Same-Sex Marriage

[YankAbroad]

I don't even favour banning racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual slurs.

If some asswipe wants to call me a faggot, that's a good thing. I'd rather he call me that to my face than act polite due to his fear of being sanctioned by the law and undermining me behind my back. I like to know where I stand up front.

[tml12]

I don't even favour banning racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual slurs.

If some asswipe wants to call me a faggot, that's a good thing. I'd rather he call me that to my face than act polite due to his fear of being sanctioned by the law and undermining me behind my back. I like to know where I stand up front.

I guess there is a lot of truth in that. I have always said that I respect a person who tells me upfront that they don't like me and don't fawn and cajole me. That kind of person is the worst kind because they take advantage of you and deep inside themselves they lack a respect for themselves.

[YankAbroad]

I guess it comes down to having what I call "the adult society."

Much of the 20th century in the west has been an effort to infantalise us as individuals. We don't take care of ourselves, we have big mommy and daddy government to take care of us. We don't think for ourselves, we are told what to think. We don't spend our own money, it's taxed from us and spent for us because we're not smart enough to spend it ourselves. We cannot say what we think and weather the consequences, we have to have our speech regulated. We cannot debate points or face the fact that some people are just plain mean and nasty, we need to be protected from hearing bad things. And so on.

I don't like that. I prefer a simple, direct approach where I am in control of how I react, where I go, what I do, how I spend, etc. But I think that's a radical minority position these days. Most people don't want to be free, they want to be comfortable.

[normanchateau]

Norman, why did former Prime Minister Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet vote against same sex marriage - twice?

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic.

Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to.

That's not what C-250 was about and you know it.

I stated exactly what C-250 was about on this thread at 8:56 on January 24th. C-250 was the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. And Harper did vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. And he did so even AFTER Vic Toews successfully introduced an amendment into C-250 designed to protect the religious freedom of those who use the Bible to justify their negative views on homosexuality.

[normanchateau]

Norman, why did former Prime Minister Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet vote against same sex marriage - twice?

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic.

Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to.

That's not what C-250 was about and you know it.

I stated exactly what C-250 was about on this thread at 8:56 on January 24th. C-250 was the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. And Harper did vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. And he did so even AFTER Vic Toews successfully introduced an amendment into C-250 designed to protect the religious freedom of those who use the Bible to justify their negative views on homosexuality.

[Hicksey]

Norman, why did former Prime Minister Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet vote against same sex marriage - twice?

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic.

Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to.

That's not what C-250 was about and you know it.

I stated exactly what C-250 was about on this thread at 8:56 on January 24th. C-250 was the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. And Harper did vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. And he did so even AFTER Vic Toews successfully introduced an amendment into C-250 designed to protect the religious freedom of those who use the Bible to justify their negative views on homosexuality.

IMO, any law that abridges anyone's right to free speech is unconstitutional and wrong.

The reality is that we can't stop hate by making it illegal to say it out loud. Unless you change hearts and minds all you're likely to achieve is making those who harbor those beliefs even more angry than they were.

Now, that doesn't excuse one from the reprocussions of spouting such lunacy or from having those beliefs. But why make angry people angrier? It makes no sense.

[normanchateau]

Hopefully this will help people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250

Thank you for posting this tml12. It provides precisely what everyone should read to understand that C-250 was indeed the legislation which added sexual orientation and therefore by definition, gay bashing, to hate crimes legislation. If you click on the term sexual orientation in the Wikipedia C-250 article, it states clearly that this is the most common legal term used in laws that prohibit discrimination based on homosexuality (or heterosexuality).

Despite all the evidence, some Harper supporters are still keen to deny that C-250 added gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. Harper was very fortunate in that neither the Liberals nor the lazy media even raised the issue of Harper voting against C-250 in the campaign leading up to the 2006 election. He won't be so lucky next time no matter how disingenuous he is in the interim.

[normanchateau]

I stated exactly what C-250 was about on this thread at 8:56 on January 24th. C-250 was the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. And Harper did vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. And he did so even AFTER Vic Toews successfully introduced an amendment into C-250 designed to protect the religious freedom of those who use the Bible to justify their negative views on homosexuality.

IMO, any law that abridges anyone's right to free speech is unconstitutional and wrong.

The reality is that we can't stop hate by making it illegal to say it out loud. Unless you change hearts and minds all you're likely to achieve is making those who harbor those beliefs even more angry than they were.

Hicksey, I'm sympathetic to your argument. However, your argument refers to all hate crimes legislation, and not just the addition of sexual orientation to pre-existing hate crimes legislation.

Harper himself has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on race, religion or ethnic origin. In fact he said so during the C-250 debate. However, he has a problem with the legislation when it's also based on being gay or lesbian. Had Harper simply said I oppose all hate crimes legislation, then it would have been a clear, free speech issue. But by singling out gays and lesbians, he exposes himself to the criticism of being potentially motivated by religious extremism or even hatred of homosexuals.

[Hicksey]

I stated exactly what C-250 was about on this thread at 8:56 on January 24th. C-250 was the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. And Harper did vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. And he did so even AFTER Vic Toews successfully introduced an amendment into C-250 designed to protect the religious freedom of those who use the Bible to justify their negative views on homosexuality.

IMO, any law that abridges anyone's right to free speech is unconstitutional and wrong.

The reality is that we can't stop hate by making it illegal to say it out loud. Unless you change hearts and minds all you're likely to achieve is making those who harbor those beliefs even more angry than they were.

Hicksey, I'm sympathetic to your argument. However, your argument refers to all hate crimes legislation, and not just the addition of sexual orientation to pre-existing hate crimes legislation.

Harper himself has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on race, religion or ethnic origin. In fact he said so during the C-250 debate. However, he has a problem with the legislation when it's also based on being gay or lesbian. Had Harper simply said I oppose all hate crimes legislation, then it would have been a clear, free speech issue. But by singling out gays and lesbians, he exposes himself to the criticism of being potentially motivated by religious extremism or even hatred of homosexuals.

Then he's not taken the time to examine what being conservative and the words limited government really mean. I am guessing that since bill C-250 predates the extortion of a gay marriage amendment by the courts, that Harper must have been thinking it would lead to it. It's the only thing I can think of that might lend to him making such stupid comments.

I am not Harper's biggest fan by any means, but I like his party much more than they other 3.

[normanchateau]

Hicksey, I'm sympathetic to your argument. However, your argument refers to all hate crimes legislation, and not just the addition of sexual orientation to pre-existing hate crimes legislation.

Harper himself has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on race, religion or ethnic origin. In fact he said so during the C-250 debate. However, he has a problem with the legislation when it's also based on being gay or lesbian. Had Harper simply said I oppose all hate crimes legislation, then it would have been a clear, free speech issue. But by singling out gays and lesbians, he exposes himself to the criticism of being potentially motivated by religious extremism or even hatred of homosexuals.

Then he's not taken the time to examine what being conservative and the words limited government really mean. I am guessing that since bill C-250 predates the extortion of a gay marriage amendment by the courts, that Harper must have been thinking it would lead to it. It's the only thing I can think of that might lend to him making such stupid comments.

Although C-250 predates C-38, I'm not sure that Harper opposed C-250 because he thought it would lead to C-38. If that was his motivation, it's not on the public record.

Initially his concern was that it could infringe on the religious freedom of churches but the Toews amendment was introduced into C-250 for that very reason. Once the Toews amendment was put in and there was agreement that churches were protected, Harper apparently lost interest in opposing C-250...perhaps because he saw no benefit politically. This lead to an outcry from the Christian Heritage Party which condemned Harper for not showing up for second reading of C-250. Below is the response of Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party to Harper's failure to oppose C-250:

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/ReHarpe...ingMarriage.htm

After the Christian Heritage Party and quite a few other religious conservative groups condemned Harper for apparently losing interest in C-250, he and almost every member of his party showed up on third reading to vote against C-250. So it remains an open question, in my opinion, as to whether sincere convictions or political pressure from religious conservatives accounted for Harper voting against C-250.

[scribblet]

I'm a gay man and I don't support that bill, if the Wikipedia article is accurate (something which is often in doubt with me when it comes to Wiki in general).

Of course, I also don't support the bill it's amending. I oppose all "hate speech" laws or other laws which abridge the freedom to communicate any point of view, no matter how unpopular it may be.

Well said, I also agree about Wikipedia, it is not always correct, I prefer other sources.

Bill C-250 is really a gag law. It's all about silencing debate and opposition.

[Shakeyhands]

Can someone who is opposed to SSM please explain to me how your life, your church or whatever has been affected by the passing of SSM?

I can attest that my life, nor the lifes of anyone in my church has changed the least little bit, why the hubbub Bub?

[rbacon]

Harper can side step the dog crap on the sidewalk very simply by allowing those who must live under the law to vote on it in a binding referendum. Let the people of Canada decide. It would be a democratic move. If it was defeated he would have an out. If the no side won, he would have a very useful weapon at his disposal. To me all social issues like this should be decided by the people themselves.

[CCGirl]

Harper can side step the dog crap on the sidewalk very simply by allowing those who must live under the law to vote on it in a binding referendum. Let the people of Canada decide. It would be a democratic move. If it was defeated he would have an out. If the no side won, he would have a very useful weapon at his disposal. To me all social issues like this should be decided by the people themselves.

I strongly disagree. Canada, like the USA, is not a true democracy. It is unacceptable to allow the majority a vote when it comes to ANY social issues. As we have seen in previous votes, self interest can win out over what is beneficial for society as a whole.

This is way too authoritarian. No way. :angry:

[tml12]

"I strongly disagree. Canada, like the USA, is not a true democracy."

What with the PM appointing the ethics commissioner, every Senate member, Supreme Court members without any judicial process...that is WAY MORE democratic then what those authoritarian Americans do down there...

"It is unacceptable to allow the majority a vote when it comes to ANY social issues. As we have seen in previous votes, self interest can win out over what is beneficial for society as a whole."

Do you know who James Madison is? Because I specialize in political theory and, if you ever read the American Federalist Papers, you would be able to ferment a better argument on the subject.

"This is way too authoritarian. No way. :angry:"

Good thing we have a minority government now, eh? We need to keep that king, I mean, democratically-elected person in check for an unstable amount of times...

[CCGirl]

"I strongly disagree. Canada, like the USA, is not a true democracy."

What with the PM appointing the ethics commissioner, every Senate member, Supreme Court members without any judicial process...that is WAY MORE democratic then what those authoritarian Americans do down there...

"It is unacceptable to allow the majority a vote when it comes to ANY social issues. As we have seen in previous votes, self interest can win out over what is beneficial for society as a whole."

Do you know who James Madison is? Because I specialize in political theory and, if you ever read the American Federalist Papers, you would be able to ferment a better argument on the subject.

"This is way too authoritarian. No way. :angry:"

Good thing we have a minority government now, eh? We need to keep that king, I mean, democratically-elected person in check for an unstable amount of times...

I'm really tired.

And yup....I am happy with minority governments!

[Shakeyhands]

Can someone who is opposed to SSM please explain to me how your life, your church or whatever has been affected by the passing of SSM?

I can attest that my life, nor the lifes of anyone in my church has changed the least little bit, why the hubbub Bub?

Is no one going to answer this question?

[geoffrey]

Harper can side step the dog crap on the sidewalk very simply by allowing those who must live under the law to vote on it in a binding referendum. Let the people of Canada decide. It would be a democratic move. If it was defeated he would have an out. If the no side won, he would have a very useful weapon at his disposal. To me all social issues like this should be decided by the people themselves.

I strongly disagree. Canada, like the USA, is not a true democracy. It is unacceptable to allow the majority a vote when it comes to ANY social issues. As we have seen in previous votes, self interest can win out over what is beneficial for society as a whole.

This is way too authoritarian. No way. :angry:

Actually, that is real democracy, will of the people type idea. What you want is less democratic, though probably more correct.

[YankAbroad]

Bill C-250 is really a gag law. It's all about silencing debate and opposition.

To an extent. However, if Harper supports gag laws which silence criticism of religions or races, but not sexual orientation, than he's demonstrating breathtaking hypocrisy. Not unusual for a politician, but still. . . the argument does lose a lot of weight if he's not campaigning to overturn the law which C250 amended.

[YankAbroad]

that is real democracy, will of the people type idea

Pure democracy is little more than mob rule -- two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Black Dog]

Actually, that is real democracy, will of the people type idea. What you want is less democratic, though probably more correct.

That's simple majoritarianism, not democracy. In a real democracy, the rule of the majority is moderated by the recognition of minority rights (based on the principle of equality under the law).

[geoffrey]

Actually, that is real democracy, will of the people type idea. What you want is less democratic, though probably more correct.

That's simple majoritarianism, not democracy. In a real democracy, the rule of the majority is moderated by the recognition of minority rights (based on the principle of equality under the law).

Thats the modern definition changed by those so concerned about the minorities, but that was not always the way.

Those countries that exercise direct democracy, where you or I could go vote on every issue, I would say are the most democratic. But according that definition, the more a role people play in their system, the less effective it is.

I call that elitism. Why can't most people be trusted? (I don't trust most people, don't worry, I'm all into elitism, but I don't try to hide it)

[YankAbroad]

It's not elitism to insist that mob rule shouldn't be paramount.

Respect for the rights of the individual over collectivism isn't elitism -- in fact, the idea that others in a majority know better about how you can live your own life than you is pretty bloody elitist!

[Hicksey]

Hicksey, I'm sympathetic to your argument. However, your argument refers to all hate crimes legislation, and not just the addition of sexual orientation to pre-existing hate crimes legislation.

Harper himself has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on race, religion or ethnic origin. In fact he said so during the C-250 debate. However, he has a problem with the legislation when it's also based on being gay or lesbian. Had Harper simply said I oppose all hate crimes legislation, then it would have been a clear, free speech issue. But by singling out gays and lesbians, he exposes himself to the criticism of being potentially motivated by religious extremism or even hatred of homosexuals.

Then he's not taken the time to examine what being conservative and the words limited government really mean. I am guessing that since bill C-250 predates the extortion of a gay marriage amendment by the courts, that Harper must have been thinking it would lead to it. It's the only thing I can think of that might lend to him making such stupid comments.

Although C-250 predates C-38, I'm not sure that Harper opposed C-250 because he thought it would lead to C-38. If that was his motivation, it's not on the public record.

Initially his concern was that it could infringe on the religious freedom of churches but the Toews amendment was introduced into C-250 for that very reason. Once the Toews amendment was put in and there was agreement that churches were protected, Harper apparently lost interest in opposing C-250...perhaps because he saw no benefit politically. This lead to an outcry from the Christian Heritage Party which condemned Harper for not showing up for second reading of C-250. Below is the response of Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party to Harper's failure to oppose C-250:

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/ReHarpe...ingMarriage.htm

After the Christian Heritage Party and quite a few other religious conservative groups condemned Harper for apparently losing interest in C-250, he and almost every member of his party showed up on third reading to vote against C-250. So it remains an open question, in my opinion, as to whether sincere convictions or political pressure from religious conservatives accounted for Harper voting against C-250.

My understanding is that both the amendment and the original C-250 predate C-38. And I going to go out on a limb and say I don't think Harper's so dumb not to know that the proposed amendment should have quelled his major concern.

So why the opposition? The only thing I can come up with is that maybe he didn't see the amendment surviving a challenge before the SCOC.

What do you think?

[fellowtraveller]

Interesting that the poll on this thread has slowly shifted over the last few days to fairly accurately reflect the views of Canadians overall: as of now, 52% for same sex marriage, 42% against.