'Free vote' for same-sex marriage

[fellowtraveller]

for the Liberal Cabinet, who have been publicly ordered by Prime Minster Martin to vote for the legislation , without regard to the wishes of constituents or their personal views.

Anybody else have a problem with this hypocrisy? Not the same-sex marriage issue, but the ongoing democratic deficit in our country.

There have been two other Parliamentary votes in recent times on this same subject. In 1999, the Liberals repeat the Liberals defined marriage as legal only between a man and a woman. The motion passed with overwhelming support from the Liberals - who voted against same -sex marriage.

In 2003 the Conservatives introduced the EXACT same motion, and the vote was this time barely defeated with a very small margin, same sex marriage was approved by a few votes. This time, since it was non-binding motion, all parties voted their conscience EXCEPT the Liberal Cabinet, who were obliged by the PM to vote the Party line.

Martin is pulling the same stunt again, and it sickens me to the core.

[realwannabe]

yes , lets have real democray, which means making sure minority right is not up to the tyranny of the majority. Let the GAY mps to vote on the same sex legislation as it only concerns homosexual couples.

[PocketRocket]

Martin is pulling the same stunt again, and it sickens me to the core.

Does this bother you only because it's over same-sex marriage???

Or does it bug you that an MP is ordered to vote the party line???

If it's the latter, then every governing party in Canadian history, and American, for that matter, have done the same.

It's only democratic until the election is over.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If a cabinet member disagrees with his government on an issue of fundamental rights and traditions, perhaps he or she has no place in that cabinet.

Cabinet members who don't support the government should vote their conscience, yes. But they should have the courage of their convictions and accept that there may be consequences, just like with other choices in life.

[Newfie Canadian]

I think that was well said Sweal.

[fellowtraveller]

Does this bother you only because it's over same-sex marriage???

Or does it bug you that an MP is ordered to vote the party line???

Not at all, and you have no reason to doubt that. I support same-sex marriage, while at the same time thinking that the way this issue has been handled by the Liberals from the beginning is a disgrace and an insult to democracy from the beginning. Try , if yoiu can, to separate the issue from the process. I am speaking to the process here.

It does not normally bug me that MPs are ordered to vote the party line? No, but it bugs me that the PM can pretend it is a free vote while in the next sentence instructing Ministers to vote as ordered. It can't be both a free and a whipped vote, that would be contradictory. The Libs know a truly free vote would also be a very close vote. They know that many caucus members will vote their conscience or with their constituents.

If a cabinet member disagrees with his government on an issue of fundamental rights and traditions, perhaps he or she has no place in that cabinet.

Baloney. Votes of conscience have traditionally been free votes, there have been no consequences for voting as you see fit in a 'free vote'. Nor should there be, why should htere be any penalty on a vote of conscience. There wasn't for death penalty or abortion issues. To allow some of your party to vote as they wish, and others to toe the line, is to me the essence of hypocrisy. It's not surprisng though, given that it happens so frequently with this govt and we are such a pack of sheep for allowing it.

Can you spell democratic deficit? A sick joke, and it is on us.

[The Terrible Sweal]

fellowtraveller,Dec 17 2004, 07:14 PM]

  Baloney.  Votes of conscience have traditionally been free votes, there have been no consequences for voting as you see fit in  a 'free vote'.  Nor should there be, why should htere be any penalty on a vote of conscience.  There wasn't for death penalty or abortion issues.  To allow some of your party to vote as they wish, and others to toe the line, is to me the essence of hypocrisy.  It's not surprisng though, given that it happens so frequently with this govt and we are such a pack of sheep for allowing it.

Can you spell democratic deficit?  A sick joke, and it is on us.

Institutionally, the Cabinet is held to be jointly accountable for the actions of the government. A minister is a sworn officer of the crown whose integrity is staked together with his Cabinet colleagues. If a cabinet minister cannot in conscience advise the Crown that a measure is a good and worthy s/he cannot sit in the cabinet with integrity. It is very similar to many other conflict of interest situations in business.

So, it's not really correct to say it's a penalty for cabinet members to vote with the government or bite the bullet and resign. If they are free thinking people who honestly oppose the legistlation, with a sworn obligation to so advise the Crown, it's not a penalty to leave cabinet, it's a duty.

[fellowtraveller]

More baloney. Cabinet Ministers are, first and foremost, Members of Parliament, and are elected specifically to represent their constituents. Their appointment to Cabinet is secondary to thatv prime responsibility.

When the Prime Minister calls for a 'free vote' on a matter of conscience and in the same breath orders his Ministers to vote as ordered, he insults the very democracy he is sworn to defend.

[ceemes]

What you are forgetting, is that the current Liberal Parliament is in a minority position. If they were to lose a “Free Vote” on the Same Sex Marriage” issue, it could be seen as a vote of non-confidence, thereby triggering a new election.

As long as any sitting Government is in a minority position, you can be sure that any and all house votes will be whipped votes and not free votes. That’s just the way it is and has always been.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Cabinet Ministers are, first and foremost, Members of Parliament, and are elected specifically to represent their constituents. Their appointment to Cabinet is secondary to thatv prime responsibility.

Exactly. If their obligations conflict they have to make a choice, not say I will vote no but be in teh cabinet which recommednts this as good legislation. What do they believe in?

[fellowtraveller]

What you are forgetting, is that the current Liberal Parliament is in a minority position. If they were to lose a “Free Vote” on the Same Sex Marriage” issue, it could be seen as a vote of non-confidence, thereby triggering a new election.

Ceemes, this and the rest of your post are completely wrong. A free vote is not a vote of confidence or non -confidence. It is usually a vote on a 'moral' issue. The death penalty or abortion are other examples. The status of the government is not at question no matter how the vote goes.

PM Martin is a coward for not allowing the Ministers to vote as their peers are allowed. Typical and gutless to a degree of cynicism matched only by his predecessor. Lester Pearson would be rolling in his grave.

Their obliagtions do not conflict, their first obligation is to represent their constituents. That is who elected them , not the Liberal Party. The PM has released all of their peers from a whipped vote, yet for purely political reasons, does not release the Minsiters. What a corrupt and cynical point of view. You may forgive them, I do not. It is insulting in the extreme to all of us.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Their obliagtions do not conflict, their first obligation is to represent their constituents. That is who elected them , not the Liberal Party. The PM has released all of their peers from a whipped vote, yet for purely political reasons, does not release the Minsiters. What a corrupt and cynical point of view.

Nonsense. What is corrupt and cynical is a Cabinet member who doesn't support the government's legislation but who nevertheless sees fit to sit in Cabinet. Let him do his duty and resign, if he cannot support the government.

[fellowtraveller]

Some people just love that democratic deficit.

Joe Stalin would love this place.

[Newfie Canadian]

Let him do his duty and resign, if he cannot support the government.

Alas, the era of chivalry and honour has passed Sweal, and we shall never see it's likes again.

NL representative in the cabinet is making waves over this situation.

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/...x-20041221.html

[August1991]

Baloney. Votes of conscience have traditionally been free votes, there have been no consequences for voting as you see fit in a 'free vote'. Nor should there be, why should htere be any penalty on a vote of conscience. There wasn't for death penalty or abortion issues.

That's wrong. In the case of the death penalty, cabinet members were required to vote in favour of the bill.

It was a "free vote" – Members of Parliament could vote as they wanted to, and did not have to follow their party's official position. Cabinet members were required to vote for the bill.

CBC Web Site - click on Did You Know

The perception of Cabinet solidarity is critical for a government. If Cabinet members were to vote differently, there would be no end to speculation about possible rifts.

IMV, PM PM is proceeding correctly. Both Parliament and the Supreme Court should be in favour. In Parliament, it should be a free vote for non-Cabinet members.

The issue should not be decided by referendum. (Those who believe democracy is always good should understand why.)

Ideally, we should amend the Charter on this point. Our Constitution is such that we have no clear way of doing that. Or maybe, we are in effect amending our Constitition - and this is how it is done now.