Harper, rights, and marriage

[d_rawk]

Fair 'nuff

Here's what Mercer had to say:

Same Sex Thursday!

So the debate over same sex marriage is back.

Personally I see this as a positive development. I have no idea where Canadians got the idea that once a minority's rights are defined they are somehow set in stone. It's time Canadians woke up and realized those days are long gone. This is an era of reflection.

Sure the Charter looks nice hanging on a wall but the fact is it grants far too many rights that are contrary to the deeply held personal views of many chubby white guys.

I have heard rumours that in the future the Conservatives plan on devoting every Thursday in the House of Commons to more votes on minority rights.

So far they have planned motions debating whether the Chinese should be allowed to drive, whether women should be allowed to vote and whether turbans should be allowed in elevators that travel more than 16 floors.

In order to ensure that these debates target all minorities equally they have come up with an ingenious way for creating motions.

This year, in lieu of a secret Santa exchange, every Tory has to write the name of a minority that bugs them on a slip of paper. On the back of the slip they print a so called “right we all enjoyâ€. The slips will be mixed up and placed in a gorgeous festive ballot box that John Baird gift wrapped for the occasion. At this year’s party, each member will be blindfolded and they will draw a slip of paper out of the box! That slip of paper is their present to them and to Canada. Imagine the hilarity that will ensue when Justice Minister Vic Toewes stands up and says “This year my Christmas gift is a motion to debate whether Hindus can own property in New Brunswick.â€

I can hear the laughter from here.

link

[djmelbatoast]

Even Mercer is talking about the slip.

It's everywhere.

[bouche]

I like to see integrity.

The Star

OTTAWA — The last major threat to same-sex marriage rights in Canada was soundly defeated in the House of Commons today, with MPs sending the message that they don’t want to revisit the emotional, divisive debate.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he heard the message and will respect it.

“We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue, we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we’ll accept the democratic result of the people’s representatives,” Harper said.

“I don’t see reopening this question in the future.”

The question put to MPs was whether they wanted to see legislation drafted to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage, while respecting the existing marriages of gays and lesbians.

That Conservative motion failed 175-123.

In the tense Commons, MPs watched each other carefully to see how the other would vote. Some Liberals cheered as prominent Tories voted to let sleeping dogs lie. Some Conservatives applauded Liberals who did the opposite.

Ultimately, more MPs supported same-sex marriage than in the last vote on the issue in June 2005.

During that charged vote last year, only three Tories voted in favour of expanding the definition of marriage. Today, the number who approved the status quo was 13, including high-profile politicians such as Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon and International Development Minister Josee Verner.

Said Cannon: “The file is finished. We’re turning the page.”

On the Liberal side, the number of MPs committed to going back to the traditional definition of marriage dropped from 32 to 13. MP Joe Comuzzi, who lost a ministerial post the last time around for refusing to toe the cabinet line, voted against today’s motion.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, who himself had two MPs snub party discipline today by not voting at all, said he imagined the result was precisely what the Conservative government was hoping for.

“I think it’s over now. I’m pretty sure that Mr. Harper is also pleased with what happened,” Duceppe said.

In fact, many Tories had said privately — and publicly — over the last few months that they wanted to get past the same-sex marriage issue and have it done with before the next election.

Tory MP Bill Casey said the vote came as a relief. Casey also went from supporting traditional marriage to wanting to have the matter closed.

“If the vote had gone the other way, we would have spent the next several years with this as the main motivator here . . . so I just voted to move on,” Casey said.

But some politicians were questioning whether the Conservatives had something else up their sleeve. Some reports had said the government was poised to introduce legislation to protect Canadians who did not want to perform gay marriages for religious reasons.

Justice Minister Vic Toews and Harper said that wasn’t in the cards.

“The government has no plans in that regard,” Harper said. “If there were any time in the future when fundamental freedoms were threatened, of course the government would respond to protect them. The government has no plans at this time.”

The House of Commons has been dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage in earnest since 2002, when the Commons voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage. In 2003, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional.

Gays and lesbians began marrying in the province, and soon other jurisdictions faced similar rulings and began issuing licences.

About 12,000 gay Canadians, as well as foreign visitors, have been married in the last three years.

The previous Liberal government took the further step of consulting the Supreme Court on whether its own legislation would infringe upon freedom of religion. The court responded that the Charter would protect churches from having to officiate such marriages.

Laurie Arron of Canadians for Equal Marriage celebrated the decision.

“It’s quite clear that after three votes in three years in three different parliaments that this issue is settled,” Arron said. ``It’s quite clear there is a growing consensus among Canadians the equal marriage is here to stay.”

Meanwhile, REAL Women of Canada, a socially conservative lobby group in favour of traditional marriage, said they would push for a national referendum on the issue.

“Elitist political leaders apparently believe that Canada is still in the twentieth century, where political parties ignored the opinion of the voting public,” the group said in a release.

“Arrogant political leaders do not, in fact, know what’s best for everyone.”

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Meanwhile, REAL Women of Canada, a socially conservative lobby group in favour of traditional marriage, said they would push for a national referendum on the issue.

“Elitist political leaders apparently believe that Canada is still in the twentieth century, where political parties ignored the opinion of the voting public,†the group said in a release.

“Arrogant political leaders do not, in fact, know what’s best for everyone.â€

Isn't it fun, though, when you've finally got direct access to the corridors of power?

[d_rawk]

OTTAWA - With a majority of parliamentarians poised to re-affirm on Thursday the legality of same-sex marriage in Canada, a New Democrat MP and gay-rights group are condemning a "huge inconsistency" in the country's immigration rules that rejects the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other countries.

NDP immigration critic Bill Siksay has slammed as "utterly, completely inappropriate" a temporary federal policy that explicitly excludes foreign gay marriages as a qualification for sponsoring a same-sex spouse's immigration to Canada.

Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and the state of Massachusetts allow same-sex marriages, and South Africa passed legislation last week to permit the practice. Britain also recently approved civil unions for gay partners.

"The reality is that we recognize same-sex marriage in Canada and we should be consistent about that through all of our policies, no matter which department we're dealing with," said Siksay. "This strikes me as a huge inconsistency with what is now law in Canada."

link

[phishtaper]

well, my MP finally voted as her constituents want, and is today counted in the Nay column on this silly motion. I like to think that my constant pestering over the years had some impact on her changing her mind. of course, it didnt, i know that, but hey, one can dream, riiiiight?

[Hux]

It's pretty frustrating to see these Toronto area Lib MP's vote this way. I call it the class of '93/Donald Duck theory, most of those who vote this way were elected in '93 with Chretien when in a lot of these (now) super safe Lib seats we could have run Donald Duck and won, ie. less competitive/desired nominations lead to less than...well, people representing a riding who perhaps don't represent the values of the constituents.

[d_rawk]

Yeah. It would've been interesting to see if John McKay would have made good on his threat to walk if the vote had been whipped, and who else would have followed suit (maybe Wappel)?

There's definately some dead wood in the Liberal caucus that the party could afford to lose. As you say, they are completely safe seats that wouldn't be hard to fill.

[phishtaper]

you may have something there, hux. guess when my MP was first elected :crazy:

and d, "dead wood" is putting it kindly.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Tom Wappel - bwahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Ahem - 'scuse me.