More Tory MPs question wisdom of another gay-marriage vote

[Guest Warwick Green]

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.

I think gays took advantage of a poorly worded Charter of Rights and an activist judiciary to push the envelope as far as they could go. I doubt those originally demanding anti-discrimation protection or equal beneits could have envisioned the concept of "equal marriage". But, if the courts were giving you everything you asked for (and the Liberals were only too anxious to pass enabling legislation) why not go for the Big Enchilada. In fact at one time gays would have only been to happy to settle for "civil union" but that wasn't enough for some people. But, now that we have SSM, covering so few, is it worth yet another Parliamentary circus that Harper wants to put us through?

[Riverwind]

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 love wedge issues that divide people and can be used to draw support. Republicans got SSM referendums on the ballot in many states in 2004 because they knew the people who cared enough about SSM to show up and vote were likely to vote Republican. The Liberals decided to push for complete equality because they thought it would make the conservatives look bad.

[geoffrey]

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.

Why have a referendum? Majority tyranny is hardly a way to run a country. Populism is just rule by the average person, who is uneducated, generally apathic and completely unknowledgable about the issues.

What a horrible way to decide rights, having a majority wins vote on it. I'm against SSM but I can't even support such a measure, even though I think it'd be likely that most Canadians are against.

[Argus]

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.

Why have a referendum? Majority tyranny is hardly a way to run a country. Populism is just rule by the average person, who is uneducated, generally apathic and completely unknowledgable about the issues.

What a horrible way to decide rights, having a majority wins vote on it. I'm against SSM but I can't even support such a measure, even though I think it'd be likely that most Canadians are against.

Ultimately, the majority has to support rights for the minorities or else they'll be eroded and gone. There's really no way of getting around that. No silly little piece of paper is going to protect minority rights if the majority are hostile to them.

The US constitution allowed slavery as long as the majority wanted it, as long as their representatives catered to them, as long as the judges came from that culture with that mindset. When the majority's opinion shifted, so too did the opinions of the politicians and judges. Presto: The US constitution no longer allows slavery.

If the majority of Canadians felt slavery for blondes was a good idea the constitution would soon come to reflect that.

[gerryhatrick]

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.

Welcome to a Conservative government. They will fiddle while the city burns.

Look at what's happening in the USA right now...an anouncement from Bush that he'll pursue a constitutional ammendment to protect the "traditional" definition of marriage.

Good thing the adults are in charge!

[newbie]

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.

He said more than that. In particular, "An evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private." His opinion yes, but also an irresponsible comment. I believe he went over the line on this one.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...shop050116.html

[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.

Welcome to a Conservative government. They will fiddle while the city burns.

Look at what's happening in the USA right now...an anouncement from Bush that he'll pursue a constitutional ammendment to protect the "traditional" definition of marriage.

Good thing the adults are in charge!

He's already tried this before. The last time Congress didn't pass the resolution. It's an attempt to shore up the socon vote for the GOP in November

[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.

He said more than that. In particular, "An evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private." His opinion yes, but also an irresponsible comment. I believe he went over the line on this one.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...shop050116.html

The government must suppress homosexuality and other behaviour deemed to hurt the family, Calgary's Catholic bishop says.

"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good," Bishop Frederick Henry said in a pastoral letter.

In the next paragraph, he suggested such acts are evil and rejected the idea that private acts are nobody else's business. "An evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private."

It's a legitimate comment for one who believes homosexuality to be wrong. I don't think we would be critical of people condemning prostitution or pornography. I certainly don't think his comments warrant a human rights complaint.

BTW, I wonder if Mr Henry is aware that in Germany there is a brothel run by a Catholic women's organization. Prostitution is legal there and the organization says that it ensures that the women providing the service are treated properly.

[newbie]

It's a legitimate comment for one who believes homosexuality to be wrong. I don't think we would be critical of people condemning prostitution or pornography. I certainly don't think his comments warrant a human rights complaint.

Speaking one's opinion is one thing but calling a homosexual relationship evil is another. Mr. Henry has a habit of over speaking his mind (do a Goggle search). Not only is he outspoken, he lacks compassion. And I heard that from one of his Priests. I think if any other public offical tarred a group evil, that is enough reason to be human rights complaint.

[Guest Warwick Green]

It's a legitimate comment for one who believes homosexuality to be wrong. I don't think we would be critical of people condemning prostitution or pornography. I certainly don't think his comments warrant a human rights complaint.

Speaking one's opinion is one thing but calling a homosexual relationship evil is another. Mr. Henry has a habit of over speaking his mind (do a Goggle search). Not only is he outspoken, he lacks compassion. And I heard that from one of his Priests. I think if any other public offical tarred a group evil, that is enough reason to be human rights complaint.

A Roman Catholic bishop calls gays evil and anybody cares? We all know the RCC position on this. I don't think calling something "evil" shows any real evidence of hate, just a statement of religious doctrine. Contrast that with the comment of Larry Spencer who said all gays should be in jail - to me that was hate-mongering.

[betsy]

Speaking one's opinion is one thing but calling a homosexual relationship evil is another. Mr. Henry has a habit of over speaking his mind (do a Goggle search). Not only is he outspoken, he lacks compassion. And I heard that from one of his Priests. I think if any other public offical tarred a group evil, that is enough reason to be human rights complaint.

But it is the belief in our faith that all sins are evil. He condemned the act/relationship, not the person/people.

[Leafless]

Warren Green

You wrote:

"A Roman Catholic bishop calls gays evil and anybody cares? We all know the RCC position on this. I don't think calling something "evil" shows any real evidence of hate, just a statement of religious doctrine."

No, I don't think it has anything to do with "religious doctrine" but just the simple fact homosexuality is a perversion and homosexuals are perverts with this fact based on morals and procreation.

Here is a link regarding George W. Bush backing 'same sex marriage ban'.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-gay04.html

[Guest Warwick Green]

No, I don't think it has anything to do with "religious doctrine" but just the simple fact homosexuality is a perversion and homosexuals are perverts with this fact based on morals and procreation.

That's what the Catholic Church believes. It is also opposed to adultery and birth control and that doesn't bother me any more than its views on gays does.

[newbie]

No, I don't think it has anything to do with "religious doctrine" but just the simple fact homosexuality is a perversion and homosexuals are perverts with this fact based on morals and procreation.

Homosexuality is not a perversion or a disease, but merely an aspect of sexuality that has been around for thousands of years. Show me your links to the contrary.

[newbie]

No, I don't think it has anything to do with "religious doctrine" but just the simple fact homosexuality is a perversion and homosexuals are perverts with this fact based on morals and procreation.

That's what the Catholic Church believes. It is also opposed to adultery and birth control and that doesn't bother me any more than its views on gays does.

Funny that Jesus never said anything on gays personally. You think he would considering how much of a "sin" it is.

[Guest Warwick Green]

No, I don't think it has anything to do with "religious doctrine" but just the simple fact homosexuality is a perversion and homosexuals are perverts with this fact based on morals and procreation.

Homosexuality is not a perversion or a disease, but merely an aspect of sexuality that has been around for thousands of years. Show me your links to the contrary.

Those opposed to SSM are always more effective when they concentrate on defending M-F marriage rather than going off on an anti-gay rant. Gays are able to expolit homophobia. Svend Robinson got his bill criminalizing homophobic hate speech passed by publicizing the myriad of stuff out there calling gays "perverts" and accusing them of all being pedophiles, etc, etc.

[Black Dog]

Geoffery:

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.

Uh, do you know what the Bishop actually said? H ewasn't talking abouty gay marriage, but using the state's coercive power against “homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography.” Not gay marriage: homosexuality.

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.

In other words, destroy marriage altogether. Because, let's face it, without the incentive of state benefits, even fewer people would bother with marriage. Not that I have a problem with that, but I can't see the "defend tarditional marriage!" types going for it. For many of them, the issue is about maintaining the privileged status of hetero marriage.

Leafless:

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'.

Well a lot of people were offended and insulted by universal sufferage too, and we know what side of history they are on.

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.

In other words: "Why can't those homos who want to marry just get sham marriages?"

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Only a fool would advocate the involment of the government in their own bedroom. It is not the business of the state to even consider sexuality, nor is it any citizens business.

Why does this nonsense come to light in a legislative setting? Surely there is more pressing matters to government then who is sleeping with whom!!

[sharkman]

Only a fool would advocate the involment of the government in their own bedroom. It is not the business of the state to even consider sexuality, nor is it any citizens business.

Why does this nonsense come to light in a legislative setting? Surely there is more pressing matters to government then who is sleeping with whom!!

Yes, well you see it's not about what people are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms, living rooms or anywhere else.

It's about homosexuals wanting the institution of marriage to define their co-habitations too. And, of course in canada it does, but many are hoping(myself included) that the laws are amended to preserve marriage for what it's been since the beginning of time. Give them legal unions and they'll have every right that any other Canadian has. They won't like it, but it is the same except for a word.

[Michael Hardner]

And, of course in canada it does, but many are hoping(myself included) that the laws are amended to preserve marriage for what it's been since the beginning of time.

The beginning of time ? I don't know about that... Marriage didn't involve divorce until recent memory and society seemed to make that switch eventually.

[MightyAC]

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=567

Marriage is older than Christianity so Biblical arguments are irrelevant. The point of marriage has changed significantly over time as society has evolved. Why should that not happen now? Historically polygamy was the norm before marriage so historical arguments seem to be irrelevant as well.

To those who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, I would suggest you marry someone of the opposite sex.

Why do opposers of gay marriage want to force the entire country to live by their personal belief system? Live by your own beliefs don’t impose them on others.

Here's another interesting point involving the history of marriage...

Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The problem seems to stem from people attempting to enforce their morality on others. Its funny that some people seem to use the arguement that gay rights or same sex marriage is being forced on them. I think that these people don't see that they are trying to to the same thing to others. That is why I don't think the matter is of public concern, but private instead.

If we want to truely be free, we need to respect other peoples freedom as well. You simple can't have it both ways. If something offends you, perhaps you should not do it and save yourself the grief. If something somebody else does offends you, perhaps you should cease interacting with the person that offends you.

I would suggest that until offense is translated into harm the matter is not subject to public judgement in the first place. The process of undertaking the preservation of public safety should be the focus of government and law enforcement. When the public is endangered by the actions of an inidividual it becomes a matter of public concern and subject to the judgement of the public.

I would prefer that the government involve itself in matters of public not individual concern.

[Black Dog]

It's about homosexuals wanting the institution of marriage to define their co-habitations too. And, of course in canada it does, but many are hoping(myself included) that the laws are amended to preserve marriage for what it's been since the beginning of time. Give them legal unions and they'll have every right that any other Canadian has. They won't like it, but it is the same except for a word.

Well, hell then: why not just go all the way and use the word?

[Shakeyhands]

I'd still like to have one of our Anti SSM posters explain the following to me....

Bill and Don of Calgary where just married over the July 1st Weekend.

How has this affected you personally?

[FTA Lawyer]

It's about homosexuals wanting the institution of marriage to define their co-habitations too. And, of course in canada it does, but many are hoping(myself included) that the laws are amended to preserve marriage for what it's been since the beginning of time. Give them legal unions and they'll have every right that any other Canadian has. They won't like it, but it is the same except for a word.

Well, hell then: why not just go all the way and use the word?

Why don't we start calling all cats "dogs" from this day forth? I don't know, I guess because cats are cats not dogs.

Kidding aside...

The following definition for the word "society" is copied from dictionary.com:

A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.

The point is that societies are literally defined by the relationships and institutions that their respective members share. The word "marriage" was not simply a meaningless moniker...it was an integral element of what defined our society as a significant manifestation of our characteristic relationships and shared institutions.

Like it or not, the decision to remove the opposite sex component of the legal definition of marriage was a fundamental adjustment to the definition of Canadian society. Was it right or wrong? Hard to know how to answer that.

I personally did not support the change of definition of marriage but I'm prepared to follow the will of the people on this one...the problem I have is that with a decision as important as this, to have a vote which is restricted by party discipline in the House leaves me unconvinced that the best representation of the will of the people is being advanced.

If a free vote in Parliament supports the re-definition as it currently stands, then I accept that the "fundamental adjustment to the definition of Canadian society" as I have called it is valid and simply a part of where we are going collectively as Canadians. If a free vote were to support the reversal back to the old definition, then I would argue that the "notwithstanding clause" was expressly designed for such a situation and it ought to be implemented.

FTA