All Canadians are liberals. Some say liberal values are in the wheat we grow, the water we drink and the air we breathe - even when we occasionally vote Conservative, and worry about abortion and crime. Liberalism, in health care, immigration, social welfare, gun laws - whatever the issue, it is what sets us apart from the American monolith. So, two 'liberal' issues that have dominated the news in the past week - same-sex marriage and the status of US army deserters in Canada - should have been easy for all Canadians to embrace. Alas, it is not so. Take gay marriage. When the Supreme Court said that the government may confer full legal rights on same-sex couples, civil libertarians applauded. They saw it as the culmination of a struggle that began 35 years ago, when a law was passed saying that it was no longer a crime to be a homosexual in Canada. Maybe so, but what exactly are we saying as a society when we reorganise our culture so that gays and lesbians are legally free to marry? Kelvin Browne, a 50-year-old Toronto consultant, says the thought of gay marriage makes him 'squirm'. Mr Browne has lived in two happy, long-term gay relationships, and the idea of legalising these relationships never struck him as 'relevant'. 'In fact, I could claim that by accepting marriage, I'm allowing society to coerce me into being more like everyone else, rather than forcing them to accept my essential difference,' he said. 'I really don't want to do a parody of a straight marriage.' Mr Browne says that the mainstream media has persuaded us all (at least all us liberals) that gay couples are just like everyone else, and they want all the things that heterosexual couples want. But Mr Browne says that he values his 'difference'. Can this be true? Are we unconsciously welcoming gays into traditional marriage because we want to blur, and even eliminate, the differences between gay and straight lifestyles? And what is so great about marriage anyway? In North America, half end in divorce, and the first 'gay divorces' have already occurred. The second 'liberal' issue involves Jeremy Hinzman, the US army deserter who wants Canada to accept him as a refugee. Mr Hinzman says he will suffer 'social persecution' if he is sent back. He enlisted last January as a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division but deserted when he learned he might be sent to Iraq. The trouble is that Canadian immigration law is very clear about who qualifies as a refugee and who does not; social persecution is not a criterion, and it can be argued that there are many more deserving refugee claimants than Mr Hinzman in the queue. Ah, the perils of liberalism...