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

[Shady]

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

We don't subsidize them. They pay for their own expenses. However, they don't pay taxes in most cases, because of several reasons, which mostly involve charity work, helping the poor, healthcare, etc. Once again, luckily people like you are in the far fringes of Canadian thought. So your radical out of the mainstream views will never see the light of day.

[jacee]

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?

Why not?

[August1991]

Point 1:

I would suggest that Baird would and does support same sex marriage since he is gay himself.

Precisely, John Baird is gay.

Point 2: What about "left-handed people"? About 10% of any population are left-handed. Should we live according to the one-man, one-vote democratic rule where the 90% who are right-handed decide everything? The US Constitution correctly protected the individual against the tyranny of the majority.

Point 3: The great divide in this modern world is "gayness" (or homosexuality). From Saudi Arabia to India to Thailand, gays are the left-handed people. minority, among us all.

Edited August 11, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

What difference does allowing same-sex marriage make?

Mayonnaise requires whole eggs, with yolks. Salad Dressing does not require yolks.

I think this distinction makes sense. Mayonnaise requires a yolk - otherwise, it's Salad Dressing.

----

When I buy a sauce, or deal with people, I like to have an "accurate" signal of the truth.

Edited August 11, 2013 by August1991

[jacee]

We don't subsidize them. They pay for their own expenses. However, they don't pay taxes in most cases, because of several reasons, which mostly involve charity work, helping the poor, healthcare, etc. Once again, luckily people like you are in the far fringes of Canadian thought. So your radical out of the mainstream views will never see the light of day.

I'm just asking the same question a lot of people have.

Are we discriminating against a religion if we refuse to subsidize churches that discriminate against same sex partners?

[Shady]

I'm just asking the same question a lot of people have.

Are we discriminating against a religion if we refuse to subsidize churches that discriminate against same sex partners?

There isn't really discrimination. A marriage in a church is for religious purposes. The state already recognizes same sex marriage, along with normal marriage for legal purposes, which can be done in a church, or not in a church. If you start mixing the two, and use the power of the state to start to force reiligous iinstitutions to renounce their beliefs, then you're essentially ending reliigious freedom.

[normanchateau]

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/06/15/what-stephen-harper-wont-tell-you-about-same-sex-marriage/

[The_Squid]

Why the media seems reluctant to discuss Baird's sexual preference is beyond me. It should be part of the dialogue.

And how often is a straight politician's sexual preference part of the dialogue?

Why should it be? It's really no ones business. Nor is it relevant.

[jacee]

There isn't really discrimination. A marriage in a church is for religious purposes. The state already recognizes same sex marriage, along with normal marriage for legal purposes, which can be done in a church, or not in a church. If you start mixing the two, and use the power of the state to start to force reiligous iinstitutions to renounce their beliefs, then you're essentially ending reliigious freedom.

You're misrepresenting ... not change beliefs ... just give up public subsidy.

[jacee]

And how often is a straight politician's sexual preference part of the dialogue?

Why should it be? It's really no ones business. Nor is it relevant.

Agreed.

I think it's his choice whether to discuss it publicly. It's not even news otherwise.

[Moonlight Graham]

What difference does allowing same-sex marriage make?

Are you kidding me?

[scribblet]

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?

How do you know Baird is gay, has he confirmed that and if he is, why should the media discuss it? Kathleen Wynne (Ontario premier) is gay which was mentioned when she first took over but is no longer discussed. Really, what is there to discuss and who cares.

Whether the gov't really supports SSM is not an issue because they actually do support it legislatively and constitutionally.

One might get the impression that it is illegal to be gay in Russia and that gay people in Russia can be assaulted and murdered without consequences but such is not case. Homosexuality is legal in Russia. What their legislature

recently decided is that there is no recognition of gay marriage, no permission to hold gay pride parades, and no permission to engage in gay advocacy activities, especially among young people.

I'm not against the idea that Canada should try to influence or improve human rights and freedoms elsewhere. However, in a world where there really are thousands of people being assaulted and killed every year e.g. just because they are Christians, in countries such as Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc, one would think that there would be more pressing and immediate targets at which to direct our energies.

However, it's not cool to suggest that our gov't should not try to influence a country when it comes to homosexuality issues, if they did, they would be 'homophobic'. That subject appears to be more important for some than other human rights violations.

[Mighty AC]

There isn't really discrimination. A marriage in a church is for religious purposes. The state already recognizes same sex marriage, along with normal marriage for legal purposes, which can be done in a church, or not in a church. If you start mixing the two, and use the power of the state to start to force reiligous iinstitutions to renounce their beliefs, then you're essentially ending reliigious freedom.

You're misrepresenting ... not change beliefs ... just give up public subsidy.

I would agree with Jacee if churches were receiving direct public funding, like say Catholic schools in Ontario. However, they only receive tax breaks for providing charitable services.

Churches are not required for wedding services and they are not being paid by taxpayers to perform them. IMO, parishioners who are being discriminated against should either demand change from their religious leaders or leave the church. It's not the state's place to intervene with club policy, unless it violates a law.

[scribblet]

Churches are not subsidized, the only break they get is a property tax exemption on the land and I’m pretty sure a municipality can tax the property if they choose. They and other non profits get that break because they provide a community service which benefits the public. If non profits such as the Legion do turn a profit e.g. liquor sales, they do pay a tax and employees do pay taxes on their earnings.

Bear in mind that while you scream about separation of Church and State you want the State to put it’s hands into their business. If you take away the property tax exemption then you open up the arena to Churches (and other orgs.) for political activities. Not that it actually stops the United Church http://www.united-church.ca/files/getinvolved/takeaction/2011-election-kit.pdf

Not all claimed religions qualify either e.g. scientology.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/csp/csp-r06-eng.html

A Calgary church was stripped of it’s charitable status because the minister spent too much time denouncing homosexuality and abortion.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/01/23/12588276.html

[cybercoma]

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.

False. Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister. When people want to know where the government of Canada stands on this issue, he's obliged to inform them. Even if that's to say, "the Government of Canada has no position on this issue." Edited August 12, 2013 by cybercoma

[scribblet]

People do know where the gov't stands and the gov't has no more obligation to continually re-enforce that position. If anything the CPC has now become the champion of gay rights, as well as upholding freedom of choice for women. To suggest we don't know where they stand on the issue is just plain wrong.

[-TSS-]

It's quite amusing how this very issue seems to get people obsessed with it, be whatever country. One would imagine that as homosexuality is a fringe-phenomenon people whom it does not concern wouldn't give a toss about issues related to it but that's not the case.

[The_Squid]

It's quite amusing how this very issue seems to get people obsessed with it, be whatever country. One would imagine that as homosexuality is a fringe-phenomenon people whom it does not concern wouldn't give a toss about issues related to it but that's not the case.

For most people this is a non-issue.

The problem is that the people who really care about this issue are the religious social conservatives who not only object to someone being gay, they would like the government to discriminate and would go so far as to make their "behaviour" into a criminal act. They applaud what Russia is doing.

[cybercoma]

the CPC has now become the champion of gay rights

Only in Bizarro Canada is this true. They don't champion gay rights nor women's choice. They ignore the issues to sit the fence between their base and the rest of society, which is why backbenchers are frustrated with them but have yet to abandon them.

[Wilber]

It's,

It's a free country, people can support or not support whatever they want. What they can't do is break the law or discriminate.

[Guest Derek L]

Only in Bizarro Canada is this true. They don't champion gay rights nor women's choice. They ignore the issues to sit the fence between their base and the rest of society, which is why backbenchers are frustrated with them but have yet to abandon them.

That’s a rather strong charge…….well I don’t discount that some of the religious base hold their own reservations on the issue (and abortion), with the actual majority of the party, namely the Western & Urban base, the parties stance is no different then the rest of Canadians……..I won’t get into conjecture or speculation, but there are homosexual Conservative MPs , including several within Cabinet……….And as brought up, the parties recent record is known, be it Baird’s efforts, Kenny fast tracking homosexual refugees from Iran and Conservative Party members supporting NDP MP Randall Garrison’s private members bill last year protecting transgender folks under the Charter and making violent crime against transgender people a hate crime……

I really don’t see why “gay rights” are a domestic political issue within Canada….I would say a bipartisan given.

[scribblet]

Good post... despite some efforts, there is nothing they can use to discredit the CPC and obviously there is no `hidden agenda`.

[The_Squid]

It's an issue within Canada because equal rights for gays is a fairly recent event. And Harper has, in the past, voiced opposition to this. Recently, while not voicing opposition, he has not voiced support either. For the PM of Canada to remain neutral(??) on the rights of gays within his own country is rather absurd.

For a leader who has so recently advocated for second-class citizenship for some Canadians, silent acceptance will never be the same as support, and indifference will always be a pathetic substitute for tolerance. Besides, tolerance itself is insufficient where equal rights are concerned.

So Stephen Harper should come right out and say it: I was wrong.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/06/15/what-stephen-harper-wont-tell-you-about-same-sex-marriage/

This issue shows very poor leadership qualities on Harper's part....

[cybercoma]

I give him credit for shutting down the far Right in his party by stating simply that it's a personal matter and leaving it at that. A lot of gay rights advocates don't feel this goes far enough though.

[g_bambino]

For the PM of Canada to remain neutral(??) on the rights of gays within his own country is rather absurd.

What should he have to say about the rights of people in this country who identify as gay? They have all the same Charter rights and human rights legislation and Criminal Code protection as everyone else. (Some might argue their rights are more protected than those of some others, especially in the jurisdiction of human rights tribunals.)

[ed.: +]

Edited August 13, 2013 by g_bambino