(Note: I’ve done a slight revision in construction, not content of the original post.)
Globe And Mail;

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has just finished hearing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith’s claim that the Knights, a Roman Catholic men’s fraternal and philanthropic society, discriminated against the couple by refusing to rent the hall to them after learning it was for a same-sex wedding reception.
The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple’s deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall’s address for their reception had been mailed.
That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week. A decision is not expected for months.

I like this part;

Both sides agreed that freedom of religion could be a “bona fide and reasonable justification to discriminate” but lawyer barbara findlay, representing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith, says it wasn’t operable in this case.
Ms. findlay, who does not use capital letters in the spelling of her name…

(Sounds like Ms. findlay has some “issues” … is there some exotic pheromone that draws moonbats to argue these cases?)
I hold no particular religious beliefs. My support for preserving the traditional definition of marriage is rooted in basic anthropology and solidified by a suspicion that same-sex marriage has more to do with forwarding the agenda of the extreme left than it does with concerns about minority rights. If minority rights were truly the issue at stake, there would be full-out legislative war between the Federal Government and province of Quebec over minority language rights.
The secular left advancing same-sex marriage legislation in Canada purports to have a deep commitment to protecting religious freedom from erosion by homosexual rights advocacy. In reality, that commitment amounts to little more than a winking promise to allow people to “believe in something that doesn’t exist”.
So, when push comes to shove, the “truth” of state-defined equality rights will always trump the “false” God-defined morality. For those who are merely unconvinced of the existance of God, it’s a conclusion based on logic. For the left, however, the question of religion is much more problematic, for it strikes at the heart of their own belief system. Freedom of religion acknowledges the possible existance of an authority higher than that of the state, and as far as the left is concerned, that’s a notion dangerous to their own ideology.
When one views religious freedom as nothing more significant than “tolerance of those who believe in something that doesn’t exist”, it goes a long way in explaining why the secular left sees no contradiction in public policy makers who claim to be devout followers of their faith, and in the next breath declare it is possible – even preferable – to “set aside their personal religious convictions” to enact legislation that is in flat contradiction to the teachings of their church.
To a person who holds strong moral principles – be they based upon divine teachings, or be they based on a profound sense that certain principles are fundamental to a stable and just society – such a contradiction is not possible. One does not compromise on one’s core moral values. You either adhere to them, or you didn’t have them in the first place.
When an individual’s principles come into opposition with the demands of public office, one of two options are available. The honourable one is to fight to uphold them in the debate over public policy, and if the two prove to be incompatable – to step aside.
The dishonourable, and far more common solution is to declare that core principles are subject to a public policy time clock – that they can be punched out at the door and punched back in when you leave, that devotion to one’s religion can be toggled like the on/off switch of a church organ.
It is not by accident that we have in public office a preponderance of individuals of the latter variety, whose principles are conditional – conditional on the party whip, conditional on the latest polls and focus group findings, conditional to the pressure of lobby groups and party fundraisers.
Just some advice from this ambivalent atheist – it is folly to trust such people with your religious freedoms. If they’ll set aside their own fundamental beliefs for political gain – they’ll set aside yours.

First the great masterpieces began to disappear, followed by a renewed interest in nuke negotiation, and now ….

North Korean agents in Beijing and Ulan Bator are frantically selling assets to raise cash – an important sign, says one activist, because “the secret police can always smell the crisis coming before anybody else”.

Or marionettes!

60%*

Even in Falluja, the Sunni city west of Baghdad that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a steady stream of people turned out, confounding expectations. Lines of veiled women clutching their papers waited to vote.
“We want to be like other Iraqis, we don’t want to always be in opposition,” said Ahmed Jassim, smiling after he voted.
In Baquba, a rebellious city northeast of Baghdad, spirited crowds clapped and cheered at one voting station. In Mosul, scene of some of the worst insurgent attacks in recent months,
U.S. and local officials said turnout was surprisingly high.
One of the first to vote was President Ghazi al-Yawar, a Sunni Muslim Arab with a large tribal following, who cast his ballot inside Baghdad’s fortress-like Green Zone.
“Thanks be to God,” he told reporters, emerging from the booth with his right index finger stained with bright blue ink to show he had voted. “I hope everyone will go out and vote.”
[…]
Baghdad’s mayor was overcome with emotion by the turnout of voters at City Hall, where he said thousands were celebrating. “I cannot describe what I am seeing. It is incredible. This is a vote for the future, for the children, for the rule of law, for humanity, for love,” Alaa al-Tamimi told Reuters.

Husayn writes at his newly renamed blog, Democracy In Iraq (Is Here!) ;

What a day it has been. I am very tired, but I am at peace, something I havn’t felt in this regard before. I am happy to report that I found very few people during my post-voting trip through Baghdad who had not voted. I even got a few to “convert” and go out and vote. When confronted with the fact that staying away from voting was futile, some who had opposed the election relented, and went and made their mark.
Even now, I have no idea who is going to win, but it really isn’t important. It is enough for me to know that our new government won’t be the result of a sham election, that it will be the will of the people. We will not know who won for a few days, maybe weeks, but this is just a minor headache, and should not be taken by anyone to attack the election or it’s validity. We don’t have the machinery or technology available in the United States or other countries where you can find the result of elections overnight. We will one day though, and today is the first step on that path.
Let me end today’s posts with a picture I found of a woman who was so overcome with emotion at voting that she cried. I believe this picture symbolizes every Iraqi’s feelings today.

Jarvis has a fabulous roundup of quotes and links from bloggers in Iraq. Instapundit has lots, too.
Meanwhile, the networks are scrambling through the archives for material to fill the timeslots reserved for election bloodbath coverage. Jonah Goldberg, ” I just walked over to my computer after seeing that the Today Show was offering viewers a segment on new shaving technologies for men.”