Liberal MPs Opposed To SSM

[betsy]

Thos Liberal Mps who were opposed to the changing of traditional definition of marriage, did any of them win? I think there were about 30 of them.

[YankAbroad]

The traditional definition of marriage is "a giant government registry which is used to deny single people, gays, and others who aren't politically favoured a whole host of immigration and taxation rights, while erecting a special welfare program for individuals who register their opposite-sex sex partner with a government office?"

Something tells me that most religions -- including those which marry gays -- would take umbrage at the definition you're proposing!

[scribblet]

Thos Liberal Mps who were opposed to the changing of traditional definition of marriage, did any of them win? I think there were about 30 of them.

Don't know yet, I do know Tom Wappel was re-elected.

[Leafless]

YankAbroad

You wrote- " The traditonal definiton of marriage is a giant government registry which is used to deny single people, gays and others who aren't politically favoured a whole host of immigration and taxation rights, while erecting a special welfare program for individuals who register their opposite sex partners with a government office."

NO sorry, the traditonal definiton of marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman or if you prefer along with a ceremony establishing this fact which in most cases has been the traditonal way in this country since it's beginning.

If your saying society is biased it simply proves the system is working and that small groups cannot cause major disruptions in an organized society.

Don't fight it, join it.

[YankAbroad]

the traditonal definiton of marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman

Quick bit of trivia -- when did Canada start issuing its first marriage licenses -- i.e. "the legal union of a man and a woman?"

[geoffrey]

the traditonal definiton of marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman

Quick bit of trivia -- when did Canada start issuing its first marriage licenses -- i.e. "the legal union of a man and a woman?"

The Provinces issue marriage licenses last time I checked. And Ottawa has no business influencing the Provinces any more so than it already does.

[YankAbroad]

Actually, under the BNAC, Parliament -- the Crown -- reigns supreme.

But humour me here. How long have "marriage licenses" been issued in North America?

I'll give you a hint -- Canada didn't issue them until well after the USA started to, and US states didn't begin to until 1911.

[geoffrey]

Actually, under the BNAC, Parliament -- the Crown -- reigns supreme.

But humour me here. How long have "marriage licenses" been issued in North America?

I'll give you a hint -- Canada didn't issue them until well after the USA started to, and US states didn't begin to until 1911.

Whats your point?

Just because you didn't need a paper to get married before doesn't mean that everyone can get married to this, that and the other thing.

[YankAbroad]

The answer is 1922.

The point being that "marriage of one man and one woman under the law" is a "tradition" which is considerably younger than Ivory Soap and not much older than poutine. It's just a babe compared to legal slavery and voting rights based on male gender/property ownership.

Appeals to "traditional definitions" don't help there one iota.

Just because you didn't need a paper to get married before doesn't mean that everyone can get married to this, that and the other thing.

Why not?

Why is it your business?

Shouldn't you be focusing on your own marriage, given that between one in three and one in two fail in divorce?

Incidentally, one of the delicious ironies of "one man one woman under the law," (besides the fact it's not a "tradition" at all) is the fact that about half of all married Canadian men will not be one man, one woman but one man, one woman followed by another woman or two after a divorce or two. Nothing tickles me to death more than having someone who has been married two, three or more times lecture me about the "sanctity of marriage" when I've never been married.

[geoffrey]

Because gay 'marriage' is not freaking marriage. You can't redefine society to best suit yourself, there is set things that can't change.

Canada needs to be tolerant of homosexuals, we need to give them equal rights and tax breaks and all that stuff that they deserve.

But its still not marriage. That will never change. Marriage has been and always will be a man and a woman. I also personally believe it requires a Church. Marriage is a religious term.

Civil Union is a tax benifets, death benifets, whatever else, term.

I'm not married so I have no marriage of my own to focus on, and I'll instead protect an institution I strongly support from being further erroded by opening it up to, like I said, this, that and the other thing.

[YankAbroad]

Because gay 'marriage' is not freaking marriage.

Why isn't it?

You can't redefine society to best suit yourself, there is set things that can't change.

I don't need to redefine society -- nor do I need supposed representatives of "society" to define my life for me in their terms.

Canada needs to be tolerant of homosexuals, we need to give them equal rights and tax breaks and all that stuff that they deserve.

Alrighty.

But its still not marriage. That will never change. Marriage has been and always will be a man and a woman.

Actually, it's not. But I'll not focus on that part of the argument for now.

I also personally believe it requires a Church. Marriage is a religious term.

So what about churches or religious traditions outside of Christianity which will marry two men or two women? Why aren't their views valid?

Civil Union is a tax benifets, death benifets, whatever else, term.

Why should the state be involved in deciding who gets tax benefits, death benefits, etc?

Shouldn't people be able to assign those to whoever they want?

See, this is the big problem of putting government in such a role. Not only are you opening yourself up to having other people's view of marriage made official, but you're also making the government in charge of who gets your stuff when you die, tax free, rather than you, and who can visit you in the hospital, who you can import as a partner from abroad, etc.

I'll instead protect an institution I strongly support from being further erroded by opening it up to, like I said, this, that and the other thing.

Frankly, given the continued crumbling of government-registered "marriages," which lack a real rational basis other than letting government control freaks run our sex lives for us, "marriage" as defined by the government today is already a laughable joke and pretty much out of business.

As for "protecting it from further decay" by limiting participation, that's a bit like saving a store which is about to go out of business by turning away paying customers. It doesn't make much sense.

I don't think the present marriage situation in Canada (or most other countries) makes sense anyway.

Get government out of the business of deciding who is or isn't married entirely, open up the rights and responsibilities of licensed marriage to everyone, including single people, and let those who see religious or secular significance in ceremonies get "married" however they want.

[scribblet]

So does anyone know how many liberals opposed to got in?

[Hicksey]

Marriage is a religious term hi-jacked by the government. Besides registration and dispute resolution during the dissolution of such a union, the government has no place in this marriage business.

Marriage should be restored to its original definition and only be recognized as marriage by the government when endorsed by a religious institution recognized by the government. Any other union should be defined as a civil union whether it be non-religious heteros or of the same-sex orientation.

Regardless of the definition or how a union is characterized their should be a relationship bill of rights type of document that sets out rights that apply equally for everyone.

This is the only way of doing this that pays respsect to all involved. Marriage is a long standing tradition, one long outlasting the marriage license, that should be respected no matter how fractured and disrespected it is today.

[fellowtraveller]

Marriage should be restored to its original definition and only be recognized as marriage by the government when endorsed by a religious institution recognized by the government. Any other union should be defined as a civil union whether it be non-religious heteros or of the same-sex orientation.

Nope. You are simply re-opening the can of worms by having the government involved in 'recognized as marriage by the government when endorsed by a religious institution '. There is absolutely no need for the government to define the term marriage, or to be involved in any way other than to register/file the domestic arrangement of any combination of consenting adults. I like to call it a domestic arrangement, even the trendy 'civil union' carries too much baggage. The term 'marriage' is now so weighed down in emotion that it has lost connection with the issue.

If a registered arrangement goes on to be 'married' at a church, coven , gathering of elves or whatever - there is no need at all for govt involvement, and no need for the govt to call that second arrangement by any term at all.

[Black Dog]

So does anyone know how many liberals opposed to got in?

31.

Alan Tonks (York South--Weston)

Bill Matthews (Random--Burin--St. George's)

Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph)

Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill)

Charles Hubbard (Miramichi)

Dan McTeague (Pickering--Scarborough East)

Derek Lee (Scarborough--Rouge River)

Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis)

Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton)

Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough--Agincourt)

Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay--Superior North)

John Cannis (Scarborough Centre)

John Maloney (Welland)

John McKay (Scarborough--Guildwood)

Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay--Rainy River)

Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan)

Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel)

Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce)

Paul Szabo (Mississauga South)

Paul Zed (Saint John)

Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt)

Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface)

Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton--Canso)

Scott Simms (Bonavista--Exploits)

Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest)

Wajid Khan (Mississauga--Streetsville)

Of course, we don't know how many would vote to repeal it.

Marriage should be restored to its original definition and only be recognized as marriage by the government when endorsed by a religious institution recognized by the government. Any other union should be defined as a civil union whether it be non-religious heteros or of the same-sex orientation.

So, if a religious institution defines marriage as a union between one man and an unlimited number of women, that's OK?

Look, either the government should recognize all marriages or it shouldn't. I'm open to scrapping the whole works altogether, but creating two seperate, identical institutions makes no sense to me. I shudder at the cost to taxpayers that would come from such a semantic exercise.

[Hicksey]

Marriage should be restored to its original definition and only be recognized as marriage by the government when endorsed by a religious institution recognized by the government. Any other union should be defined as a civil union whether it be non-religious heteros or of the same-sex orientation.

Nope. You are simply re-opening the can of worms by having the government involved in 'recognized as marriage by the government when endorsed by a religious institution '. There is absolutely no need for the government to define the term marriage, or to be involved in any way other than to register/file the domestic arrangement of any combination of consenting adults. I like to call it a domestic arrangement, even the trendy 'civil union' carries too much baggage. The term 'marriage' is now so weighed down in emotion that it has lost connection with the issue.

If a registered arrangement goes on to be 'married' at a church, coven , gathering of elves or whatever - there is no need at all for govt involvement, and no need for the govt to call that second arrangement by any term at all.

There's no choice but to define them. There has to be legal definitions to all of this. The only other way would be to abolish the term marriage from government recognition and make all unions of people just that which would leave marriage between people and their churches.

[betsy]

Because gay 'marriage' is not freaking marriage.

Why isn't it?

You can't redefine society to best suit yourself, there is set things that can't change.

I don't need to redefine society -- nor do I need supposed representatives of "society" to define my life for me in their terms.

Canada needs to be tolerant of homosexuals, we need to give them equal rights and tax breaks and all that stuff that they deserve.

Alrighty.

But its still not marriage. That will never change. Marriage has been and always will be a man and a woman.

Actually, it's not. But I'll not focus on that part of the argument for now.

I also personally believe it requires a Church. Marriage is a religious term.

So what about churches or religious traditions outside of Christianity which will marry two men or two women? Why aren't their views valid?

Civil Union is a tax benifets, death benifets, whatever else, term.

Why should the state be involved in deciding who gets tax benefits, death benefits, etc?

Shouldn't people be able to assign those to whoever they want?

See, this is the big problem of putting government in such a role. Not only are you opening yourself up to having other people's view of marriage made official, but you're also making the government in charge of who gets your stuff when you die, tax free, rather than you, and who can visit you in the hospital, who you can import as a partner from abroad, etc.

I'll instead protect an institution I strongly support from being further erroded by opening it up to, like I said, this, that and the other thing.

Frankly, given the continued crumbling of government-registered "marriages," which lack a real rational basis other than letting government control freaks run our sex lives for us, "marriage" as defined by the government today is already a laughable joke and pretty much out of business.

As for "protecting it from further decay" by limiting participation, that's a bit like saving a store which is about to go out of business by turning away paying customers. It doesn't make much sense.

I don't think the present marriage situation in Canada (or most other countries) makes sense anyway.

Get government out of the business of deciding who is or isn't married entirely, open up the rights and responsibilities of licensed marriage to everyone, including single people, and let those who see religious or secular significance in ceremonies get "married" however they want.

Gee, I was just asking how many SSM-opposing Liberal MPs won. I don't care what your definition is. I don't want to bother debating about it....for we've done that already. I think if you scroll back and read the arguments posted you'll know that you can re-define it every which way you want....but it won't make any difference to the ones who share the same regard for its traditional value. Our own definition of it will always be upheld in our views, even though the government succeeded in making a mockery of it .

Relax...no one is initiating any voting in parliament yet.

I'm just curious here.

[Hicksey]

Gee, I was just asking how many SSM-opposing Liberal MPs won. I don't care what your definition is. I don't want to bother debating about it....for we've done that already. I think if you scroll back and read the arguments posted you'll know that you can re-define it every which way you want....but it won't make any difference to the ones who share the same regard for its traditional value. Our own definition of it will always be upheld in our views, even though the government succeeded in making a mockery of it .

Relax...no one is initiating any voting in parliament yet.

I'm just curious here.

Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack your thread. I just responded to others' views with mine.

Anyway, I wish I could help you. I kept hearing Layton talking about the 40 or so Liberals that concurred with the CPC view on gay marriage, but I never saw them all named anywhere so I don't know.

But I guess there's a list above I must have scrolled by if that helps.

[betsy]

Gee, I was just asking how many SSM-opposing Liberal MPs won. I don't care what your definition is. I don't want to bother debating about it....for we've done that already. I think if you scroll back and read the arguments posted you'll know that you can re-define it every which way you want....but it won't make any difference to the ones who share the same regard for its traditional value. Our own definition of it will always be upheld in our views, even though the government succeeded in making a mockery of it .

Relax...no one is initiating any voting in parliament yet.

I'm just curious here.

Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack your thread. I just responded to others' views with mine.

Anyway, I wish I could help you. I kept hearing Layton talking about the 40 or so Liberals that concurred with the CPC view on gay marriage, but I never saw them all named anywhere so I don't know.

Oh no, I don't mind. I find it amusing actually when a simple question had elicited quite a reaction from the opposition....

[geoffrey]

Oh no, I don't mind. I find it amusing actually when a simple question had elicited quite a reaction from the opposition....

He started it.

[Hicksey]

Oh no, I don't mind. I find it amusing actually when a simple question had elicited quite a reaction from the opposition....

He started it.

What a guy! Dimes me out at the first oppoprtunity!

LOL!

[scribblet]

Because gay 'marriage' is not freaking marriage.

Gee, I was just asking how many SSM-opposing Liberal MPs won. I don't care what your definition is. I don't want to bother debating about it....for we've done that already. I think if you scroll back and read the arguments posted you'll know that you can re-define it every which way you want....but it won't make any difference to the ones who share the same regard for its traditional value. Our own definition of it will always be upheld in our views, even though the government succeeded in making a mockery of it .

Relax...no one is initiating any voting in parliament yet.

I'm just curious here.

I'm with you on this, I doubt there's anything more to say on it, and there's allready other threads going. There are a helluva lot more important issues to me than freaking SSM. I don't like it, but I have to learn to live with and get it on with more important issues (to me anyway).

[Hicksey]

Because gay 'marriage' is not freaking marriage.

Gee, I was just asking how many SSM-opposing Liberal MPs won. I don't care what your definition is. I don't want to bother debating about it....for we've done that already. I think if you scroll back and read the arguments posted you'll know that you can re-define it every which way you want....but it won't make any difference to the ones who share the same regard for its traditional value. Our own definition of it will always be upheld in our views, even though the government succeeded in making a mockery of it .

Relax...no one is initiating any voting in parliament yet.

I'm just curious here.

I'm with you on this, I doubt there's anything more to say on it, and there's allready other threads going. There are a helluva lot more important issues to me than freaking SSM. I don't like it, but I have to learn to live with and get it on with more important issues (to me anyway).

I think its more important than it looks on the surface. I think a lot of Quebecers see us giving away our own traditions to whichever special interest group thats at the front of the line and they wonder how it is that they can expect us to defend theirs. I think in a small way this relates to the grander issue of federalism.

[geoffrey]

I think its more important than it looks on the surface. I think a lot of Quebecers see us giving away our own traditions to whichever special interest group thats at the front of the line and they wonder how it is that they can expect us to defend theirs. I think in a small way this relates to the grander issue of federalism.

I thought Quebeckers were the strongest supporters of SSM?

You have none of the NDP to fear, they just boot everyone out of their party who votes against it, and the Bloc seems about the same this time around.

[Hicksey]

I think its more important than it looks on the surface. I think a lot of Quebecers see us giving away our own traditions to whichever special interest group thats at the front of the line and they wonder how it is that they can expect us to defend theirs. I think in a small way this relates to the grander issue of federalism.

I thought Quebeckers were the strongest supporters of SSM?

You have none of the NDP to fear, they just boot everyone out of their party who votes against it, and the Bloc seems about the same this time around.

I wasn't speaking to the issue as much as the concept of us bowing to SIGs to the demise of our own traditions and heritage.