Quote:
Originally Posted by ae118
Considering the bill is about "encouragement" it would have been an excellent opportunity for the Wild Rose to demonstrate they can support open-minded social legislation that doesn't sacrifice individual rights. One they could even argue to their conservative base was "non-binding" if they needed a reason. To me it looks like a missed opportunity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
Except that once its voted in then it can usually be changed arbitrarily, or even with a PC majority government changes can be rammed through.
The cynic in me just basically states that this was a complete trap bill based on the number of PC's that didn't vote for it and requiring other party votes.
If the Wildrose voted for it because they have the stance that this is up to the individual school boards to manage and mandate then the Wildrose reason for voting it down is fairly sound.
To me this was all about getting heat off of the PC governments issues, it was a pretty clever strategy.
But I don't see a we hate gays movement here.