Nellie McClung, who was from my constituency, when she fought for equal rights for women, she never in all those years asked for women to be called men.
Nellie McClung, who was raised in my riding of Portage-Lisgar and is a celebrated Canadian citizen and a champion of equal rights, would have abhorred the thought that the price for attaining equal suffrage was the loss of her distinct status as a woman.
When Pallister rails against the legalization of gay marriage here, he seems kind of confused about this whole "men" and "women" thing. Also how "marriage" works.
For future reference: when two women get married, one of them doesn't become "the man". That was kind of the whole point of opening up the repressive definition of marriage in the first place. So that love and commitment could be even more widely celebrated and solemnized. So that two women or two men in love could also be wed. Pretty simple, really.
And Pallister might want to revisit the story of Nellie McClung before name-checking her to argue for repression and prejudice. She was actually very much fighting against her, ahem, "distinct status as a woman" — a woman who couldn't vote. And she won.
(Oh, and lest we thing this long, rambling speech isn't enough, shall we note that he also voted in favour of reopening the debate over the definition of marriage the next year.)