Half of CPC MPs are "Religious Conservatives"

[normanchateau]

The bottom line is use of the word marriage.  If so many are concerned about that, what's wrong with a compromise word like union.  Gays still get all the rights, just by a different word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just don't get it. If I were to take away your right to marry and call that a "compromise", you'd be outraged. Yet you have no problem with someone like Harper campaigning to take away the rights of an entire group to marry. This is the 21st century. We no longer view it as important for politicians to take away rights from minority groups. There was a time when politicians were keen to deny equal rights to Asians, Jews, women, and so on. This is not that time.

If Harper were to shelve the C-38 issue, would social and religious conservatives not vote for him? Of course they would still vote for him(given the alternatives). So given that Harper persists despite that suggests that it's really important to him to take away their legal right to marry. He's not just doing it to get votes. You don't think that's scary in a man who hopes to become Prime Minister of Canada?

[sharkman]

If I was gay and the word marriag got taken away from me after less than a year, I would't mind, as long as the rights were still there. You're hung up on a simple word Norman.

[tweedledee]

Its pure bigotry and nonsense normanchateau brings to this website.

Soon he will be advocating hate crimes against  "religious zealots".

If he said those things in a real public forum one would have cause to report it to the Human Rights commission.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I get a sense of that too, gosh I'm surprised that old strawman argument about the CPC is still going on.

[normanchateau]

If I was gay and the word marriag got taken away from me after less than a year, I would't mind, as long as the rights were still there.  You're hung up on a simple word Norman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't chose to make this part of my election platform. Incredulously, Harper did. Harper and CPC chose to get hung up on this word.

[sharkman]

Well, they are going to fix the problem, and then a greater portion of the Canadian people will be happy with it. That's democracy I suppose.

[justcrowing]

The bottom line is use of the word marriage.  If so many are concerned about that, what's wrong with a compromise word like union.  Gays still get all the rights, just by a different word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marriage is a relationship between individuals which has formed the foundation of the family for most societies. Marriage can include legal, social, and religious elements. In western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as social contract between a man (husband) and a woman (wife), while in other parts of the world polygamy has been the most common form of marriage, usually in the form of polygyny (a man taking several wives) but occasionally in the form of polyandry (a woman taking several husbands). In some western societies today, same-sex marriage is recognized.

[normanchateau]

Well, they are going to fix the problem, and then a greater portion of the Canadian people will be happy with it.  That's democracy I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What problem?

[southerncomfort]

The bottom line is use of the word marriage.  If so many are concerned about that, what's wrong with a compromise word like union.  Gays still get all the rights, just by a different word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marriage is a relationship between individuals which has formed the foundation of the family for most societies. Marriage can include legal, social, and religious elements. In western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as social contract between a man (husband) and a woman (wife), while in other parts of the world polygamy has been the most common form of marriage, usually in the form of polygyny (a man taking several wives) but occasionally in the form of polyandry (a woman taking several husbands). In some western societies today, same-sex marriage is recognized.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Polyandry ? There's a thought, you think that honey do list would get shorter -

Talking about polygamy, that is being challenged under C-250 you know, the one where they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. They have their rights too.

[Argus]

Do you honestly believe that religious Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims don't vote according to their religious beliefs? I wonder if anyone has done a breakdown on how Sikhs, Hindus and Muslim MPs voted. Any guesses how many supported gay marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question Argus. I didn't know the answer so I did a search online to see which ones voted for or against C-38.

Here are the ones who voted for it:

Navdeep Bains, Liberal MP

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP

Ruby Dhalla, Liberal MP

Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal MP

It will be interesting to see if a price is extracted from them from their communities during this election. SSM is not terribly important to most Canadians, but some of these ethnic MPs rely heavily on their local ethnic group to support their candidacy with money and votes, and none of those communities are very tolerant towards homosexuals. I would not like to be a Sikh candidate trying to explain to a temple full of Sikhs why I voted in favour of gay marriage.

[normanchateau]

It will be interesting to see if a price is extracted from them from their communities during this election. SSM is not terribly important to most Canadians, but some of these ethnic MPs rely heavily on their local ethnic group to support their candidacy with money and votes, and none of those communities are very tolerant towards homosexuals. I would not like to be a Sikh candidate trying to explain to a temple full of Sikhs why I voted in favour of gay marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know about Sikhs in Ontario but here in BC they seem to be split between "fundamentalist" and "moderate" factions. There are even fundamentalist and moderate temples with the two groups often fighting for control of particular temples. Sometimes a particular temple switches hands as each group brings their supporters to the temple to try to gain control of the executive committee. Ujjal Dosanjh fortunately comes from a moderate group and there are few fundamentalists in his riding so he's not likely to be punished in the next election. Some years ago Dosanjh was stabbed, seriously injured and hospitalized after he offended one of the fundamentalists...but he didn't back down. But you're right that some Sikh Liberals might be punished at the polls if fundamentalists predominate in their riding. Some of the fundamentalists are strongly influenced and even controlled by edicts coming directly from fundamentalist leaders in India.

[Argus]

I don't know about Sikhs in Ontario but here in BC they seem to be split between "fundamentalist" and "moderate" factions. There are even fundamentalist and moderate temples with the two groups often fighting for control of particular temples.  Sometimes a particular temple switches hands as each group brings their supporters to the temple to try to gain control of the executive committee.  Ujjal Dosanjh fortunately comes from a moderate group and there are few fundamentalists in his riding so he's not likely to be punished in the next election.  Some years ago Dosanjh was stabbed, seriously injured and hospitalized after he offended one of the fundamentalists...but he didn't back down.  But you're right that some Sikh Liberals might be punished at the polls if fundamentalists predominate in their riding. Some of the fundamentalists are strongly influenced and even controlled by edicts coming directly from fundamentalist leaders in India.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I agree there are fundamentalist and moderate Sikhs and Hindus I think you will find that both groups oppose same-sex marriage. You can't tell anything from Dosanjh as he's clearly a man who's without principles. He'll say anything, do anything, and join any party which will profit himself. Furthermore, as a cabinet minister, he had no choice but to support ssm.

[sharkman]

In his latest job, Dosanjh has been completely underwhelming. His main strategy seems to be issuing press releases on the dangers of private health care after it pops up in the media in a positive light. Other than that, he's just another yes man for hire.

On the other issue, ethnic minorities are having increasing impact on the political scene. Here's hoping they can determine that Harper's pro-family values are closer to their values than Martin's anything goes values.

[kimmy]

Good question Argus.  I didn't know the answer so I did a search online to see which ones voted for or against C-38.

Here are the ones who voted for it:

Navdeep Bains, Liberal MP

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP

Ruby Dhalla, Liberal MP

Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal MP

Here are the ones who voted against it:

Gurmant Grewal, CPC MP

Nina Grewal, CPC MP

Rahim Jaffer, CPC MP

Wajid Khan, Liberal MP

Gurbax Malhi, Liberal MP

Deepak Obhrai, CPC MP

One thing worth pointing out is that Usual Dosage is a cabinet minister, and cabinet ministers were not allowed to against the bill.

-k

[scribblet]

Good question Argus.  I didn't know the answer so I did a search online to see which ones voted for or against C-38.

Here are the ones who voted for it:

Navdeep Bains, Liberal MP

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP

Ruby Dhalla, Liberal MP

Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal MP

Here are the ones who voted against it:

Gurmant Grewal, CPC MP

Nina Grewal, CPC MP

Rahim Jaffer, CPC MP

Wajid Khan, Liberal MP

Gurbax Malhi, Liberal MP

Deepak Obhrai, CPC MP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One thing worth pointing out is that Usual Dosage is a cabinet minister, and cabinet ministers were not allowed to against the bill.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats the problem with a whipped vote, its not democratic, the MP's can't vote their conscience or the will of the people. They can only vote the will of the party.

[Clopin]

I'm willing to bet Navdeep Bains, and Ruby Dhalla are not going to lose their seats because of their vote on the issue. And if there was any recoil by their voters, they're both 'likeable' enough to overcome it. Their age also helps people accept their position.

Wajid Khan on the other hand was under considerable pressure from his constituency to oppose ssm, he definately would have suffered a defeat had he supported it.

Even though the sikhs and muslims are gernerally opposed to ssm (muslims more so), you'd be surprised by the level of support there is. At least I was.

[sharkman]

Interesting observation, I think a free vote on the issue is best.

[Black Dog]

If you're a Christian and don't accept gay marriage you're a homophobic religious fanatic.

If you're a Hindu or Muslim or Sikh and don't accept gay marriage, well, we'll just keep quiet about that.

As far as I'm concered a bigot is a bigot regardless of their faith or skin colour. It also happens to be that Christians are among the most vocal anti-SSM faction out there and thus a far more visible target for criticism.

[sharkman]

But unfortunately in the Gay minority, if you oppose gay marriage you are automatically a homophobe, a bigot and a zealot. This kneejerk attitude has no basis in reality.

[scribblet]

But unfortunately in the Gay minority, if you oppose gay marriage you are automatically a homophobe, a bigot and a zealot.  This kneejerk attitude has no basis in reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not just the gay minority, but many liberals who like to stifle dissent. They use the word bigot, racist, homophobe far too freely, its a big stick which which to stop debate.

[normanchateau]

The bottom line is use of the word marriage.  If so many are concerned about that, what's wrong with a compromise word like union.  Gays still get all the rights, just by a different word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as social contract between a man (husband) and a woman (wife), while in other parts of the world polygamy has been the most common form of marriage, usually in the form of polygyny (a man taking several wives) but occasionally in the form of polyandry (a woman taking several husbands). In some western societies today, same-sex marriage is recognized.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Polygamy the most common form of marriage in "other parts of the world"? Really?

Sure there's polygamy in some countries but "the most common form of marriage"?

How about China? How about India? There are quite a few people in thhose countries, believe it or not.

Relatively few societies practice polygamy today even though the Christian Bible and Jewish Talmud have no problem with polygamy. Not that long ago Americans were permitted polygamous marriages and there are still some in Utah who resent the anti-polygamy laws. In fact the "traditional" view restricting marriage to two people is based on society creating those laws, not on biblical traditions. American legislators decided that society was best served by taking the polygamy option away just as Canadian legislators decided that society was best served by extending the definition to same sex couples. Other countries like Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands survive despite same sex marriages. So will Canada.

[tweedledee]

But unfortunately in the Gay minority, if you oppose gay marriage you are automatically a homophobe, a bigot and a zealot.  This kneejerk attitude has no basis in reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So true, thanks for saying that not just gays with that knee jerk attitude tho, wouldn't you say liberals are zealots when it comes to bashing people who disagree with it?

[newbie]

One thing worth pointing out is that Usual Dosage is a cabinet minister, and cabinet ministers were not allowed to against the bill.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not entirely true. They can vote against the government, but will lose their cabinet post. Mr. Joe Comuzzi, a cabinet member, voted against the bill. And I commend him for representing his constituents.