It’s not so much the religious right doesn’t respect the will of the 58.7% that’s concerning, it’s the manner in which they instead prefer to cling to the other number, the 41.3%, who voted in favour of reopening the debate. On this point, unfortunately, they have something to grab hold of. Looking strictly at the numbers, the outcome wasn’t an overwhelming vote against. It’s not as if MPs voted say 90/10 or 80/20; that certainly would have sent a stronger message. It’s that I can’t help but wonder what the vote would have been had it been conducted via a sealed secret ballot. Consider this…

We seem to have a fair number of MPs who, like in my opening paragraph, say they either voted or would have voted against SSM way back when, “but now that it’s the law of the land”  they voted to not reopen the issue. The question I have, is how many MPs took this new position only because it seemed the politically correct position to take … that in fact many MPs may still fundamentally oppose SSM, but making that declaration publicly would be tantamount to committing political suicide unless their riding happened to be roughly East or West of Quebec and Ontario respectively?

Is it possible that if the vote had been held in secret, the vote might have been closer to 50/50, or worse, 60/40 in favour of reopening the issue? Is this what the Chuck McVety’s draw strength from? If so, I begin to understand why this issue may not go away as quickly as many of us might like.

Second, I am troubled by the extent to which religion and state are still so very intertwined, even in Canada. I am accustomed to this in the middle east. I begrudgingly accept how "over there" Church, Oil, and State go hand-in-hand. But I don't believe we should accept this in Canada.

Earlier this year we witnessed the McVety machinery in action against Halton MP Garth Turner. Fair enough, they mistakenly saw Garth as a sitting duck and presumed he would be easy pickings given his woes with the PMO. Weren’t they the surprised ones to see Donald himself armed to the teeth with keystrokes capable of ushering this particular form of clergy back to where it came from.

But that isn't my main concern either. Garth Turner wears a mean pair cowboy boots and he’s proven quite capable of taking care of himself against those who legitimately or otherwise feel the need to take runs at him. Indeed, my deeper concern is about the very privileged and favoured access a religious arm such as that of Charles McVety seemingly has directly into the PMO. Granted, some will say the fossil fuel lobby has the same access. I disagree with that also. But as much as the oil and gas lobby has no place in the bedroom at 24 Sussex, it seems to me far-far more inappropriate for Church having that kind of privileged access.

What a minority of same sex couples have achieved in terms of social and legal status in Canada is not the issue anyone should be concerned about as the SSM debate either is, or is not, put out of its misery. What is deeply troubling, however, is Church not only thinks it has State influence in Canada, it apparently and obviously still very much does.

I suppose it's mere coincidence Prime Minister Harper simply had to be in the Arctic asserting Canada's sovereignty in the North at the precise moment the largest HIV/Aids conference was underway in Toronto, but he wouldn't-for-the-world miss the opportunity to vote to reopen the same sex marriage debate. Seems pretty clear going into the next election Mr. Harper perceives he can ill-afford ignoring Charles McVety over the non-hetero community. If that isn't a scary-enough thought, could it be Mr. Harper has somehow come to believe what has been whispered into his ear ... that if he gets rid of the one, he gets rid of the other?