Layton, Gay Rights and Liberals

[August1991]

Layton Piece in the Toronto Star

There is much here that I agree with, if not all.

The debate about lesbian and gay equality should be human, not legal. It should be about our respect for each other, not a piece of paper.

I note only that Layton prefers to ignore why this is a controversial issue. It is controversial because many Canadians are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage.

[B. Max]

Layton Piece in the Toronto Star

There is much here that I agree with, if not all.

The debate about lesbian and gay equality should be human, not legal. It should be about our respect for each other, not a piece of paper.

I note only that Layton prefers to ignore why this is a controversial issue. It is controversial because many Canadians are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage.

uncomfortable would be an understatement. The idea that filth could be elevated to marriage and that that somehow makes it equal is down right sickening.

[caesar]

uncomfortable would be an understatement. The idea that filth could be elevated to marriage and that that somehow makes it equal is down right sickening.

Such a ignorant statement from someone who wants to keep that door closed. Homosexuals have been around for all time. As long as it is a union between two consenting ADULTS it is naturaral and normal. Denial of their acceptance will not make them go away. Many homosexuals were drawn to the prisesthood and nunnery in attempts to hide and probably control their instincts. It backfired when these people could not control their instincts and abused children in their care.

Heterosexual sex was treated this way in the past; children and young adults did not even know the proper names for their private parts and we never talked about pregnancy or sex. Pregnant women were not allowed to work. We wore large billowy clothing to hide our big bellies.

Do we want to remain ignorant and deny the truth that such relationships do exist?

Personally, I would prefer naming the union of homosexuals with a slightly different name to distinguish the two, As their sexual practices do not extend to procreation; I would not want to see them have the same rights to adoption of babies as heterosexuals.

Nature creates such abnomalies for a reason; they are created without the desire for procreational sex; perhaps for a reason. Let's open the door slowly and see how things develop.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's just plain amazing how so many of Canada's "liberal" and "progressive" types refuse to show a decent level of regard or respect for the deep prejudices or kneejerk aesthetic objections of right-thinking, decent type people. I mean really, if we cant treat even homosexuals as second class citizens, who's left?

[B. Max]

uncomfortable would be an understatement. The idea that filth could be elevated to marriage and that that somehow makes it equal is down right sickening.

Such a ignorant statement from someone who wants to keep that door closed. Homosexuals have been around for all time. As long as it is a union between two consenting ADULTS it is naturaral and normal. Denial of their acceptance will not make them go away. Many homosexuals were drawn to the prisesthood and nunnery in attempts to hide and probably control their instincts. It backfired when these people could not control their instincts and abused children in their care.

Heterosexual sex was treated this way in the past; children and young adults did not even know the proper names for their private parts and we never talked about pregnancy or sex. Pregnant women were not allowed to work. We wore large billowy clothing to hide our big bellies.

Do we want to remain ignorant and deny the truth that such relationships do exist?

Personally, I would prefer naming the union of homosexuals with a slightly different name to distinguish the two, As their sexual practices do not extend to procreation; I would not want to see them have the same rights to adoption of babies as heterosexuals.

Nature creates such abnomalies for a reason; they are created without the desire for procreational sex; perhaps for a reason. Let's open the door slowly and see how things develop.

Lets call it what it is, and put it back in the closet and this time lock the door.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Lets call it what it is, and put it back in the closet and this time lock the door.

Just because you say so, I suppose?

And when were you appointed Lord High Guy, may I ask?

[B. Max]

Lets call it what it is, and put it back in the closet and this time lock the door.

Just because you say so, I suppose?

And when were you appointed Lord High Guy, may I ask?

I don't have to be lord high of anything to have the same opinion as many many other right thinking people.

That idiot trudeau brought this grief on us by saying the state hand no business in the bedrooms of the country. The next thing we new the bedrooms of the country were in the schools looking for new meat. It's one of the reasons that those who can take their kids out of the government brainwashing institutions to home school them.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't have to be lord high of anything to have the same opinion as many many other right thinking people.

You need to be lord high in ordre to have your unreasonable, self-righteous opinions made into oppressive legislation.

That idiot trudeau brought this grief on us ...

What grief?

...by saying the state hand no business in the bedrooms of the country.

Trudeau was right. Tell me, what business does the state have in the bedrooms of the nation? On what basis?

The next thing we new the bedrooms of the country were in the schools looking for new meat.

Now there's an incomprehensible statement if ever there was. I've never seen a bedroom in a school!

[kimmy]

Layton Piece in the Toronto Star

There is much here that I agree with, if not all.

That is a good read, August. I particularly liked this bit:

It is time Martin took responsibility for his rhetoric, and stopped playing politics with human rights. If equal marriage is about protecting the Charter, it should not be a free vote for Liberal MPs. Protecting the Charter cannot be important enough to go the polls over, yet inconsequential enough to allow Liberal MPs to join Harper in trampling over its protections.

After all, Martin spent a good part of June saying how vital it was to stop Harper's attack on the Charter. He did not tell people that a third of the Liberals elected would agree with Harper. Martin now has an obligation to ensure Liberal MPs vote in accordance with the values he portrayed, wrongly, as theirs.

Indeed. As Layton says, the Liberals fought and won the election largely on the strength of their promise to defend "Canadian values" from a Conservative party that is "too extreme for Canadians".

This appears to be a situation where he's called on to do exactly that (and his threat to call an election to "defend the Charter" seems to indicate he feels that way as well) ... so why is he allowing members of his own party to vote against?

-kimmy

[Stoker]

That is a good read, August. I particularly liked this bit:

QUOTE 

It is time Martin took responsibility for his rhetoric, and stopped playing politics with human rights. If equal marriage is about protecting the Charter, it should not be a free vote for Liberal MPs. Protecting the Charter cannot be important enough to go the polls over, yet inconsequential enough to allow Liberal MPs to join Harper in trampling over its protections.

After all, Martin spent a good part of June saying how vital it was to stop Harper's attack on the Charter. He did not tell people that a third of the Liberals elected would agree with Harper. Martin now has an obligation to ensure Liberal MPs vote in accordance with the values he portrayed, wrongly, as theirs.

Indeed. As Layton says, the Liberals fought and won the election largely on the strength of their promise to defend "Canadian values" from a Conservative party that is "too extreme for Canadians".

This appears to be a situation where he's called on to do exactly that (and his threat to call an election to "defend the Charter" seems to indicate he feels that way as well) ... so why is he allowing members of his own party to vote against?

Though it pains me to say it, I agree, Layton did put forth a well thought out point.........I guess to put it bluntly, he's telling Martin to piss or get off the pot.....

I like!!!

Though I tend to disagree with Layton on the entire topic itself, I do agree with him in the sense that in this kind of debate, politics shouldn't be played. I also like Jack's point because it puts Martin into quite the catch-22.

Force 20-40 members of his party to go against their personnal beliefs or risk the loss of a vote on a Human rights issue that he used to vilify Harper with (and possably won the election on).

Sadly, probably not a great deal of people will pay attention to this piece, because of the fact that it's Layton saying it.......

[Newfie Canadian]

Martin at times do seem willing to throw the Charter out with the bath water, so to speak, while in the next breath saying the Charter is sacrosanct.

Layton makes some good points.

And so does Stoker.

Sadly, probably not a great deal of people will pay attention to this piece, because of the fact that it's Layton saying it.......

so why is he allowing members of his own party to vote against?

Well, if the bill is defeated, Martin goes to the polls (if he follows through with the election threat) looking like a man trying to defend the Charter and minority rights, and the CPC looking like a party shunning a minority and thumbing their noses at the Charter.

At least, that's how the Liberals will spin it.

If the bill passes, it will be a demonstration that democracy is running rampant in the House, and that the Liberals continue to be the champions of the Charter and minority rights.

At least that's how the Liberals will spin it.

[ndpnic]

I think Layton hit the nail on the head.

Gay rights are Human rights, they are Humans after all.

if you think it dirty fine your entitled.

If people think fat people are disgusting, they are entitled.

Do I need to continue?

[PocketRocket]

  uncomfortable would be an understatement.

Oh dear. We're not comfortable with those bad gay people wanting to have happy lives, are we???

Bad, Naughty Gay people. The nerve of them, wanting to be happy.

The idea that filth could be elevated to marriage and that that somehow makes it equal....

Filth??? Hmmm. All the gay folks I know are fastidously concious about their personal hygiene.

Oh, I get it. You meant to say that the gay people themselves are the filth. Excuse my obtuseness.

I'll try to excuse your wonderful tolerance.

.....is down right sickening. 

Stomach upset??? Take a gravol.

Lets call it what it is, and put it back in the closet and this time lock the door.

Aww, but it's dark in the closet, and the Boogey Man lives in there.

  I don't have to be lord high of anything....

Ah, but your godlike, absolute, black-and-white certainty in condemning anyone and everyone whose sexual orientation differs from yours leads us to believe you must be in touch with a higher power.

Either that, or you took too many gravol. And percoset.

  ...to have the same opinion as many many other right thinking people. 

And many many people who don't think at all.

  That idiot trudeau..... 

Hey, I remember him, he was that guy that was a, what's that word again??? Oh yeah, LEADER.

The last one this country has had. Like him or hate him, he was a leader.

...brought this grief on us by saying the state hand no business in the bedrooms of the country.

Perhaps you'd rather live somewhere that the state DOES have legal business in the bedrooms, and where "Right Thinking" politicians have seen fit to pass legislation regarding sexual conduct, somewhere like Florida where...

In Florida, having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.

Good thing the FLA government is on the case or millions of people could suffer puncture wounds.

Or hey, you might like it in Indonesia where....

  The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.

I guess it's better to get some than losing yours...

Or perhaps you'd prefer Jolly Old England where....

In London, it's illegal to have sex on a parked motorcycle. 

So don't park, just keep on driving. That's safer.

Or maybe you'de just enjoy that old Southern Hospitality....

In Alabama, it's against the law for a man to seduce "a chaste woman by means of temptation, deception, arts, flattery or a promise of marriage."

Hmm. No temptation, no flattery, let's see that leaves "Hey bitch, wanna screw???"

Remember "Deliverance"??? Now we know why those good ol' boys were so, um, friendly

Wait, there's more....

It's illegal to have sex with a corpse anywhere in the United States. 

*Sigh*....."Put away the shovel, boys. We're staying home tonight".

Well, let's try some of the more northern states where.....

  In Minnesota, it is illegal for any man to have sexual intercourse with a live fish. 

Damn it. Dead fish make such boring sexual partners, too.

Well, let's try the heart of the American government. Surely there's more common sense in Washington where...

The only acceptable sexual position in Washington, D.C. is the missionary position. Any other sexual position is considered illegal. 

Hmm. Maybe if the Republicans had not gone after Clinton for having sex with Monica, but rather, gone after him for having it in THE WRONG POSITION.... Oh well, too late now.

Or then again....

In Michigan a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission.

Sensible.

Or...

In Indiana, mustaches are illegal if the bearer has a "tendency to habitually kiss other humans." 

Well, no more kissing "other humans". I guess I'll have to stick to porcupines, except in Florida, of course.

Well, maybe on the west coast where attitudes are a bit more tolerant. Somewhere like...

In Ventura County, California cats and dogs are not allowed to have sex without a permit.

I hope your pets have good handwriting skills.

Yeah. Government involvement in legislating when it comes to sex has a remarkably good record of "right thinking" as you so aptly put it.

(All quotes from http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages/stran...nge/sexlaws.htm

Check 'em out. There's a lot more "Right Thinking" to be found there)

The next thing we new the bedrooms of the country were in the schools looking for new meat.

The bedrooms were in the schoolrooms??? Bedrooms are carnivorous???

Does this make ANY sense to ANYONE????

It's one of the reasons that those who can take their kids out of the government brainwashing institutions to home school them.

A bit paranoid about the school system are we??? Methinks you've listened to a few too many Roger Waters albums.

Newsflash; "The Wall" is not a historical document. It is one man's somewhat twisted version of his autobiography set to music.

Right thinking

Uh-huh

[Guest eureka]

Odd, isn't ti, that we are all so concerned about "minority rights" yet want to force MPs to vote against their considered positions and the positions of half the country: positions as in political positions, PR.

[B. Max]

I don't have to be lord high of anything to have the same opinion as many many other right thinking people.

You need to be lord high in ordre to have your unreasonable, self-righteous opinions made into oppressive legislation.

That idiot trudeau brought this grief on us ...

What grief?

...by saying the state hand no business in the bedrooms of the country.

Trudeau was right. Tell me, what business does the state have in the bedrooms of the nation? On what basis?

The next thing we new the bedrooms of the country were in the schools looking for new meat.

Now there's an incomprehensible statement if ever there was. I've never seen a bedroom in a school!

Now there's an incomprehensible statement if ever there was. I've never seen a state in a bedroom.

**********************************************

Trudeau was right. Tell me, what business does the state have in the bedrooms of the nation? On what basis?

None i would say, but at the same time the state has no business in promoting the filth as something normal or exceptable behavior. By allowing the filthy anti human behavior in the schools is to condone it. The state has no business in promoting the sexual perversion of the bedrooms of the country in the schools of the country.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The state has no business in promoting the sexual perversion of the bedrooms of the country in the schools of the country.

And you believe the state is doing this?

[Newfie Canadian]

The state has no business in promoting the sexual perversion of the bedrooms of the country in the schools of the country.

With all due respect B. Max, I have a 5 year old girl who started Kindergarten this year, and I'm more concerned with what she gets exposed to via TV and people in general as opposed to what she may or may not learn in school about this topic.

[kimmy]

Odd, isn't ti, that we are all so concerned about "minority rights" yet want to force MPs to vote against their considered positions and the positions of half the country: positions as in political positions, PR.

Personally I have no axe to grind on the issue of same sex marriage. I believe this country should legally recognize unions of same sex partners, and personally I'm equally comfortable with the term "marriage" as Martin insists, or with "civil union" as the Conservatives wish. I don't find extending the legal definition of marriage to be offensive, as traditionalists do; neither do I feel that using a "separate but equal" term is sinister, as advocates do. The Scandinavian countries use the term "civil union", I believe; those countries are hardly as backward or intolerant as advocates wish to portray people who favor a "separate but equal" designation.

While I don't have any emotional investment in the final outcome, I find the debate around the issue interesting as an example of how our political process is functioning.

While Harper has taken the brunt of criticism in this debate so far, I think Layton makes some interesting points here.

The Liberals have never portrayed themselves as the "big tent" party or the "free votes" party or the "more active role for backbenchers" party. The Liberals have positioned themselves as the "Fight for Canadian Values" party, the "Defend the Charter" party. That was the message, continually through the last election and continues to be Martin's message now. The Liberal campaign signs said "Team Martin," didn't they? Presumably people who voted for the Liberals heard the message, both about "defending the charter" and about Paul Martin being the leader. I think that in this instance, where in Martin's description the issue is indeed a Charter issue, I think Layton is entirely fair in calling on Martin to live up to the promises he has made on that issue.

If the SSM bill is defeated, and Martin does as threatened call an election on the issue, is it fair to ask whether his commitment to "defending the charter" will extend to evicting Liberal party members who vote against the bill from running again under Liberal colours?

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Liberals have never portrayed themselves as the "big tent" party or the "free votes" party or the "more active role for backbenchers" party.

Actually, Maritin did take those as fairly high profile positions during the election.

[cgarrett]

i'll just be happy when this whole "gay marriage" story, designed to mask upcoming party budget issues, blows over. in the grand scheme of things, how it actually affects each of us is imperceptible.

[kimmy]

The Liberals have never portrayed themselves as the "big tent" party or the "free votes" party or the "more active role for backbenchers" party.

Actually, Maritin did take those as fairly high profile positions during the election.

I disagree. While Martin (after assuming office) did make some talk of more free votes and more active backbenchers in his "Addressing the Democratic Deficit" action plan, those where not campaign issues of any note. And I don't recall the Liberals ever saying anything to the effect of being a "big tent." They're pretty proudly the opposite, in fact. Harper made some "big tent" type remarks in explaining that he wouldn't remove Randy White and Cheryl Gallant from the party because in his view the Conservative party can have a range of views; I believe he was somewhat blasted for saying so; a tent big enough to hold Gallant and White is perhaps too big for the liking of most Canadians. I got the impression that it was somewhat a point of pride for the Liberals that they were not accomodating of views they viewed as being outside their core values. The Liberals made "defending the Charter" a central issue of the campaign, somewhat at Layton's expense... he's justified in reminding them of that now.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

i'll just be happy when this whole "gay marriage" story, designed to mask upcoming party budget issues, blows over. in the grand scheme of things, how it actually affects each of us is imperceptible.

That's cynical. I like it.

But I'm not sure I agree. The same-sex marriage issue seems like a tricky one for the Liberals, with a price to be paid whatever the outcome. If they were looking for a distraction, I think they'd go with something with more show and less substance... like having Carolyn Parrish get together with Rick Mercer again, or something. Or having Judy Sgro sue that guy who... hey, wait a minute....

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Liberals have never portrayed themselves as the "big tent" party or the "free votes" party or the "more active role for backbenchers" party.

Actually, Maritin did take those as fairly high profile positions during the election.

I disagree. While Martin (after assuming office) did make some talk of more free votes and more active backbenchers in his "Addressing the Democratic Deficit" action plan, those where not campaign issues of any note.

-kimmy

Interesting twist, kimmy, but your original point is belied by the facts.

See?

"democratic deficit" was a clear Martin policy. Whether it was an "issue" is not the issue.

Do you get a paycheck from the Rightista party?

[Black Dog]

I note only that Layton prefers to ignore why this is a controversial issue. It is controversial because many Canadians are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage.

And why are they uncomfortable?

idea that filth could be elevated to marriage and that that somehow makes it equal is down right sickening.

Ah.

So, while B.Max has proven himself to be a frothing at the mouth hate pustule, his lunatic rant raises an interesting question for board members: some of the resident righties and centre-righties here are verrrry quick to jump on anyone who states the anti-SSM crowd is motivated by fear, ignorance, bigotry and hate. Yet here is a shining example of hate in action and the silence is deafening. Why are you giving the haters a pass?

[Stoker]

So, while B.Max has proven himself to be a frothing at the mouth hate pustule, his lunatic rant raises an interesting question for board members: some of the resident righties and centre-righties here are verrrry quick to jump on anyone who states the anti-SSM crowd is motivated by fear, ignorance, bigotry and hate. Yet here is a shining example of hate in action and the silence is deafening. Why are you giving the haters a pass?

Freedom of expression........as long as he's not hurting anybody, go nuts.

I'd feel the same way about the SSM debate in this country if I had solid proof that this won't impact my religious beliefs........I don't give two shits about what gays do or don't, I just don't trust the Liberals to protect my rights.