Apparently, Stephen Harper is Stockwell Day without the looks...

In his "statement" reacting to the Liberal party's introduction of Bill C-38 regarding the civil definition of marriage, Stephen Harper has proven, once again, that he - and by proxy, his party - represent a narrow segment of the population - the so-called "Religious Conservatives".

Says Mr. Harper:

“It is also troubling that the Liberal bill provides little in the way of assurance that religious freedoms will be protected if the legal definition of marriage is changed. The bill simply restates a clause that was rejected as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for being outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government."

I invite Mr. Harper to review the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

I do not know how much more absolute the protections could possibly be. Given that the Federal Government has no authority over who solemnizes marriage (that being a provincial responsibility - enumerated in section 92(12) of the 1867 Constitution Act and therefore something that only a province may in fact legislate on).

Mr. Harper further fails to grasp a key concept in the discussion - that civil marriage is not a religious discussion:

It is disappointing, but not unexpected, that the Liberal bill introduced today to redefine marriage has found no middle ground whereby the traditional definition of marriage could be maintained, while preserving in law the rights and privileges for same-sex partnerships.

Whose tradition are you talking about. As the Wikipedia Article on Marriage referenced earlier makes clear, the concepts of "traditional" marriage vary considerably from region to region on this world. Canada, as a society composed of immigrants, can hardly make a claim that it has any single, unified tradition upon which to stand. Even within the Christian faith, the picture is far from homogenous - there are those who take a very 19th century view of marriage, and expect the spouses to live rather rigidly specified roles; there are others who take a much more elastic view of marriage, and make room in their relationship for non-traditional roles and behaviours. Islam has a whole other set of assumptions and traditions around marriage, and then we encounter the various Asian cultures and their traditions. So, just what is "tradition" here?

As far as I can tell, Harper is essentially Stockwell Day - except Day takes better pictures.