SSM foes `unhappy' with Harper's stand

[hiti]

"Harper appears to be living in a kind of legal Disneyland, as if you can wave a magic wand and thereby override" the Constitution, the courts and an act of Parliament, said Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

"The only way that Harper could possibly override all that is to use the notwithstanding clause and to suggest otherwise is either to be ignorant of the law or to be dissembling."

Harper's declaration was "not appreciated," said Charles McVety, head of Canada Christian College and a founder of the Defend Marriage Coalition.

"But we do recognize it's a hypothetical position," he said. ``You can never predict the Supreme Court.

"This is not the position that we would like Mr. Harper to take but we do recognize that he is running for prime minister and that he is seeking a compromise." (read, Harper must maintain his hidden agenda)

"Although technically it's still open ... it's highly unlikely you're going to be able to re-institute the opposite-sex definition of marriage without using the notwithstanding clause," said Patrick Monahan. dean of Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

"The reasoning has been seen as pretty compelling, such that the government of Canada did not even appeal those (lower-court) rulings."

Jim Hughes, President of Campaign Life Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com on the debate saying, "what an appalling situation. Harper) has said he won't use the very vehicle that was placed in the constitution to deal with situations like this."

In a press release responding to the Conservative debate, Christian Heritage Party Leader Ron Gray dubbed the Conservatives "Liberal Lite" saying they have "now deserted all three of the most important issues in this campaign."

Those three issues, he said, are:

o the sanctity of innocent human life;

o the sanctity of marriage;

o the urgent need to defend the Canadian Constitution from judicial usurpation of Parliament's exclusive authority of to write laws.

The CHP stands for the protection of life, marriage, and the Constitution, he added.

Yet even Tory justice critic Vic Toews said in 2003 that "when push comes to shove ... the only sure-fire way for Parliament to assert its supremacy is to use the notwithstanding clause. ...

[Slim MacSquinty]

Go to the other tread and read what sciblett posted in terms of what the supreme court HAS ruled on.

Quoting Irwin Cotler is of no value since he is biased. The legal possiblities have been hashed out quite well and the notwithstanding clause is not necessary since the Supreme court has not specifically ruled on this issue. And in fact pointed out that the definition of marriage is parliments to make.

You ruin your own argument by referring to the far right as being disatisfied with Harper as it demonstrates he is a moderate, and perhaps not the knuckle dragger the Libs are trying to make him out to be.

[hiti]

Harper is simply liberal-lite for the duration of this campaign which will drive away his conservative votes.

I know what the supreme ruled and parliament has already voted on the issue, with a free vote except for the government caucus.

Harper gets nowhere with his misleading promise of another free vote. Plus if he gets his way and gets the law changed, the supremes will rule it violates the Charter, plus Harper plans to make two classes of the gay community with past marriages recognized but future marriages not available.

How convoluted is that?

[sharkman]

Don't kid yourself, when voting day comes, these so-called foes will hold their noses and vote Harper. Who else is there, Catholic Martin who doesn't seem to want the Pope to interfere with his religion?

[hiti]

I believe this is the start of the social conservative exodus from Harper.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists...17/1357480.html

It is a duty of a parent to always love their children." These are not the words of Dr. Phil or Dr. Laura. They come from Dr. Stephen Harper in answer to a voter's question of whether or not he would love his child if he or she turned out to be gay.

But on Thursday night, I wanted to go to the bullhorn and scream at my Conservative friends, "Will one of you please give Harper some human pills? With all the billions spent developing drugs that can kickstart selective parts of the brain, is there not a single chemical in some laboratory that can prevent Stephen Harper from offering stupid answers to stupid questions?"

[scribblet]

Go to the other tread and read what sciblett posted in terms of what the supreme court HAS ruled on.

Quoting Irwin Cotler is of no value since he is biased. The legal possiblities have been hashed out quite well and the notwithstanding clause is not necessary since the Supreme court has not specifically ruled on this issue. And in fact pointed out that the definition of marriage is parliments to make.

You ruin your own argument by referring to the far right as being disatisfied with Harper as it demonstrates he is a moderate, and perhaps not the knuckle dragger the Libs are trying to make him out to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I should repost what actually happened with the charter here as well ?

The 'far right' doesn't make up the majority of the CPC, and I imagine the libs are very disappointed that they can't smear Harper anymore. This 'far right religious' stuff is a strawman argument, continually resurrected to scare the voters. I don't think it carries any weight these days.

Personally I don't give a fig who religious people want to support, they have the same right to a voice as anyone of us do, or do some people want to see their right to an opinion taken away. It makes one wonder about who we really have to fear, when it comes to freedom of speech etc.

[normanchateau]

The 'far right' doesn't make up the majority of the CPC, and I imagine the  libs are very disappointed that they can't smear Harper anymore.  This 'far right religious' stuff is a strawman argument, continually resurrected to scare the voters.  I don't think it carries any weight these days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that the "far right" is not a majority of the CPC. Nonetheless, it appears that half of CPC MPs are religious conservatives. The following was reported in Lifesite, an anti-abortion website defending that half of CPC MPs are religious conservatives:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072804.html

Lifesite defended the huge number of religious conservatives in CPC by pointing out that CPC is to the left of political parties in other countries. True enough but Harper is running in Canada where a majority favour parties to the left of CPC, i.e., the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Greens.

[cybercoma]

The 'far right' doesn't make up the majority of the CPC, and I imagine the  libs are very disappointed that they can't smear Harper anymore.  This 'far right religious' stuff is a strawman argument, continually resurrected to scare the voters.  I don't think it carries any weight these days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that the "far right" is not a majority of the CPC. Nonetheless, it appears that half of CPC MPs are religious conservatives. The following was reported in Lifesite, an anti-abortion website defending that half of CPC MPs are religious conservatives:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072804.html

Lifesite defended the huge number of religious conservatives in CPC by pointing out that CPC is to the left of political parties in other countries. True enough but Harper is running in Canada where a majority favour parties to the left of CPC, i.e., the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Greens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh man, here you go with the "religious conservative" tripe again.

Paul Martin is Catholic....does that make the Prime Minister "religious liberal"?

[normanchateau]

Paul Martin is Catholic....does that make the Prime Minister "religious liberal"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope Paul Martin is a religious liberal. Religious liberals didn't oppose adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. Religious conservatives did.

[cybercoma]

Paul Martin is Catholic....does that make the Prime Minister "religious liberal"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope Paul Martin is a religious liberal. Religious liberals didn't oppose adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. Religious conservatives did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religious Liberals are blasphemers and like to pick and choose what parts of their religious they wish to believe in, is that what you're saying?

[normanchateau]

Paul Martin is Catholic....does that make the Prime Minister "religious liberal"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope Paul Martin is a religious liberal. Religious liberals didn't oppose adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. Religious conservatives did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religious Liberals are blasphemers and like to pick and choose what parts of their religious they wish to believe in, is that what you're saying?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that you mention it, religious liberals AND religious conservatives both choose which parts of their religion they wish to believe in. However, the two groups differ in that the former are less motivated than the latter to impose their views on everyone else.

[sharkman]

Norm, once again you can only see part of an issue. This may surprise you but religious liberals also want to impose their views. Martin has imposed his views regarding ssm on us. I know this issue is very close to your heart so you can't see it, but it's still an imposition.

Recently someone here linked to a poll that showed 55% of Canadians supported a free vote on the issue. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/Canad...16/1355517.html

So Harper's position is actually in step with a majority of Canadians.

[normanchateau]

This may surprise you but religious liberals also want to impose their views.  Martin has imposed his views regarding ssm on us. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This may surprise you but Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are far more passionate in their support for same sex marriage than Paul Martin. Not too long ago, Martin opposed it. Martin's current support for same sex marriage is motivated by constitutional and political considerations, not religious liberalism.

[sharkman]

Ah, so now you can read Martin's mind. He imposed his views on the matter on us, not allowing his own party to vote their conscience. And 55% of Canadians think a free vote is the proper way to go.

[BubberMiley]

Whether or not 55% believe a free vote is the way to go is irrelevant if that free vote would just be overturned because it clearly violates the charter. The only relevant issue is whether there is a willingness to use the notwithstanding clause. Harper had the balls to say no to that, despite pressure from his party. Therefore he would have a free vote that would accomplish nothing and is totally a non-issue.

[Biblio Bibuli]

This may surprise you but Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are far more passionate in their support for same sex marriage than Paul Martin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it true that all three of these amigos agree that SSM is a human rights issue, AND THUS, if gays WEREN'T allowed to "marry" they would classify it as a "human rights violation"?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[sharkman]

It does not violate the charter. The charter does not specifically address this issue and existed for many years without gay marriage. Are you saying Canada was in violation all those years? We've had gay marriage for less than a year. The conservatives are the only party that allow mps of both views to have their say on the matter, which is in step with a majority of Canadians.

[The Honest Politician]

It does not violate the charter.  The charter does not specifically address this issue and existed for many years without gay marriage.  Are you saying Canada was in violation all those years?  We've had gay marriage for less than a year.  The conservatives are the only party that allow mps of both views to have their say on the matter, which is in step with a majority of Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's be real here. The Tories have to allow a free vote on SSM, so that they don't lose a chunk of their MP's over it.

[normanchateau]

And 55% of Canadians think a free vote is the proper way to go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And despite that, approximately 70% of Canadians will vote for socially tolerant parties on January 23rd. And next year's leader of CPC won't be foolish enough to make an election issue out of giving the majority the freedom to take away legal rights from a minority.

[BubberMiley]

It does not violate the charter.  The charter does not specifically address this issue and existed for many years without gay marriage.  Are you saying Canada was in violation all those years? 

Yes, I am. And the charter says no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. All the rights of marriage have been denied homosexuals, therefore they are being discriminated against. The charter is only 22 years old, and lots of things have to shake through it before they are implemented. Once the charter was made law, SSM was inevitable.

[sharkman]

Let's be real here. The Tories have to allow a free vote on SSM, so that they don't lose a chunk of their MP's over it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, lets. A chunk of liberal mps would actually vote against ssm, and the liberals didn't lose any over it. Neither would the Tories.

Norm, come on, surely you can do better than drag up old comments you've used many times before! I will choose an old response: about 67% of Canadians would rather have someone else than Martin as PM. Interesting how you change your position on polls when they don't have a favorable result for you.

The Tories would allow a free vote, the Liberals not, and who's the more tolerant? You need to take off your Liberal coloured glasses. At any rate, I'm getting bored with this again. Usually I avoid you Norm because you develop this one note trill about Harper and the Liberals and darned if you didn't start it up again. When you want to actually debate something without bringing up the usual crapola, I'll be around.

[The Honest Politician]

Let's be real here. The Tories have to allow a free vote on SSM, so that they don't lose a chunk of their MP's over it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, lets. A chunk of liberal mps would actually vote against ssm, and the liberals didn't lose any over it. Neither would the Tories.

Norm, come on, surely you can do better than drag up old comments you've used many times before! I will choose an old response: about 67% of Canadians would rather have someone else than Martin as PM. Interesting how you change your position on polls when they don't have a favorable result for you.

The Tories would allow a free vote, the Liberals not, and who's the more tolerant? You need to take off your Liberal coloured glasses. At any rate, I'm getting bored with this again. Usually I avoid you Norm because you develop this one note trill about Harper and the Liberals and darned if you didn't start it up again. When you want to actually debate something without bringing up the usual crapola, I'll be around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh the Liberals lost Two MP's over SSM.

[The Honest Politician]

Oh and Belinda. Officailly anyways had SSM as a problem for her.

[scribblet]

Let's be real here. The Tories have to allow a free vote on SSM, so that they don't lose a chunk of their MP's over it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, lets. A chunk of liberal mps would actually vote against ssm, and the liberals didn't lose any over it. Neither would the Tories.

Norm, come on, surely you can do better than drag up old comments you've used many times before! I will choose an old response: about 67% of Canadians would rather have someone else than Martin as PM. Interesting how you change your position on polls when they don't have a favorable result for you.

The Tories would allow a free vote, the Liberals not, and who's the more tolerant? You need to take off your Liberal coloured glasses. At any rate, I'm getting bored with this again. Usually I avoid you Norm because you develop this one note trill about Harper and the Liberals and darned if you didn't start it up again. When you want to actually debate something without bringing up the usual crapola, I'll be around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh the Liberals lost Two MP's over SSM.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, this incessant carping about SSM drags all the discussions down. Its not an election issue for me, and isn't for a lot of people as there are more important issues.

[kimmy]

"Small-c" conservatives are going to leave the Conservative party because Harper says he won't invoke the Notwithstanding clause?

Ok, so who are these "small-c" conservatives going to vote for instead?

-k