Tories, Gays, BQ

[Riverwind]

Harper himself, as well as many Conservative MPs, are supporters of same-sex equality and benefits.  What they're against is changing the definition of marriage, an act that will alienate Canadians who have deep familial and religious values.

Would the CPC support a solution where the gov't gets out of the marriage business all together? In other words, everyone has a civil union as far as the law is concerned. If individuals and churches want to call it a marriage then that is fine.

[cybercoma]

Harper himself, as well as many Conservative MPs, are supporters of same-sex equality and benefits.  What they're against is changing the definition of marriage, an act that will alienate Canadians who have deep familial and religious values.

Would the CPC support a solution where the gov't gets out of the marriage business all together? In other words, everyone has a civil union as far as the law is concerned. If individuals and churches want to call it a marriage then that is fine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't speak for the CPC, but I would support that option since it allows churches the freedom to hold their own values. Government should not be defining marriage.

[Riverwind]

Would the CPC support a solution where the gov't gets out of the marriage business all together? In other words, everyone has a civil union as far as the law is concerned. If individuals and churches want to call it a marriage then that is fine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't speak for the CPC, but I would support that option since it allows churches the freedom to hold their own values. Government should not be defining marriage.

You make my point - it does not make a difference what the gov't calls marriage since society will make it own judgment. Even if SSM opponents succeeded many people and churches would refer to gay unions as marriages. This leads me to believe that all of high words about the santity of marriage are just a smoke screen to cover up fear and loathing of homosexuals.

Argus makes the point that opponents to SSM are extermely motivated which is consistent by my belief that these people who are motivated by fear and loathing. Supporters of SSM correctly realize that it is irrelevant what the gov't does since marriage is social institution - not a gov't one. Which is why they are not as motivated.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Government should not be defining marriage.

But churches should? Even for the non-religious?

[August1991]

Supporters of SSM correctly realize that it is irrelevant what the gov't does since marriage is social institution - not a gov't one.

That argument slices both ways, Sparhawk. If it is irrelevant what the government does, then maybe it should just leave the whole issue alone.

[Riverwind]

Supporters of SSM correctly realize that it is irrelevant what the gov't does since marriage is social institution - not a gov't one.

That argument slices both ways, Sparhawk. If it is irrelevant what the government does, then maybe it should just leave the whole issue alone.

I could not agree more, however, if the government does nothing then all of the court rulings stand and gay marriage is official in 8 out 10 provinces. But, I don't think SSM opponents would be willing to stand for that.

The other problem is the thinly veiled hatred of gays expressed by so many opponents of SSM. When you see such obvious bigotry it is hard to sit back and say nothing even if you think the issue is irrelevant.

Furthermore, if the Liberals had decided to adopt the separate but equal approach, I believe we would still be having this debate because the SSM opponents would still be arguing that gay civil unions undermined the family. By taking the extreme on one side, the Liberals forced the CPC into a more moderate middle.

[Black Dog]

Well, I did say "take it as you will".

Bullshit. You have absolutely no way to backup this garbage.

From the Ipsos-Reid poll above:

• Urban respondents are significantly more likely to agree that Canada’s should changeCanada’s marriage laws than are rural residents (49% urban vs. 41% rural).

• Women are significantly more apt to believe that Mr. Martin’s government should

change marriage laws to accommodate same sex couples than are men (51% women vs. 43% men).

• As education level rises, the respondents offer stronger levels of support for the

reformation of marriage laws to allow same sex marriage (32% some high school or less, 42% high school education, 48% some post secondary or college diploma, 56% university degree or higher).

• Income level is also positively related to support for changing marriage laws to

include same sex marriage (42%<$30K, 45% $30K - <$60K, 54% $60K +).

• As respondents age, agreement level drops (60% 18-34, 48% 35-54, 33% 55+).

[August1991]

As MPs prepare to vote on an amendment to the same-sex marriage bill, a CBC poll suggests Canadians are very divided on the issue – especially along age and cultural lines.

Slightly more than half – 52 per cent – of the 1,203 respondents said they disagreed with the Liberal government's plan to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

CBC Environics Poll

The Canadian public slightly supports the notion of gay marriage -- but they are increasingly uncomfortable calling it marriage, a new poll has found.

The Ipsos-Reid survey, conducted for CTV and the Globe and Mail, also found that if the Supreme Court ultimately finds the federal government's proposed bill to be constitutional, 52 per cent of Canadians would accept it.

CTV Ipsos Reid Poll

An internal poll commissioned by the Conservative Party of Canada has revealed that a 57 percent majority of Ontarians support the traditional definition of marriage. Thirty-eight percent support the Liberal's bid to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Lifesite (?)

However, after the combined rulings of both the BC Court of Appeal in favour of same-sex marriage on May 1, 2003, and the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 10, 2003, when Canadians faced for the first time the real possibility of same-sex marriage becoming the law, they began to withdraw their support.

Real Women - Many Polls

Since mid-1996, most Canadian adults appear to favor same-sex marriage (SSM). There is a significant difference among Canadians according to their location: Residents of Quebec generally exhibit the highest support.  Residents of the Prairie Provinces are much less supportive.

American Web Site - Numerous Canadian poll results since 1996

BD, this is hardly an exhaustive mega-survey of polls on the issue but from what I can gather: Canada overall is evenly divided, opinions are changing, Quebec and BC are definitely in favour of SSM and without Quebec, ROC is against SSM.

I think BD that your general breakdowns are accurate as to age, education, urban, income.

There is the question of whether SSM is right or not, and then there is the sociology of SSM support and its political repercussions. Many English Canadians object to being told what to think, and they particularly object to being told that they are bigotted. Remember what happened with the Charlottetown Accord, and what just happened in France.

For several reasons, notably that he's perceived as a WASP Westerner, I don't think that Harper will capture this grognement and turn it into Tory votes but the dissatisfaction is there.

The other problem is the thinly veiled hatred of gays expressed by so many opponents of SSM. When you see such obvious bigotry it is hard to sit back and say nothing even if you think the issue is irrelevant.

Sparhawk, nobody serious is denying the right of gays to live as anyone else. No one is saying that gays must wear yellow stars on their lapels, or change the colour of their skin to pink.

Many people simply object to being enthusiastic party to street parades where half-naked men dance. Must others participate in this? Should they be vilified if they don't?

[politicalman]

You mean the silent minority. Anyway, yeah, I totally understand and agree with what you are saying.

[Riverwind]

Many people simply object to being enthusiastic party to street parades where half-naked men dance.  Must others participate in this?  Should they be vilified if they don't?

Well, I have to add myself to those people because I find gay pride parades distasteful as well. However, that has nothing to do will whether or not gays should be allowed to marry.

My main argument: if SSM opponents are really concerned about the sanctity of marriage why aren't they protesting the fact that common law couples can live together and enjoy the same benefits of marriage without being married? It seems to me that accepting common law couples is a much greater threat than a handful of gays getting married. That is why I believe the objections are more based on fear andloathing of gays than on belief in marriage as a institution - and, as a result, I feel I have to speak against hate based policies.

[Black Dog]

There is the question of whether SSM is right or not, and then there is the sociology of SSM support and its political repercussions. Many English Canadians object to being told what to think, and they particularly object to being told that they are bigotted. Remember what happened with the Charlottetown Accord, and what just happened in France.

IMO, the better PRs trategy should have been about individual freedom. Civil marriage is a function of government and, as we are a free society, it should be as open as is reasonable. No one is being dictated too. It's a policy of inclusion, not exclusion.

Sparhawk, nobody serious is denying the right of gays to live as anyone else. No one is saying that gays must wear yellow stars on their lapels, or change the colour of their skin to pink.

This would be a sound point if it ween't for people like Archbishop Henry of Calgary who essentialy called for the recriminalization of homosexuality (wasn't there a CPC MP who had a similar position). It's one thing to recognize that not everyone who opposes SSM is a raging 'phobe. It's another to ignore the 'phobes altogether. They're out there and they are real.

Many people simply object to being enthusiastic party to street parades where half-naked men dance. Must others participate in this? Should they be vilified if they don't?

It's weird you would dispense with one straw man in the sentence above, and then create a new one in the next. No one is vilifing those who don't participate in pride events. Nr is anyone demanding anyone who does not should. The most common sentiment is, "if you don't like it, don't go". Same goes for SSM.

[August1991]

No one is vilifing those who don't participate in pride events. Nr is anyone demanding anyone who does not should.

What just happened to Stephen Harper? How did the Toronto media report his activities?

[Black Dog]

What just happened to Stephen Harper? How did the Toronto media report his activities?

Are you telling me that Harper's movements weren't calculated to send a message? It's one thing for him to stay away. It's another to go, on the day of the nation's biggest Pride event, and speak out against same-sex marriage while addressing a Muslim religious convention. It was a political move and elicited a political response.

Incidentally, I did a quick google survey of the major new outlets handling of the even. In most, Harper's no-show warranted, at most two to three sentences, all at the bottom of the story. Only the conservative National Post made it the lead.

[August1991]

Are you telling me that Harper's movements weren't calculated to send a message? It's one thing for him to stay away. It's another to go, on the day of the nation's biggest Pride event, and speak out against same-sex marriage while addressing a Muslim religious convention. It was a political move and elicited a political response.

BD, go figure. Would Mark Steyn approve?

Incidentally, I did a quick google survey of the major new outlets handling of the even. In most, Harper's no-show warranted, at most two to three sentences, all at the bottom of the story. Only the conservative National Post made it the lead.

Paul Wells reminded the journalist kids of his viewpoint. English Canada is a small world. Look at the key sentence. "Stephen Harper took his son to a Dragon Boat race, then went to Muslim majlis."

I'm in Moscow and I'm beat, tired, late. Tomorrow, or the next day, I'll tell you the story, or my story: There are more people living in Moscow region than in Canada. Moscovites want Wal-Mart to open here. In the world, "Canada" is irrelevant.

[Black Dog]

BD, go figure. Would Mark Steyn approve?

You said:

Many people simply object to being enthusiastic party to street parades where half-naked men dance. Must others participate in this? Should they be vilified if they don't?

I just don't think its valid to use the reaction to a political figure's actions as an example of vilification of people who don't support gay rights or pride events.

[Technocrat]

There are more people living in Moscow region than in Canada. Moscovites want Wal-Mart to open here. In the world, "Canada" is irrelevant.

As number 8 in the top 10 largest world economies I would hardly say that we are irrelevant. Population wise perhaps... however when such a small population controls such a vast amount of world resources... our role becomes increasingly relevant.

In response to harper and his latest move on SSM... What are his strategists thinking? In one of canada's most gay friendly centers this kind of message is unlikely to garner the kind of support he needs to become the nations leader. Mistake after mistake from the cons.

Anyhow I applaud our government... equal rights for all.

To quote Hulk Hogan in a speed stick commercial

"Anything less is just uncivilized'

hehe

[Argus]

In response to harper and his latest move on SSM... What are his strategists thinking?  In one of canada's most gay friendly centers this kind of message is unlikely to garner the kind of support he needs to become the nations leader.  Mistake after mistake from the cons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Toronto media is the most gay friendly in Canada.

It's not at all certain that the actual people of Toronto are quite so enthusiastic.

More than half the population of Toronto is foreign born, and polls show that ethnic and cultural groups are far less enthusiastic about ssm than those born here.

[Shakeyhands]

I'm in Moscow and I'm beat, tired, late. Tomorrow, or the next day, I'll tell you the story, or my story: There are more people living in Moscow region than in Canada. Moscovites want Wal-Mart to open here. In the world, "Canada" is irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find your statement above very interesting... Does the idea of this please you? Perhaps you should join the Bloc? Or am I misreading?

[August1991]

I'm in Moscow and I'm beat, tired, late.  Tomorrow, or the next day, I'll tell you the story, or my story: There are more people living in Moscow region than in Canada. Moscovites want Wal-Mart to open here.

I find your statement above very interesting... Does the idea of this please you? Perhaps you should join the Bloc? Or am I misreading?

I think I was wrong. The Moscow region is Ontario, not Canada. Russia is truly something else again.

I have thought about your post for the past few days. What to say? How to respond? Should I say anything?

Moscow is a big city with many people doing many different things. IME, there is a difference between cities wth 10 million people and cities with 3 million. There is a difference between Paris, Cairo, Moscow, London, Delhi and Toronto and Montreal.

More important: How to explain a society where people accept that Wal-Mart is a better way to organize trade? The English-Canadian Leftist is moribund; the Scandinavian syndicaliste is intrguing and the Eastern European voter is probably the future.

I find your statement above very interesting

Shakeyhands, give me some time to think and answer.

[mcqueen625]

I still say Canada would be much better off by abolishing Parliament, the Senate, and the Governor General, and all of their Provincial & Territorial counterparts, and elect the judiciary in their place. It was Martin himself that stated: "The Supreme Court has the final say in this country," so why not make them accountable for their decisions. Electing the judiciary to specific terms would also make them conscious and sensitive to the wishes of the Canadian people. If the judiciary are going to have the power to rule this country, the very least that can happen is to make them accountable to the people who are expected to pay their salaries and pensions.

We pay politicians who don't seem to want to do their jobs so they have come to rely on the judiciary to make their decisions for them. They then sit back and claim that the devil made them do it. It's time to either make our politician's do the jobs they are paid to do, or replace them.

[Guest eureka]

Replacing all those bodies with an elected judiciary would simply give us one lawmaking body that would be prone to all the mistakes and ills of the others without any check on its laws. The judiciary has no lawmaking function other than the byproduct of interpretation of existing law.

[takeanumber]

The courts are there to protect minorities when the majority acts against them, or drag their feet in protecting their rights.

So, from a socio-political point of view, who cares what the majority thinks with respect to SSM? It's a moot point.

Tolerance does in fact increase the younger and more educated Canadians are. I'm sure this is very disconcerning to the Conservatives, who rely on older, uneducated, and ignorant Canadians as their voter base. Through the magic of time, these voters will eventually die off, leaving a much more progressive Canada.

I'm happy with the SSM result. It makes Canada a cool country, and a really great society.

[August1991]

Tolerance does in fact increase the younger and more educated Canadians are. I'm sure this is very disconcerning to the Conservatives, who rely on older, uneducated, and ignorant Canadians as their voter base. Through the magic of time, these voters will eventually die off, leaving a much more progressive Canada.

Huh?

The young just think the old are ignorant. The old know the young are ignorant.

-----

I'm happy with the SSM result. It makes Canada a cool country, and a really great society.

That's it. Governments should pick policies that make Canada a "cool" country.

How about free designer shades for all Canadians flying abroad?

[cybercoma]

Tolerance does in fact increase the younger and more educated Canadians are. I'm sure this is very disconcerning to the Conservatives, who rely on older, uneducated, and ignorant Canadians as their voter base. Through the magic of time, these voters will eventually die off, leaving a much more progressive Canada.

Huh?

The young just think the old are ignorant. The old know the young are ignorant.

-----

I'm happy with the SSM result. It makes Canada a cool country, and a really great society.

That's it. Governments should pick policies that make Canada a "cool" country.

How about free designer shades for all Canadians flying abroad?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't forget they have to have little maple leafs on the arms. Wouldn't want to forget about advertising nationalism around the world.

[CrazyCanuck]

Tolerance does in fact increase the younger and more educated Canadians are. I'm sure this is very disconcerning to the Conservatives, who rely on older, uneducated, and ignorant Canadians as their voter base. Through the magic of time, these voters will eventually die off, leaving a much more progressive Canada.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alberta is the strongest supporter of the Conservatives, and they are also the youngest population in Canada (not including the Territories). The other strongest Conservative area is Sask and it is the next youngest. I'm confused then, I thought that the Conservatives only relied on the old dumb people for support. Could you clarify all this for me?