Gross Misunderstandings...

Every so often, one runs into a line of reasoning or argument that is so riddled by non-sequiturs that it is impossible to make logical sense of it.

Scanning the Calgary Sun website, I wound up reading Link Byfield's latest column.

In it, Link argues that one cannot be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Apparently, in Link Byfield's world, it is inconceivable that one could support the notion of the free market, and at the same time be a social liberal. After all, being a social liberal means that you must allow the government unfettered control over society.

I think Mr. Byfield, along with a good fraction of the so-called Conservatives need to take a long, hard look at their belief systems then. If less government is a good thing, and it is necessary that the government retract itself from as much of life as possible, then why is it acceptable to them for government to define in law the notion of marriage at all? Is it not a non-sequitur for them to argue that the government should not permit stem cell research on the basis of their theological and moral worries?

The reality, Mr. Byfield, is that there is no contradiction between being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Expecting the government to utilize the monies we cede to it wisely is no big leap, nor is it particularly difficult to accept the notions of the market economy. Strangely, that same acceptance also means acceptance of your fellow human beings as full participants in the system. The market economy does not have room in it for discrimination, hatred and bigotry. (After all, if it's really all about money, money has neither morals nor ethics - remember Enron?)

From what I've been able to deduce, if you are truly a fiscal conservative, then the notion of same-gender marriage is a non-issue. In fact, the whole notion of marriage is moot, and should not even be defined in legislation at all. I will point out to Mr. Byfield that when Pierre Trudeau decriminalized homosexuality in the 1960s, he actually reduced the government's involvement in society.

Of course, a similar variety of denial and ignorance justified slavery too at one time. The fact is that societies change, as do the laws. If Mr. Byfield looks around himself, he might just surprise himself with a realization that humanity is amazing in its diversity, and that there is an entire generation that is looking at the current idiotic debate over marriage and are asking themselves "what's the fuss?".

If, as Mr. Byfield argues, it's about "much more" than same-gender marriage, then I can only presume that it's about his right to continue to treat parts of our society as less than full citizens, less than equal before the law.

I feel sorry for Mr. Byfield, for he is unable to see the very non-sequitur of his position.