Replies

No I was not playing a game. And, I was certainly not attempting to intellectualize this matter by detailing around an obscurity to the point that the substance is effectively avoided. I assumed the "editor" of the editorial page is a substantive voice. You will note he is identified on the commentary as the "editor" and not as merely a member of the editorial board as you suggest. If you would rather that I use the term commentary rather than opinion, fine, it makes no change in the substance of my point.
If you review my post #72 you will see I provided a clear and reasonable avenue for your objection. I said, "I can only wonder. Are you being snowed by Harper? Or, are you trying to snow me? Or, is this paper trying to snow everyone?"
The substantive conclusion of this commentary was that gay marriage regulations were probably not going to be reversed in Canada and that over time the odds of reversal decrease rather than increase. Is that the point you don't want to concede or discuss?

The bottom lines here are:

Almost exclusively in the publishing world, whether a piece is signed or unsigned denotes whether it constitutes an "Editorial" (e.g. the official stated policy/belief of the publication) or "commentary" (the personal opinion of the signer).

A good Stateside example would be the official endorsement by a publication of its chosen Candidate for the Presidency - in 2004, while its individual columnists (even ones with fancy titles!) may well have advanced their own choices & reasons for same, once the unsigned Editorial was published, Bush or kerry was plainly that paper's "officially endorsed" choice.

Your out of context citation not only failed this litmus test but, beyond that, was intellectually dishonest in omitting to mention that the writer's personal opinion about a Canadian issue were to large extent 'supported' by American sources & research.

Ergo, based upon your apparent 'logic', it seems any personal opinion piece published Stateside (similar to that of the likely gay or pro-gay activist whom you dug up & disingenuously presented) may quite freely employ primarily Canadian info to justify advancement of the homosexual agenda in the U.S. & fully expect to be taken seriously ???