More Tory MPs question wisdom of another gay-marriage vote

[Guest Warwick Green]

OTTAWA (CP) - A growing number of Conservative cabinet ministers and MPs are questioning the wisdom of reopening the divisive debate on same-sex marriage - a development that could close the book on the issue for good.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to hold a vote some time before the next election on the issue, most likely this fall.

The motion is expected to ask MPs if they want to reopen discussion of same-sex marriage, rather than asking flatly if they approve of the unions or not.

More and more Tories are wondering aloud whether they shouldn't just let the matter die.

"At this stage, we've debated it pretty thoroughly," said Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, who described the issue as more divisive than the mission to Afghanistan.

"Once you've reached the optimum, nobody is really happy, but if it's the best that you can do, then it's probably best to just leave it alone."

Trade Minister David Emerson observed: "If it ain't broke..."

"Candidly, I'm not excited about reopening the issue," Emerson said. "Even in the last election, when I ran as a Liberal, it was not a big issue that I was confronted with at the doorstep."

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said of his constituents: "I haven't had a single person come up to me to talk about it."...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...8e37e4a&k=11995

[Black Dog]

The Canadian religious right (the main opponents of equal marriage) unlike their cousins down south just don't have the money, organizaton or votes to force this issue. And the majority of Canadians are indifferent. Re-opening that debate wil also open a few mouths in the CPC caucus that Harper would rather stay shut. Best to let it lie. It was a non-issue before it was legal and its even less of an issue now that the sky hasn't fallen and the earth hasn't opened up to swallow Parliment Hill.

EDIT:

Well, shit. I guess I should read my headlines before commenting.

Harper: gay vote coming this fall

MONTREAL (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday a free vote on same-sex marriage will be held in the Commons this fall.

Harper said the vote was a promise he made during the election campaign that led to his party forming the government.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Well, shit. I guess I should read my headlines before commenting.

Harper: gay vote coming this fall

MONTREAL (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday a free vote on same-sex marriage will be held in the Commons this fall.

Harper said the vote was a promise he made during the election campaign that led to his party forming the government.

He can't just ignore his socons. In some areas they are the spear carriers that help get tories elected. We knew he had to hold the vote at some time. The sooner the better so people can forget about the kind of people the CPC has in its backbenches.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Gay equality law will undermine religious belief, claims bishop

Hotels and bed and breakfasts could face prosecution for turning away homosexual couples under new government proposals to protect gays and lesbians from being denied "goods, facilities and services" because of their sexual orientation.

The proposed regulations, which could also affect shops that refuse to offer wedding lists for same-sex couples, are being introduced after complaints of discrimination by the homosexuals....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...MC-new_03062006

[geoffrey]

One of the problems I have with the gay agenda is that they want to make it very difficult to speak out against gay marriage. My local Bishop, Fred Henry, was brought before the Human Rights Tribunal (which cost alot of money) because he is against gay marriage.

When your not allowed to speak out on an issue in a free country, it becomes obvious that this isn't extending rights to a persecuted minority, but taking rights away from one group that downtown Torontonians think its dangerous and giving them to one with a well funded propaganda machine.

The only reason the gays want the word marriage is to strike big winning blow in the politically correct area. There is no reason why the plan I've advocated for a long time on these forums can't work, have the government drop the word marriage all together, and allow people benefits no matter their living arrangement. Those that want to be married, can say so, those that want something else to say so.

Gay marriage is not neccessary for rights equality. With what I've advocated, they could be married if they so wished, who cares, not my business.

My tax dollars funding a government that advocates gay marriage, now that, is a completely different issue.

The best laws are drawn on compromise, instead, we have one on the books now that is 110% sided to one side, steamrolling everyone that opposed it... now you can't even oppose it legally without being charged with hate crimes.

[Leafless]

Warwick Green

Regarding what Trade Minister David Emmerson observed: "If it a'int broke..."

Many Canadians believe (gay marriage) should never have been implemented and are offended and insulted gays are on the same level as heterosexuals pertaining to 'marriage'.

C'mon FALL!

[Guest Warwick Green]

One of the problems I have with the gay agenda is that they want to make it very difficult to speak out against gay marriage. My local Bishop, Fred Henry, was brought before the Human Rights Tribunal (which cost alot of money) because he is against gay marriage.

I would agree with that. Gays have used Bill C-250 in a perverted way. Whenever someone speaks out in opposition to gay marraiage, gays howl, "hate speech!"

[Argus]

He can't just ignore his socons. In some areas they are the spear carriers that help get tories elected. We knew he had to hold the vote at some time. The sooner the better so people can forget about the kind of people the CPC has in its backbenches.

It is not illegitimate to be opposed to gay marriage. Half the country is opposed to gay marriage. And you can be damned sure that if the tables were turned the gay rights brigade would never stop pressing for another vote and another vote, and another vote, until they finally won one. This is a new parliament, and there's nothing wrong with Harper taking its temperature on the issue.

Politically, it's a good idea to get it over with quickly. I suspect that the majority will vote not to re-open the thing. Harper can then say he's kept to his promise, and it's a done deal. He knows that the same-sex thing will not be overturned. He simply hasn't got the people for it in this parliament. The BQ and NDP will vote unanimously (or damned near) in favour of ss marriage. That's 81 votes (including 1 qc independant) out of 308. At the moment, 155 votes are needed to retain SS marriage. About a quarter of Liberals voted against SS marriage last time, and I don't see this number being surpassed, esp given most Liberal seats are in urban areas. If anything, the number will drop. So the tories could pick up about 25 Lib votes. That would give them 150, if all Tories voted to overturn the bill. That's still 5 votes shy. But not all the Tories voted against it last time, nor will they now. So the vote will likely fail by 10 or 15 votes. The only chance this will pass is if the number of libs who vote against SS marriage is considerably higher, perhaps due to the absence of cabinet ministers who are required to vote the party line, and a confused leadership.

[betsy]

They're speculating on MDuffy that they'd have a quick vote on it (whether to re-open the issue of SSM) and that Harper is using it as a "wedge issue" to divide the Liberals before their convention. They say that actually, Harper will just prefer to get it over with (and do the same thing he did with gun registry....a little tweaking here but not actually abolish it).

Oh well...if it stays, it stays then.

And if by luck SSM does gets re-opened...and get scrapped, I'll have a party!

[Guest Warwick Green]

It is not illegitimate to be opposed to gay marriage. Half the country is opposed to gay marriage. And you can be damned sure that if the tables were turned the gay rights brigade would never stop pressing for another vote and another vote, and another vote, until they finally won one. This is a new parliament, and there's nothing wrong with Harper taking its temperature on the issue.

He's got those opposed to it in his hip pocket. He's looking for urban and Quebec seats where the support for SSM is. He's taking the socons for a ride. Later he can say, "Well, I tried".

[geoffrey]

It is not illegitimate to be opposed to gay marriage. Half the country is opposed to gay marriage. And you can be damned sure that if the tables were turned the gay rights brigade would never stop pressing for another vote and another vote, and another vote, until they finally won one. This is a new parliament, and there's nothing wrong with Harper taking its temperature on the issue.

He's got those opposed to it in his hip pocket. He's looking for urban and Quebec seats where the support for SSM is. He's taking the socons for a ride. Later he can say, "Well, I tried".

He doesn't need urban seats, you could easily have a Toronto free majority with his polling numbers in rural Quebec right now. My impression of the people I've spoke to from rural Quebec and when I've travelled there is that they are more conservative then the sterotypical Quebecois image allows.

None the less, the joy I'd get having Toronto out of governing, a little taste of their own medicine, is worth another kick at the SSM can.

[Guest Warwick Green]

He doesn't need urban seats, you could easily have a Toronto free majority with his polling numbers in rural Quebec right now. My impression of the people I've spoke to from rural Quebec and when I've travelled there is that they are more conservative then the sterotypical Quebecois image allows.

None the less, the joy I'd get having Toronto out of governing, a little taste of their own medicine, is worth another kick at the SSM can.

Your points are well taken. I expect that Quebec's reputataion of liberalism towards gays is basically Montreal focused. However, I don't see an upside to Harper revisiting SSM - but of course he is stuck with a vote since he promised one during the election. I'm happy that he is doing it in the fall - long before any possible election.

[betsy]

My impression of the people I've spoke to from rural Quebec and when I've travelled there is that they are more conservative then the sterotypical Quebecois image allows.

I do suspect so. Unless I'm wrong, I've always thought that Quebec is predominantly Catholic. It wouldn't surprise me to know that those who actually do not agree with SSM are just being quiet about their sentiments, especially when it is a "sign of bigotry" to not support it.

Just for the curiousity of seeing how "divided" are we exactly on this matter, I wish there'd be a referendum.

[Guest Warwick Green]

My impression of the people I've spoke to from rural Quebec and when I've travelled there is that they are more conservative then the sterotypical Quebecois image allows.

I do suspect so. Unless I'm wrong, I've always thought that Quebec is predominantly Catholic. It wouldn't surprise me to know that those who actually do not agree with SSM are just being quiet about their sentiments, especially when it is a "sign of bigotry" to not support it.

Just for the curiousity of seeing how "divided" are we exactly on this matter, I wish there'd be a referendum.

The anti-SSM sentiment is not coming from Quebec; it's being generated primarily by the right-wing Prods, not Catholics. It would be foolish to suggest that there is mass support for SSM in places like Trois Pistoles or Batiscan but the big anti-SSM noises are coming from the rural areas of ROC.

[Rue]

I think terrorism, and pollution and finding alternative fuel sources is what any government should be preoccupied about. Fretting over gay people wanting to marry each other is ridiculous.

[Riverwind]

Just for the curiousity of seeing how "divided" are we exactly on this matter, I wish there'd be a referendum.

Why waste hundred millions of dollars on a referendum only to find out exactly what the polls arelady tell us: 25% are opposed, 25% are for and 50% could go either way depending on the wording of the question.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I think terrorism, and pollution and finding alternative fuel sources is what any government should be preoccupied about. Fretting over gay people wanting to marry each other is ridiculous.

That's one of the reasons Harper is hoping the vote will sustain SSM. Also, his party is the one with the most MPs who are are anti-SSM and it is that group that suffers most from foot-in-mouth disease on the issue.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Just for the curiousity of seeing how "divided" are we exactly on this matter, I wish there'd be a referendum.

Why waste hundred millions of dollars on a referendum only to find out exactly what the polls arelady tell us: 25% are opposed, 25% are for and 50% could go either way depending on the wording of the question.

I live in the a three-person household. I'm pro-SSM, the other two anti. But neither of them wants a referendum. Thay think Parliament (ie, not the courts) should make the decision and they support Harper on this.

[Charles Anthony]

I live in a three-person household and all three of us could not give a damn about same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, all three of us pay taxes to fund FEDERAL parliamentarians playing in the sandbox over an issue which is ultimately a PROVINCIAL jurisdiction. Something wrong with that picture? Anybody?

[Riverwind]

Nevertheless, all three of us pay taxes to fund FEDERAL parliamentarians playing in the sandbox over an issue which is ultimately a PROVINCIAL jurisdiction. Something wrong with that picture? Anybody?

From the BNA Act:

Powers of the Parliament Section 91.

....

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.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/...sh/ca_1867.html

[Guest Warwick Green]

I live in a three-person household and all three of us could not give a damn about same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, all three of us pay taxes to fund FEDERAL parliamentarians playing in the sandbox over an issue which is ultimately a PROVINCIAL jurisdiction. Something wrong with that picture? Anybody?

My preference is that it not be resurrected but I voted for Harper knowing that it would come up again - but that's still better than more of the Liberanos. My fondest hope is that SSM be sustained by the HofC so the MPs can get onto more crucial issues.

I read today that 2% of all marraiges are gay. This law therefore effects a very small minority and you wonder why there are people who make such an issue about it.

[Charles Anthony]

"Powers of the Parliament Section 91.

....

26. Marriage and Divorce. "

I get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside knowing that no matter where we are in this vast country of ours, nobody can escape the long ubiquitous tentacles of Ottawa (and the taxes we pay to fund them) protecting and serving me and my fellow Canadians in the business of our bedrooms.

I can maintain my illusion that the career politicians actually care.

[Guest Warwick Green]

"Powers of the Parliament Section 91.

....

26. Marriage and Divorce. "

I get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside knowing that no matter where we are in this vast country of ours, nobody can escape the long ubiquitous tentacles of Ottawa (and the taxes we pay to fund them) protecting and serving me and my fellow Canadians in the business of our bedrooms.

I can maintain my illusion that the career politicians actually care.

I think what the Liberals should have done is left enough well alone and let the SCOC decide the issue. If they had decided that there was no constitutional right for gays to marry, so be it. If they had determined that they did have such a right, then the issue would become use of the N/W clause to overule it. If that had happened it would now be Harper's headache.

[Leafless]

Warwick green

You wrote:

"I read today that 2% of all marraiges are gay. This law therefore effects a very small minority and you wonder why there are people who make such an issue about it."

Yes, it makes you wonder initially why gays made this an issue especially when they already knew the doors of marriage were open to all anyways and that they only had to abide by the rules like EVERYONE ELSE.

[Charles Anthony]

"Yes, it makes you wonder initially why gays made this an issue especially when they already knew the doors of marriage were open to all anyways and that they only had to abide by the rules like EVERYONE ELSE."

Was it really the gay community that made the issue?

CAVEAT: I am not asking this question rhetorically or to be a smart-ass. I am seriously wondering.

Politicians are either in it for the money or for the enjoyment of power. Nothing else motivates them.

Maybe an old fat politician (who was already succesful at sculpting the entire federal system to both become a millionaire and not have to pay any taxes) was looking at the end of his shameful and worthless career in public office and said: "Hmmm... everybody else has left a proud legacy.... what can I do?" and this was the best he could do while the clock was ticking.