SSM

Same-sex marriage became legal in Canada yesterday. Prior to this inevitable decision, a great deal of ink has been spared arguing against and for the expansion of the definition of marriage to include man-man and woman-woman combinations of possible spouses. So it's no point for me to dwell on the matter as such any further.
I agree with many fellow conservatives that the battle has been lost and it'd be unwise for Harper and the CPC to center the future campaign around this issue. In terms of practical political steps they should work to ensure full protection for Church and other structures not to approve of, or participate in the SSM.

I have intellectual honesty to admit that the bill's passage was a foregone conclusion not just because of 'judicial activism', 'liberal media', 'political elites' and so forth (though these were all mitigating factors of course). The nature of marriage, its spiritual and moral decay had precipitated it for a long before and ultimately this had a bigger impact on the outcome of the debate than anything else.

BBC had a few comments on the issue (reflecting the balance of opinion, as they put it). I especially enjoy this one:

"This is a logical next step in the evolution of modern society."

So true, though the auther evidently didn't have the same in mind: insofar this is a logical step in the evolution of modern society, it won't be the last one.
I've argued about this before and yet to see a any plausible argument to convince me otherwise. So I repeat it again: following the logic behind the same-sex marriage debate there's nothing that can prevent, on logical grounds, to have polygamy legalized in the same manner it's been done in regard to SSM.
It's not fear-mongering and not even an attempt to undermine SSM. The crux of the matter is this: if the man-woman clause is arbitary and thus injust to man-man/woman-woman relationships, there's absolutely no ground to insist that the number 2 is not equally arbitrary.

Of course, from practical point of view, it's not gonna get challenged tomorrow. It will have been a while since all the media bruhaha about SSM when 'multiple love activists' file a petition arguing that laws against polygamy violate their human rights to live a a commited three/four....some relationship.

What pisses me off is the inability or rather sheer hypocrisy of the SSM proponents to admit that it's plausible. I guess honesty is the first casualty in any political debate.