a commissionaire should be changed, not going on about this conscionable object bit. Just seems it would make more sense.

There was also an attempt to pass a vote at the Alberta Northwest conference of the UC this summer to make it up to each congregation to do the paperwork for a reverend to become a commissionaire. Oi, they phrased it much more elgantly than I am doing... basically, had it passed, it would have allowed every single church to indepently decide whether or not they would have to perform all marriages. Well, thankfully the motion was defeated. Anyway, just another tidbit of information. And now I really should go, because blaming my incoherence on heartburn and lack of sleep is only valid for so long...

Feynman and Coulter's Love Child said...

Wow, if only I'd known.. one day in the gallery, and Brian Mason would be reading aloud a commentary I wrote?

I'm giddy just thinking about what I could have come up with, even though the opportunity is long done.