Liberal MPs Opposed To SSM

[geoffrey]

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.

The Canadian (Liberal) way.

[Black Dog]

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.

Rubbish. The reason Quebecers are most supportive of equal marriage is the fact that they know what it's like to be a minority and the importance of defending minority rights from the tyrrany of the majority. Quebecers are also among the most socially liberal and irreligious folks in Canada: I don't think they care much about Anglo-Saxon Porotestant Canada's traditions. In fact, if I were a Quebecer and saw the zeal with which other Canadians want to roll back pminority rights, I'd have to wonder where I would be on the list.

[tml12]

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.

Rubbish. The reason Quebecers are most supportive of equal marriage is the fact that they know what it's like to be a minority and the importance of defending minority rights from the tyrrany of the majority. Quebecers are also among the most socially liberal and irreligious folks in Canada: I don't think they care much about Anglo-Saxon Porotestant Canada's traditions. In fact, if I were a Quebecer and saw the zeal with which other Canadians want to roll back pminority rights, I'd have to wonder where I would be on the list.

The reason Quebecers are most supportive of SSM is because Quebecers are the most socially liberal people in Canada because of the Quiet Revolution years ago.

BD...I really don't know where you think of some of these things.

[Hicksey]

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.

Rubbish. The reason Quebecers are most supportive of equal marriage is the fact that they know what it's like to be a minority and the importance of defending minority rights from the tyrrany of the majority. Quebecers are also among the most socially liberal and irreligious folks in Canada: I don't think they care much about Anglo-Saxon Porotestant Canada's traditions. In fact, if I were a Quebecer and saw the zeal with which other Canadians want to roll back pminority rights, I'd have to wonder where I would be on the list.

I think the reason why you think they would be for it is exactly why they would see it as I do.

Every minority that stepped up to the Liberals except Quebec was bent over backwards to. They even eroded their own traditions to give the SIGs what they wanted and when Quebec came asking they never got a fair shake.

[Black Dog]

The reason Quebecers are most supportive of SSM is because Quebecers are the most socially liberal people in Canada because of the Quiet Revolution years ago.

BD...I really don't know where you think of some of these things.

And why was the Quiet Revolution successful?

Every minority that stepped up to the Liberals except Quebec was bent over backwards to. They even eroded their own traditions to give the SIGs what they wanted and when Quebec came asking they never got a fair shake.

That's quite the stretch. First, your theory depends on Quebecers viewing gays as a "special interest group", and equal marriage as an attack on traditon. I doubt many Quebecers see the issue through that lense. Also, the Liberals can hardly be said to have bent over backwards on the equal marriage issue. Remember, the same Liberals who passed equal marriage vowed not long before to uphold the "traditional" definition. They were dragged into the issue kicking and screaming by the provincial courts (Quebec included).

[Hicksey]

The reason Quebecers are most supportive of SSM is because Quebecers are the most socially liberal people in Canada because of the Quiet Revolution years ago.

BD...I really don't know where you think of some of these things.

And why was the Quiet Revolution successful?

Every minority that stepped up to the Liberals except Quebec was bent over backwards to. They even eroded their own traditions to give the SIGs what they wanted and when Quebec came asking they never got a fair shake.

That's quite the stretch. First, your theory depends on Quebecers viewing gays as a "special interest group", and equal marriage as an attack on traditon. I doubt many Quebecers see the issue through that lense. Also, the Liberals can hardly be said to have bent over backwards on the equal marriage issue. Remember, the same Liberals who passed equal marriage vowed not long before to uphold the "traditional" definition. They were dragged into the issue kicking and screaming by the provincial courts (Quebec included).

I'll stand corrected here. But its no lie our values and traditions have eroded severely over the last 20 years or so.

[Madman]

Seems like all Liberals opposed to SSM were either re-elected or replaced by Consevatives.

I think the only additon to the ranks of Cons supportive of SSM is John Baird... No clue with regards to the new Libs. So with more NDPs elected, and the BQ being fairly stable, it would be interesting to see how the tides are shifting on this issue. I can't quite see it shifting either way.

[Black Dog]

I'll stand corrected here. But its no lie our values and traditions have eroded severely over the last 20 years or so.

If I may digress, I think I've said pretty much all I can say about equal marriag; this issue goes back a long ways and a helluva lot of threads are devoted to the subject. The arguments against it have never changed and, in my not-so-humble opinion, remain unconvincing at best. But what bugs me right now is this notion that the equal marriage legislation was "undemocratic". It really burns my toast to see the concept of democracy twisted to mean a simple majoritarian system of government: winner takes all, devil take the hindmost. Such a system, unconstrained, is a recipe for tyrrany. When I think of democracy, I think of principles of equality and individual liberty: these are the pillars upon which a representative democracy stands and which the government must protect.

In that light, equal marriage is a triumph of democracy: no longer are individuals denied access to a state instiution on the basis of who they are. When two men or two women get married, their choice has as much effect on my life as when persons of the opposite sex do it: none. So it's hard for me to understand the "conservative" position on this issue, let alone what it has to do with democracy.

[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.

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.

Nope. There is always a choice.

Canadian society and successive governments have chosen not to have any abortion law at all, and that 'choice not to define', not to force, not to regulate- was and remains, very popular. Why not with SSM. Let the churches decide who is marriageble or not, under their freedom of religion. The only reason to have legal definitions is to control people, and I know that is an absolute compulsion of generations of Canadians weaned on Big Guvmint. But it is a choice for us, not a necessity. Churches may choose to marry gays or not, why do religious adherents insist on trying to ram their views down my throat? Leave the morality to the moralists, you can yak it up all day in church.

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.

I agree almost entirely with this minimalist, non moralistic approach, though I would not use the term 'union' for government recognition of a contractual domestic arrangement. As a churchgoer and religious person, you may wish to call your church ceremony a marriage or any other term you choose. That is your freedom, and I grant it to you without reservation. If only we were all so tolerant.

[betsy]

Considering the numbers of Liberal MPs who were opposed to SSM getting re-elected....is it safe to assume then that the Liberal Party should be thankful for these MPs' firm opposition to SSM, for without them getting re-elected, how many seats would the Liberal actually have?

That yes, in a way SSM did narrow the gap of Conservative win....but in a way that is supportive of keeping the traditional meaning of marriage.

[Spike22]

Who will pay for survivor benefits and other benefits the governments provide for gay marriages? What will additional (gay) marriages end up costing the Canadian taxpayer.

I really don;t care if Mr. Cornhole-E-O marries Mr. Dark BumCrak however no one has asked the question as to how much this will cost us. It may be nothing or it might be billions. Does anyone know?

[betsy]

Who will pay for survivor benefits and other benefits the governments provide for gay marriages? What will additional (gay) marriages end up costing the Canadian taxpayer.

I really don;t care if Mr. Cornhole-E-O marries Mr. Dark BumCrak however no one has asked the question as to how much this will cost us. It may be nothing or it might be billions. Does anyone know?

But for equality sake, gay couples should have the same benefits and protection as heterosexuals. I guess just like common-law spouses.

But you did raise a very important issue here: What about benefits for polygamists and bisexual marriages?

How many spouses in one "family" will actually collect survivors' beneift? This can be exploited, fraud-wise!

Who ends up paying??? Taxpayers!

I am livid enough to find out that we are now required to pay for our own eye-test (which is a natural occurence as the population ages)....and yet, EGALE is lobbying for or had already succeeded in requiring provinces to pay for transgender surgeries! Liberals really screwed things up!

[geoffrey]

I am livid enough to find out that we are now required to pay for our own eye-test (which is a natural occurence as the population ages)....and yet, EGALE is lobbying for or had already succeeded in requiring provinces to pay for transgender surgeries! Liberals really screwed things up!

Are you serious? Transgender surgeries are covered yet many cancer treatments are not?

How ridiculous. It shows when a minority gets such status that nothing can oppose anything they do (or fear being labelled a bigot), how damaging it can be to our country.

Transgender surgery is completely cosemetic, no one could actually make any argument to me that shows its medically neccessary. However, also remember that Quebec teenager that got breast implants paid for by the government because she didn't feel like her breasts her big enough.

I really hope we get some leaders with a backbone across the board in this country soon. We are selling ourselves to little special interests left right and centre.

[sage]

Black Dog : where did you come up with your figures? Kudos if you researched it yourself.

[August1991]

I thought Quebeckers were the strongest supporters of SSM?

Of the ten Tory MPs from Quebec, I know the position of three on SSM: one (Verner) will vote in favour and two (Bernier, Blackburn) will vote against.

The following is also pertinent:

91. ... it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

...

26. Marriage and Divorce.

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

...

12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

Constitution Act

The federal government has the responsibility to define marriage. Provincial governments have the responsibility to define how and when a marriage occurs.

----

Marriage is not solely a religious issue. It is a legal partnership (a long-term contract) between two people.

[shoop]

That is a big question. *If* Martin had been re-elected he would have tried to take away the Government's ability to use the notwithstanding clause. However, in 2004 he promised to use it if the courts tried to force Churches to marry same sex couples against their will.

I don't think anybody is trying to ram anything down your throat. Part of a return to the traditional definition of marriage must include a legal partnership for same sex couples that provides all the rights (and *responsibilities*) of marriage.

Why not with SSM. Let the churches decide who is marriageble or not, under their freedom of religion. The only reason to have legal definitions is to control people, and I know that is an absolute compulsion of generations of Canadians weaned on Big Guvmint. But it is a choice for us, not a necessity. Churches may choose to marry gays or not, why do religious adherents insist on trying to ram their views down my throat?

PS. August 1991, the Quebec MPs will vote in favour of what? i.e. in favour of SSM or in favour of re-opening the questions and presumable against SSM.

[August1991]

PS. August 1991, the Quebec MPs will vote in favour of what? i.e. in favour of SSM or in favour of re-opening the questions and presumable against SSM.

Verner will vote in favour of same sex marriage; Bernier and Blackburn have both said they will vote for the "traditional" definition of marriage (man and woman) as long as the possibility of a civil union exists for gays. I heard the three express their opinions during a TV interview after the election.

I don't know about the other seven Quebec Tory MPs.

----

Keep in mind that Harper has said that the first Commons vote will concern only whether the issue should be revisited. It is possible this first vote will be positive even if the House ultimately decides in a subsequent vote to stay with the current (same sex) definition.

I think those in favour of SSM should welcome this test. If SSM passes again, under an obviously free vote, then its acceptance in the general population will be further confirmed.

Gay activists should not forget that the real purpose here is to obtain a measure of respect. Silencing opposition, or obtaining a measure through the back door, doesn't do that.

Maybe some time in the future, there will be an explicit constitutional amendment. That would be the correct way to do this.

[Spike22]

But for equality sake, gay couples should have the same benefits and protection as heterosexuals. I guess just like common-law spouses.

But you did raise a very important issue here: What about benefits for polygamists and bisexual marriages?

How many spouses in one "family" will actually collect survivors' beneift? This can be exploited, fraud-wise!

Who ends up paying??? Taxpayers!

I am livid enough to find out that we are now required to pay for our own eye-test (which is a natural occurence as the population ages)....and yet, EGALE is lobbying for or had already succeeded in requiring provinces to pay for transgender surgeries! Liberals really screwed things up!

For equality sake they should have the same benefits? Barf!!!!!!

What next beastiality couples getting the same benefits and protection. Yes I can understand gays not getting beat up for their lifestyle selection but for taxpayers top foot the bill that is where I draw the line.

I am willing to give some tax credits up to $200 a year for their essentials such as vaseline (that is a whole lot of vaseline for 1 year), whips, canoe paddles etc :-).

[Spike22]

But for equality sake, gay couples should have the same benefits and protection as heterosexuals. I guess just like common-law spouses.

But you did raise a very important issue here: What about benefits for polygamists and bisexual marriages?

How many spouses in one "family" will actually collect survivors' beneift? This can be exploited, fraud-wise!

Who ends up paying??? Taxpayers!

I am livid enough to find out that we are now required to pay for our own eye-test (which is a natural occurence as the population ages)....and yet, EGALE is lobbying for or had already succeeded in requiring provinces to pay for transgender surgeries! Liberals really screwed things up!

For equality sake they should have the same benefits? Barf!!!!!!

What next beastiality couples getting the same benefits and protection. Yes I can understand gays not getting beat up for their lifestyle selection but for taxpayers to foot the bill that is where I draw the line.

I am willing to give some tax credits up to $200 a year for their gay essentials such as vaseline (that is a whole lot of vaseline for 1 year), whips, canoe paddles etc :-).

[betsy]

I am livid enough to find out that we are now required to pay for our own eye-test (which is a natural occurence as the population ages)....and yet, EGALE is lobbying for or had already succeeded in requiring provinces to pay for transgender surgeries! Liberals really screwed things up!

Are you serious? Transgender surgeries are covered yet many cancer treatments are not?

How ridiculous. It shows when a minority gets such status that nothing can oppose anything they do (or fear being labelled a bigot), how damaging it can be to our country.

Transgender surgery is completely cosemetic, no one could actually make any argument to me that shows its medically neccessary. However, also remember that Quebec teenager that got breast implants paid for by the government because she didn't feel like her breasts her big enough.

I really hope we get some leaders with a backbone across the board in this country soon. We are selling ourselves to little special interests left right and centre.

Oh yes, about cancer...I forgot all about that!

[geoffrey]

Oh yes, about cancer...I forgot all about that!

I wonder what the waiting list is like for that.

[betsy]

Oh yes, about cancer...I forgot all about that!

I wonder what the waiting list is like for that.

Imagine, when time is really crucial to fight it. Just the mental torture of waiting....and the stress for the whole family. This is one of those reasons why I agree with Harper's healthcare plan.

Today, they were talking about average 1 month waiting period in some provinces (but I think it was not specifically about cancer).