Prelude to the stupid

I interviewed our local MP this past week because he is going back to Ottawa soon. We talked about everything that will likely be on the fall session and, if he is any indication, we are in for a giant waste of time.
Westlock - St. Paul MP Brian Storseth is a rookie MP and to his credit he is very active in the communities he represents.
Storseth goes to lots of community meetings and this summer he has been at every fair, picnic, church outing, town hall, etc there was. He has also arranged his own get to know your MP nights. In fact, I watched him sit with less than ten people for two hours.

He also puts out community polls in his householders. The most recent, which thus filled up a lot of time in our interview, was on gay marriage. (He's opposed)

I talked with him about a whole bunch of things and like almost every politician he was evasive and avoided actual answers.

Essentially, his argument was the last vote wasn't free and fair because the Martin cabinet was forced to vote with their boss on the issue. I think it very unlikely the vote will change and even if the Conservatives call an open vote for their caucus the opposition parties don't have to do the same and they have more votes.

But a debate about reopening the debate is pointless if you don't talk about what you would do with the newly reopened debate.

I asked him why he was opposed to same sex marriage in general and he said, while he thought everyone should be treated equally, (same benefits etc.) he didn't like the idea of the government telling churches who to marry.
To which I said, doesn't C-38 specifically state no church will be forced to marry a couple against the church's wishes?
He told me he thought it could be interpreted differently. I didn't have the bill in front of me, so I couldn't call him on it, but does anyone think there is ambiguity in the following:


"It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs."

It is right there in the bill that no church will be forced to marry a couple of the same sex. I suspect this issue has a lot more to do with votes than morals and I know it will take up a lot of valuable time.

In a country that is supposed to value equality, human rights, and diversity it seems insane that we will, I fear, waste a month debating rolling back rights we extended to a minority group.

The war in Afghanistan, labour shortages, the crisis poised by the baby boom's retirement, our healthcare system, national unity, skyrocketing tuition, and the price of stamps all seem more important to me than whether or not two people of the same sex can marry.

Even if I was opposed to the idea, I would like to think that I would want my government to spend time on more important things.

But hey, at least we get to waste some time, eh?

An anonymous member of the editorial staff wrote a similar version of this rant as an editorial this week, so I am expecting angry letters soon.