You just can't handle facts can you? If you take issue with wikipedia, try the Library of Parliament. Or is that too fact based for you? Search ultra vires.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSumma...

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Civil Marriage Act legislation with regards to the role of religion is ultra vires of the federal government.

It has nothing to do with Paul Martin, so just get over it. The "matters" with reference to the federal government were clarified.

It is a Charter Right. End of story. If you want to talk about Saskatchewan provincial matters, then do so, but as far as the federal government goes, case closed.

Same-sex marriage is a charter RIGHT. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with being recognized equally under the law, which apparently you don't understand. What exactly are what you call, "the troublesome implications of treating same-sex marriage as a right" ? There aren't any. It's a right. So don't worry about it. Get on with your life.

It had already been "legal" in 8 provinces and the Yukon when the Civil Marriage Act passed in 2005. By enacting legislation the government was simply preventing any future supreme court challenge. In a response to a reference question, the Supreme Court stated that marriage fell under the purview of the federal government.

Due to section 15 of the Charter, not providing the same rights to same-sex couples would violate the charter. In response to a reference question from the government as to whether passing a law making same-sex marriage legal would be "consistent" with the Charter, the SCC stated, "Yes."

From Wikipedia:
"On considering the second question, the Court not only affirms the validity of the legislation, they add that its purpose "flows from" the Charter. They further find that equality right of religious groups and opposite-sex couples are not undermined by the legislation, on the basis that the expansion of the Charter enriches society, and equality cannot be supported by denial of others from a benefit. When conflicts between rights arise, the Court says, it must be solved by internal balancing of those rights, not denial of rights."

Section 15 of the Charter:

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re_Same-Sex_Marriage

The leader of the Official Opposition is unelected? How does that work, exactly? You might want to check your sources.

very true.

Again, my issue is not with the athlete. You are correct, she needs to fund her sports in some capacity.

"Turns out this is the first time in Olympic history that the Games have designated an official supplier in the category of luxury jewelry. Really, you’d have thought they’d done it earlier."

Again, the issue remains the Olympics purport to be something they are NOT.

It is about government and corporations getting together to benefit a few, all under the guise of national pride and amateur sport.

"Hey everyone, buy Brinks jewelry, drink Coke! Eat McDonald's and invest your money with RBC. If you love your country, you'll do it! Don't you love your country Douglass?"

You seem to present the argument as only good for her. Let us not forget what one of the largest jewelry retailers in North America gets from this. They get to cash in on nationalism, on the fallacy that is the Olympics. And that, Douglass, is what the Olympic Games is all about.

"Looking for a Liberal in Ottawa last fall was like a trip into the heart of darkness. You would eventually find a crew of them, hunched over the latest polling data in some dark corner of the Centre Block, where theyd give you the 1,000-yard stare and mutter quietly about the party lacking leadership and direction"

"Over the past few weeks they have had useful sessions and policy announcements on pensions, governance, parliamentary officers, job creation, child care, Senate reform, health care, and Afghanistan, to name a few. None of it is bang-down-the-door-and-stop-the-presses stuff, but that’s good."

Are you telling me there is a difference between hawking luxury items and hawking Coke?

What is pathetic is not the athlete, but rather that we continue to believe that the Olympics is some how about the celebration of amateur sport. It's about the celebration of cashing in.

Maybe you should read the article (again?)

This seems more like reporting to me. I'm not a Liberal supporter, but the article is well written, and if you could jump down from your high horse, you would be able to admit that, yes, the Liberals have managed to turn their party around in last few months. You don't have to proclaim your love for Ignatieff, and this does not mean they are going to win an election, but the simple truth is, they have come a long way as a party and Ignatieff as a leader, if only internally. If you have to go somewhere else to ignore this simple fact, I would argue you are choosing to filter your news, based on some alleged bias. Suck it up and admit to a fact or two.