Same-Sex Marriage Vote
Well finally Stephen Harper fulfills his ridiculous promise of re-opening SSM. Thankfully it has absolutely no chance at passing when considering the Bloc and NDP and possibly the Liberals will have whipped votes while for the Tories it will be a free vote. Although the party has been united in the past, I believe this time from what I am hearing you will see a strong split in the Conservatives between the former Progressive Conservatives who may have been uneasy about the issue, but want it put to rest as opposed to those from the Reform/Alliance wing who will never accept SSM even when everyone else has. In the case of the Liberals, Stephane Dion has yet to decide whether to make it a whipped vote or not. While I will respect whatever decision he makes, if it were up to me, I would make it a whipped vote. Any Liberal who broke party ranks would be able to remain a member of the party and run in the next election, but would be stripped from the shadow cabinet if currently a critic and barred from being in the next shadow cabinet as well as being a cabinet minister or parliamentary secretary in the next Liberal government. Some will say this is being unreasonable, but I disagree. The issue here is not whether one supports same-sex marriage or not, the issue is whether one believes in respecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or not. And despite what Harper claims same-sex marriage cannot be repealed nationally without using the notwithstanding clause. With the exception of PEI, Alberta, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, every other provincial court has declared the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional so it would have no effect in those provinces. The issue would almost certainly land before the Supreme Court who would likely strike down the law. The reality is the sky hasn't fallen as some opponents claim and for most Canadians who are not part of the religious right, it is a non-issue. Issues such as lower taxes, shorter wait times, a cleaner environment, a more prosperous and competitive economy, reducing poverty, and strengthening Canada's role in the World are far more important and pressing issues than Same-sex marriage. Although some will say it is good Harper kept his promise, I have often argued and will say again, I am all for politicians breaking bad promises. In fact I have even at times encouraged politicians to break their promises if I thought they were bad ones to begin with. That is not to say politicians should make a habit of breaking promises, but they should be flexible enough to change their position if conditions warrant. I also noticed the Conservative webpage is making a big issue how the Liberals may make it a whipped vote. All I can say, is go ahead, I don't think it will impress the majority of Canadians who want the whole issue dropped period. Hopefully once this issue is put behind we can deal with more pressing issues. Also now that the Liberals have a leader and could bring down the government at any time, I hope the Harper government drops its right wing agenda and starts taking a more centrist approach as well as a more concillitory approach to other parties. If it does this, I would be all for them staying in office a little longer (although I will still fight hard to have Harper defeated when the next election arrives), but if Harper continues his my way or the highway approach, then I think the Liberals, NDP, and BQ should introduce a non-confidence motion at the earliest date possible and defeat this government ASAP. If the Canadians give them a majority government, I will grudgingly accept their right to push ahead with their agenda, but otherwise I think their right wing agenda needs to be stopped since Canadians didn't give them a mandate to pursue a right wing agenda.
14 Comments:
Ever heard of paragraphs?
It certainly will be interesting if Dion becomes a control freak and whips his party.
If the libs are so sure of the outcome then a free vote will prove them right.
Miles- you have, on multiple occasions, accused Harper of being a control freak and running the Conservative Party with a top-down style of management. Yet, you seem to advocate Dion doing just that here.
How is that not hypocritical?
BC Tory - I am all for openness and allowing different opinions, but I do think that sometimes you have to make a stand and draw the line in the sand. Same Sex Marriage is not just a matter of opinion it is a charter right and when it comes to minority rights, it doesn't matter what the MP thinks, it is their obligation to support the Charter. As far as I am concerned those who don't believe in minority rights shouldn't be in government.
Kind time all!
Has for the first time bought the machine. It is necessary to insure. Friends have advised buy car insurance online CHERY. Insure everything, but rich. Who recently insured the auto - respond!
Laws in Canada, laws in Canada's constitution, have not been followed since 1901 when Queen Victoria died, so why start now?
Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901.
The next day, on January 23, 1901, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867, still stated: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen".
On January 23, 1901, Section 17 still stated: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons".
On January 23, 1901, Section 91 still stated: "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...".
What was the name of Canada’s constitutional Queen regnant who had executive government and authority of and over Canada after the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of Queen Elizabeth II?
Same Sex Marriage is not just a matter of opinion it is a charter right and when it comes to minority rights, it doesn't matter what the MP thinks, it is their obligation to support the Charter. As far as I am concerned those who don't believe in minority rights shouldn't be in government.
And this, ladies and gentleman, is what people call "tolerance".
Think like I do, or you don't deserve to run the country.
Think what you will about SSM and Charter rights, but you sound exactly like the kind of person you accuse Harper of being. You appear to not support controlling what MPs say and do (even though your evidence in berating Harper for doing so is circumstancial and speculative, at best) in Harper's case. Yet, as far as Dion goes, you're for it.
So, you're tolerant, yet intolerant of the views of those who oppose SSM. And you have a problem with Harper allegedly controlling his MPs, and yet when Dion clearly does it, you're all for it.
And again, I ask, how is that not hypocritical?
I've just been reading another blog.
Is it really true that Stephane Dion voted AGAINST SSM in 1996?
But, what can you expect from a man who says you can't pick and choose rights one day and supports jailing western farmers for selling their own wheat the next?
At least he's a proud hypocrite!
The issue here is not whether one supports same-sex marriage or not, the issue is whether one believes in respecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or not.
Miles, for the umpteenth time, the Supreme Court was already asked if this was a Charter right, and refused to say.
What that means is that Parliament CAN reverse itself on the issue and that the government CAN file an appeal of the lower courts' decisions in the Supreme Court.
If that were to happen, and the Supreme Court refused to overturn those decisions, then it would unquestionably be a Charter right and the only way to reverse it would be to use the notwithstanding clause. Which, if you've been paying attention, you'd know that the PM has promised never to do.
While it has yet to be finally determined whether this is a Charter right, it is unquestionably a matter of personal conscience. And to whip such a vote is unconscionable.
If anything, I think Dion would whip his caucus on this not out of any deep seeded sense of principle, but to take the issue of so-con Liberal MPs away from the NDP.
Look, I'm sick of this issue as much as anyone. I want it to be over. But if you want to oppose re-opening the issue, do it in an honest way. Don't use fabrications about rights the Supreme Court has never conferred.
Well, it's over, debate closed.
And this, ladies and gentleman, is what people call "tolerance".
Think like I do, or you don't deserve to run the country.
BC Tory, on most issues I am tolerant of different opinions. I despise socialism, but believe they should have the right to serve in government. On the other hand minority rights are fundamental right and I will not accept those disagreeing with them as having a legitimate view. Would you argue the KKK have the right to have their views. Intolerance of minorities is one opinion I am intolerant of and damn proud of it!!
Think what you will about SSM and Charter rights, but you sound exactly like the kind of person you accuse Harper of being. You appear to not support controlling what MPs say and do (even though your evidence in berating Harper for doing so is circumstancial and speculative, at best) in Harper's case. Yet, as far as Dion goes, you're for it.
Harper is a control freak in the fact he won't let his MPs speak out on issues and unless they have his permission is my problem. Stephane Dion doesn't muzzle his MPs. MPs like John McKay could openly criticize his idea of having a whipped vote without risking being turfed from the party while the likes of Garth Turner who spoke out were turfed.
So, you're tolerant, yet intolerant of the views of those who oppose SSM. And you have a problem with Harper allegedly controlling his MPs, and yet when Dion clearly does it, you're all for it.
And again, I ask, how is that not hypocritical?
There is nothing hypocritical about having zero tolerance of those who oppose minority rights. I am tolerant of almost every opinion accept those who advocate violence and those who advocate intolerance. Those opinions I do not have tolerance for.
I've just been reading another blog.
Is it really true that Stephane Dion voted AGAINST SSM in 1996?
But, what can you expect from a man who says you can't pick and choose rights one day and supports jailing western farmers for selling their own wheat the next?
At least he's a proud hypocrite!
In 1999, Stephane Dion did vote against SSM but that was before the court rulings. I have always supported SSM long before it was popular, but I also realize people's opinions evolve. In fact I have more respect for a leader who is willing to change their views than one who isn't.
On the Case of the Canadian Wheat Board, the court ruled the single desk system was in compliance with the Charter. Now I am strong supporter of moving to a dual marketing system, but believe it should be decided by the farmers, not the government. Dion didn't say no to a dual marketing system, he just said no to it without approval from the farmers either through a plebiscite or by electing a board that is composed of board members where the majority favour such system. Ontario and Australia both have dual marketing systems, but in both cases the farmers, not the government made the decision. I happen to believe that farmers would vote in favour of a dual marketing system.
was already asked if this was a Charter right, and refused to say.
What that means is that Parliament CAN reverse itself on the issue and that the government CAN file an appeal of the lower courts' decisions in the Supreme Court.
9/13 lower courts have ruled it is a Charter violation so without using the notwithstanding clause it would only be effective in Alberta, PEI, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, so to reinstate it nationwide would require the use of the notwithstanding clause.
If that were to happen, and the Supreme Court refused to overturn those decisions, then it would unquestionably be a Charter right and the only way to reverse it would be to use the notwithstanding clause. Which, if you've been paying attention, you'd know that the PM has promised never to do.
I don't think it is too difficult to figure out which way the Supreme Court of Canada would rule so if Harper is not willing to use the notwithstanding clause, than why is he playing games with this issue.
While it has yet to be finally determined whether this is a Charter right, it is unquestionably a matter of personal conscience. And to whip such a vote is unconscionable.
Allowing discrimination against minority rights is unconsciounable. Dion only didn't whip his caucus this time since he knew if he did Harper would re-visit the issue again after next election, so he did this in the hopes of killing the idea of this being brought up again.
If anything, I think Dion would whip his caucus on this not out of any deep seeded sense of principle, but to take the issue of so-con Liberal MPs away from the NDP.
That maybe part of it, but I also think Dion feels quite strongly about this issue. Lets remember while their maybe divisions in English Canada, Quebecers are pretty united on this issue especially in Montreal. In fact I would bet the majority of people in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal would say this should be a whipped vote.
Look, I'm sick of this issue as much as anyone. I want it to be over. But if you want to oppose re-opening the issue, do it in an honest way. Don't use fabrications about rights the Supreme Court has never conferred.
Nine lower courts confirming it in provinces that make up over 90% of the population makes it a right until such time as the Supreme Court overturns it and the fact Harper hasn't appealed the issue suggests he probably knows he would lose the case.
Well, it's over, debate closed.
Lets hope so. As much as Stephen Harper may dislike Same-sex marriage, I suspect he did this more to keep his social conservative members in his caucus happy. I don't think this is an issue that is his top priority, although it probably is for some members of his caucus.
BC Tory, on most issues I am tolerant of different opinions. I despise socialism, but believe they should have the right to serve in government. On the other hand minority rights are fundamental right and I will not accept those disagreeing with them as having a legitimate view. Would you argue the KKK have the right to have their views. Intolerance of minorities is one opinion I am intolerant of and damn proud of it!!
Comparing social conservatives to the KKK is a bit of a reach. Apples to oranges, I must say.
The KKK saw black people as simply inferior, and went so far as to condone killing them. Social conseratives advocate no such thing for homosexuals. It's a completely different degree.
Dismissing all social conservative opinions as "bigoted" and "narrow-minded" is, in essence, intolerant, unenlightened, and yes...even, bigoted. THAT is hypocritical.
While I support SSM, I understand that people have the right to their own beliefs and convictions about whether they support the use of the word "marriage" for homosexuals. These people still believe in equal benefits and protection of gays. How can you call them intolerant when they support that.
Put it this way, these guys aren't the KKK.
BC Tory - I think its a matter of where society is in terms of its evolution. Segregation was acceptable 50 years ago, but isn't today and I suspect opposing gay rights will be the same in 50 years.
I also realize people's opinions evolve. In fact I have more respect for a leader who is willing to change their views than one who isn't.
Including Stephen Harper. Right?
Post a Comment
<< Home