Does the Conservative Party/government support same-sex marriage?

[Moonlight Graham]

I was reading this article today, when I noticed something interesting:

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is brushing off criticism of Ottawa's defence of sexual minorities' rights in other countries, saying the vast majority of Canadians support the government's stance despite claims from a conservative women's group to the contrary.

"We have put a great deal of emphasis on promoting Canadian values," Baird told The Canadian Press from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Thursday.

"With respect to sexual minorities, we've focused on three things. One, against the criminalization of sexual minorities, two, against violence, and three, against the death penalty — and I think 99.9 per cent of Canadians support us on those three issues."

I notice that within those "three things", nowhere is support for same-sex marriage mentioned. Quite a glaring omission among the rights for "sexual minorities" the CPC supports, and one that is likely be quite purposefully omitted. Obviously the Harper gov would never try to reverse gay marriage rights in Canada because the backlash would be political suicide, but it's interesting to see where it seems they clearly stand. There are many conservative-leaning Canadians (like the anti-gay women's group in the above article) who don't support gay marriage, so the CPC may be politically playing to that base as well.

One has to wonder how many members of the Harper gov and the CPC support same-sex marriage in Canada. A free vote in the HoC on some symbolic motion of showing support or not for gay marriage (in Canada and elsewhere) would be great way to get individual MP's on record to voters regarding their views.

How do you think the CPC/Harper gov views same-sex marriage rights in Canada and around the world?

[Smallc]

On the other hand, when you're dealing with issues like those mentioned, it doesn't really matter whether or not you talk about marriage...because you aren't getting there.

[Moonlight Graham]

On the other hand, when you're dealing with issues like those mentioned, it doesn't really matter whether or not you talk about marriage...because you aren't getting there.

I don't understand, please elaborate.

[Black Dog]

I don't understand, please elaborate.

You probably need to end death penalties for gays before you can start talking about marriage equality, no?

[Shady]

We have the death penalty for gays???

[Shady]

My guess would be that some conservatives do support it, and some don't. Just like some liberals do, and some don't, etc.

[Mighty AC]

I think that Harper and the PMO are mostly indifferent to equal marriage itself. He is just caught between the views of the majority of Canadians and the Christian right element of his own party. Those carefully worded statements are no doubt crafted to appeal to the majority while giving him the outs necessary to placate the former reformers.

[Smallc]

I don't understand, please elaborate.

You probably need to end death penalties for gays before you can start talking about marriage equality, no?

[Shady]

I think that Harper and the PMO are mostly indifferent to equal marriage itself. He is just caught between the views of the majority of Canadians and the Christian right element of his own party. Those carefully worded statements are no doubt crafted to appeal to the majority while giving him the outs necessary to placate the former reformers.

I think many Canadians are also indifferent.

[Smallc]

Many Canadians are indifferent about most issues. That really proves nothing.

I find it interesting that this is one of the few Canadian political issues that you'll comment on though.

[Shady]

Many Canadians are indifferent about most issues. That really proves nothing.

I find it interesting that this is one of the few Canadian political issues that you'll comment on though.

I comment on plenty of political issues. I commented I this one because I remember when my former high school teacher, who was a liberal mp at the time, was essentially kicked out of the liberal party for disagreeing with their position on gay marriage.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think that Harper and the PMO are mostly indifferent to equal marriage itself. He is just caught between the views of the majority of Canadians and the Christian right element of his own party. Those carefully worded statements are no doubt crafted to appeal to the majority while giving him the outs necessary to placate the former reformers.

I agree, Harper's gov are no political dummies in this regard. It's a touchy issue of course.

[Moonlight Graham]

You probably need to end death penalties for gays before you can start talking about marriage equality, no?

True, however there are some countries that have the death penalty for LGBT people, some with no death penalty but criminalizes same-sex acts, and some that recognize the legality of being or "acting" LGBT but simply doesn't recognize same-sex marriages (ie: like most Asian countries, and many US states). So what about these types of countries?

Baird basically outlined the Harper gov's foreign policy stance on "sexual minority" issues. Canada apparently stands for the things he said in the OP foreign policy-wise, but doesn't support or encourage same-sex marriage rights for LGBT people in other countries?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[On Guard for Thee]

Has anybody out there ever actually heard a Harper MP give a straight answer to anything? I just heard John Baird prattle on about the Russian anti-gay law, and with all of what he said you would still need a quarter to make a phone call. It's typical gobbeldygook talking points which infuriate the hell out of me. My sister had a doll as I remember where she pulled a string and it said thge same shit over and over and over and over. Remind you of Harper answering questions about the senate scandal perhaps. I reckon his string is about worn out.

[Bryan]

Has anybody out there ever actually heard a Harper MP give a straight answer to anything?

Absolutely. Most of them do, most of the time.

On this particular issue, there is no "straight" answer. There's nothing to be gained from irritating the leaders in Russia, or the gay activists here. Saying pretty much nothing (when you're being pressed to say something) is the only road to take.

[PIK]

People just have to realize all the BS about harper form the media and others was......BS. Wehave a great leader that khnows what he is doing. There is much more to being a leader then just agreeing with everyone

[Smallc]

Well, I'm not sure about that (In fact I'm sure that's not true), but they're not necessarily wrong here. You don't talk about marriage when you're worried abut people being stoned to death for something.

[PIK]

Well, I'm not sure about that (In fact I'm sure that's not true), but they're not necessarily wrong here. You don't talk about marriage when you're worried abut people being stoned to death for something.

No as I said everything said about harper being evil and the next hitler was total BS where you and many others fell for it.

[Smallc]

I never believed he was Hitler...I just don't think he's all that great.

[Shady]

I wouldn't consider Harper great. He's a fairly good PM.

[hitops]

What difference does allowing same-sex marriage make? People will have a relationship regardless of the laws. The people who disagree with it, are disagreeing on religious grounds. That's fine, their religions doesn't change the definition just because the government does, they have nothing to do with each other and that's the point. Let the religious consider it invalid all they like, this is a free country and that should be celebrated. That shouldn't alter the way the government sees it.

Now if you start forcing religious people, in their own private institutions, to praise and accept and perform legal ceremonies for same-sex marriages, that is going way beyond equal rights into coercion of the rights of others. If gov says it's legal, then let gov employees perform the same services for same-sex and traditional couples. There is no basis for forcing private individuals and private institutions to do so.

[jacee]

What difference does allowing same-sex marriage make? People will have a relationship regardless of the laws. The people who disagree with it, are disagreeing on religious grounds. That's fine, their religions doesn't change the definition just because the government does, they have nothing to do with each other and that's the point. Let the religious consider it invalid all they like, this is a free country and that should be celebrated. That shouldn't alter the way the government sees it.

Now if you start forcing religious people, in their own private institutions, to praise and accept and perform legal ceremonies for same-sex marriages, that is going way beyond equal rights into coercion of the rights of others. If gov says it's legal, then let gov employees perform the same services for same-sex and traditional couples. There is no basis for forcing private individuals and private institutions to do so.

I agree, so if churches refuse to perform same sex marriages, they should give up their tax-free status. That way they are private and not publicly funded and can do as they like.

[Shady]

I agree, so if churches refuse to perform same sex marriages, they should give up their tax-free status. That way they are private and not publicly funded and can do as they like.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Canadians don't share your radical views. Churches should never be forced to perform same sex marriages, unless they choose to alter their religious beliefs.

[jacee]

Fortunately, the vast majority of Canadians don't share your radical views. Churches should never be forced to perform same sex marriages, unless they choose to alter their religious beliefs.

They're free not to, but should we have to subsidize them?

[Big Guy]

I would suggest that Baird would and does support same sex marriage since he is gay himself. I also wonder how much of his criticism of the Russian position has been initiated by him rather than the rest of the PMO. Why the media seems reluctant to discuss Baird's sexual preference is beyond me. It should be part of the dialogue. Any time a woman supports pro-women issues it becomes part of the discussion. Any time a person of color supports visible minority views they become fair game for "personal bias" but Baird is left alone. Why?