Harper and Gay Rights

[August1991]

"That kind of logic that equates traditional marriage with segregation or apartheid which some former cabinet ministers have done means that inevitably you cannot tolerate the existence and practice of institutions that recognize the traditional definition of marriage," he said.

Macleans

Radical gays have made the comparison of civil rights and sexual preference rights. In their view, to oppose same sex marriage is akin to opposing the right of women or blacks to vote.

Harper is making the argument that if this is the case, then the government will have to enforce gay rights as much as it does other civil rights.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. The Catholic church discriminates against women because only men can become priests. (If a private corporation did that, it would be challenged before a human rights tribunal.)

IOW, when governments get involved in attempting to enforce social equality, this kind of ambiguous incoherence seems inevitable.

A Charter of Rights should be interpreted strictly and it should only protect individuals against the actions of the State.

[cgarrett]

so, a charter should not seek to protect an individual from other individuals or private entities?

do you really care august? or are you just towing the party line?

[August1991]

so, a charter should not seek to protect an individual from other individuals or private entities?

The whole point of a Constitution is to limit a government. Government is a coercive monopoly. No other institution in society has such power. Even a democratic government, with the support of a majority, can oppress a minority.

This is precisely the issue with gay rights. A majority can deny the right of a minority to marry.

What churches, clubs and shopping malls do is their own business. The Charter of Rights should not apply in these cases.

The Supreme Court should have ruled that the government must respect gay rights and left it at that. We are having problems now because some people believe the Charter is a mechanism for social engineering.

do you really care august? or are you just towing the party line?

Sorry, I miss your point.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The whole point of a Constitution is to limit a government.

That is precisely what the Charter does. It applies only to government action.

Government is a coercive monopoly.

Well, it's more precise to say that gov. is the institution society invests with the sole legitimate coercive authority.

Even a democratic government, with the support of a majority, can oppress a minority.

"Can" and "may" are different things. The Charter is our society's way of delineating this distinction.

What churches, clubs and shopping malls do is their own business.  The Charter of Rights should not apply in these cases.

And indeed, it does not.

The Supreme Court should have ruled that the government must respect gay rights and left it at that.

What do you mean here? That the courts should not give content to their rulings that address the facts before them?

[Trial-and-Error]

I think the very idea of changing the definition of marriage to include same sex pairs is nothing short of ludicrous. I think the notion that same sex pairs should be granted the right to join together in a civil union granting them the same rights those within a traditional marriage enjoy is long overdue.

For me, it's a no-brainer. Let's retain the definition of marriage for the traditionalists and let's introduce another term for the joining of gay couples for gays.

The issue here is whether or not gay couples should be granted the same rights as married couples--and the answer is an unqualified yes.

Let the H of C pass a law that homosexuals be permitted to marry, but I for one will never refer to a gay couple as being married. Not ever. Similarly I will never acknowledge that a gay couple is married. Again, not ever.

And I say that not on moral or religious grounds--hell, I abhor organized religion--but rather on grounds of tradition.

Just as I would not expect a minority group to change their traditions to suit me, don't expect me to modify my traditions to suit a minority group.

Just by the by, under "civil union" or "marriage"--whichever way it goes in the HC--will one partner be able to have the contract annulled if the union is not consumated?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Just by the by, under "civil union" or "marriage"--whichever way it goes in the HC--will one partner be able to have the contract annulled if the union is not consumated?

Perhaps the idea of consumation will be removed entirely to make way for non-sexual partnerships?

[knn]

By recent comments and actions by Stephen Harper, I'd say that his previous promise of his party having a "big tent" for all,... well, I think his "tent" just got a whole lot smaller!

[August1991]

Harper is allowing a free vote. Layton has said he wants the NDP to vote in favour. So, what will he do with Bev Desjarlais?

However, Bev Desjarlais, an NDP MP from Manitoba, says she'll be voting against the bill regardless of the party's edict.

CTV

[knn]

Harper is allowing a free vote.  Layton has said he wants the NDP to vote in favour.  So, what will he do with Bev Desjarlais?

Probably a slap on the wrist and no donuts for a week.

[Stoker]

Harper is allowing a free vote. Layton has said he wants the NDP to vote in favour. So, what will he do with Bev Desjarlais?

If he does nothing, he will look like a hypocrite for his editorail piece on PM PM......Would Jack kick her out of caucus?

Do morals mean anything to the NDP and Jack Layton?

[Newfie Canadian]

Would Jack kick her out of caucus?

I doubt it.

Layton can't be losing any people any more than Martin can aford to lose any more (Martin has already lost 2, 1 with the passing of Lawrence O'Brien and the other of course with the ouster of Parrish).

The more Layton loses, the more influence he loses in the minority.

[pioneer]

first off in a democracy,politicians are suppose to vote for there constituants and not be bullied by some stupid french man!the guy called normandy,norway!that just proves that along with trudeau,these guys families never fought for canada!so why should they be allowed to run it!

[PocketRocket]

first off in a democracy,politicians are suppose to vote for there constituants....

And here all along I thought the constituents voted for the politician that they think will represent them the best.

and not be bullied by some stupid french man! 

Let's see if I recall correctly. Gays are filth that should be locked in the closet, and now we are making the inference that French men are stupid.

You're simply a font of tolerance, aren't you???

the guy called normandy,norway! 

Ever hear the phrase "Slip of the tongue"??? Or are you going to tell me that never once in your life have you thought one thing, while saying something else unintentionally???

that just proves that along with trudeau,these guys families never fought for canada!

And have you??? Please enlighten us with your war record, once you're done with my previous request for your medical background.

BTW, how do you feel about GWB as president???

so why should they be allowed to run it! 

Because YOU voted for them.

Welcome to MapleLeafWeb, Pioneer. I can see it's going to be fun having you around.

[pioneer]

i never voted for the liberals!my family has been here for more than 35 years so we vote conservative!

[knn]

pioneer Posted: Feb 2 2005, 12:32 PM 

i never voted for the liberals!my family has been here for more than 35 years so we vote conservative! 

Gee, I guessed that one. Now I wonder whatever gave me the impression that you were a "conservative" and Harper's kind of guy!

[daniel]

...by some stupid french man!the guy ...

The degeneration of this thread began this morning with this post.

[pioneer]

i dont lie!

[cgarrett]

august and others have made some good points here... and i am the first to admit not knowing much about 'the charter'.

i think that the most important thing for gay people is the appreciation of their union regarding things like inheritance and work benefits etc...

if some of the ideas expressed here provide for these things and still retain the traditional definition of marriage then i think that is reasonable.

[Black Dog]

The point people keep missing in this debate is hat here are only two options available to the feds.

1) Legalize gay marriage.

2) Use the "notwithstanding" clause, in which case they have to do the whole thing over again in five years.

That's it.

Civil unions are out because the federal government has jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. It can change this definition unilaterally because the definition of marriage is within its power.The federal government cannot legislate on civil unions because provincial governments have jurisdiction over non-marital unions.

[I miss Reagan]

No they don't have to use the notwithstanding clause. The surpreme court abstained from saying that the traditional definition of marriage infringed on the charter.

[Black Dog]

No they don't have to use the notwithstanding clause. The surpreme court abstained from saying that the traditional definition of marriage infringed on the charter.

The SC said that by failing to appeal a number of lower court rulings that said excluding gays from marriage was discriminatory, the federal government had already accepted the position that the curent definition of marriage contravened the Charter.

[daniel]

i dont lie!

More revealing than what meets the eye.

[Newfie Canadian]

It looks like Harper and Martin have something in common with their MPs voting against the party line.

Meanwhile, three more Conservative MPs say they will support the same-sex legislation.

Gerald Keddy[south Shore—St. Margaret's], Jim Prentice[ Calgary Centre-North] and James Moore[Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam] will join with Belinda Stronach[Newmarket—Aurora], who has already made her position clear, in voting with the Liberals.

[I miss Reagan]

It looks like Harper and Martin have something in common with their MPs voting against the party line.

Meanwhile, three more Conservative MPs say they will support the same-sex legislation.

Gerald Keddy[south Shore—St. Margaret's], Jim Prentice[ Calgary Centre-North] and James Moore[Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam] will join with Belinda Stronach[Newmarket—Aurora], who has already made her position clear, in voting with the Liberals.

The difference of course being that Martin is forcing his cabinet to vote in favour and coercing his backbenchers into voting in favour by threatening them with an election and "suggesting" they be absent for the vote.

Ontario MP Pat O'Brien, who opposes the bill, says he and others like him are feeling the heat from the Liberal party leadership.

"I was told yesterday by two Liberal colleagues that it was proposed to them -- or requested of them -- that they consider missing the vote," O'Brien told CTV News.

CTV

[caesar]

Because YOU voted for them.

Welcome to MapleLeafWeb, Pioneer. I can see it's going to be fun having you around.

Well not for long. I see a big boot being directed at Pioneer by Greg in his short future. This type of trash we don't need. I haven't reported him but...