More Tory MPs question wisdom of another gay-marriage vote

[Guest Warwick Green]

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?

Or why was it necessary to muzzle his troops when two male RCMP officers recently married?

[MightyAC]

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

The meaning and purpose of marriage has changed drastically over time as society or societies have changed. Why should it be frozen now?

Also, are there really ever free votes in the house? A handful of MPs may vote differently than the general view held by the party but how many MPs are trying to climb the party ladder and simply toe the line...

In my personal view segregating same-sex couples with a different label for the same institution is unequal and somewhat of a human rights violation. I'm always uncomfortable when human rights are subject to a popularity contest.

You mentioned that you "did not support the change of definition of marriage" but that you are "prepared to follow the will of the people on this one"...Would you be happier with the change in definition if an even larger percentage of the population was in favour of the change or do you disagree for other reasons?

[Guest Warwick Green]

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.

You can be sure it won't be a true "free vote". Layton has said his people must vote for SSM.

[Charles Anthony]

You can be sure it won't be a true "free vote". Layton has said his people must vote for SSM.

True vote. Free vote. Party vote. Whatever.

Why not hold a referendum?

We will likely have a federal election soon enough. All we have to do is add it to the scratch and save -- I mean, ballot box.

Is anybody afraid of having a referendum on the issue?

[gc1765]

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.

We have a charter of rights to prevent discrimination against minorities. Leaving every issue to the will of the people is not always the best answer. If over 50% of the population believed in.....let's say slavery as an extreme example, that would NOT make it right.

You can be sure it won't be a true "free vote". Layton has said his people must vote for SSM.

If this comes to a vote, I'd be interested to see how "free" this vote is for conservatives as well. How many voted for SSM last time? And they are the ones accusing the liberals of not having a free vote even though many liberals voted against it? This time there will probably be one person from the conservatives voting for it, and that's it. There is no such thing as a "free vote".

[Black Dog]

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.

Well both are quadrepedial carnivores, yet there are significant enough biological differences between them that a separate designation is warranted. Whereas the "traditional" definition of marriage is much more arbitrary and almost wholly tautological.

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.

If marriage is an "integral element" of society and gay relationships were excluded from that definition (IOW, deemed less integral) is it any wonder that theywant to use the same word?

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 disagree. As it stands, marriag emeans different things to different people. Removing the opposite sex requirement of the legal definition of marriage changed only the legal definition, not the social one which will continue to be defined by individuals.

Charles Anthony:

Is anybody afraid of having a referendum on the issue?

Not afraid, but I don't see the point in putting such a relatively minor issue through the referendum process. there's other issues that are far more pressing and that affect more Canadians than this one. As far as I know, you can't just add questions to general election ballots (like they do in some States) anyway.

[Guest Warwick Green]

If this comes to a vote, I'd be interested to see how "free" this vote is for conservatives as well. How many voted for SSM last time? And they are the ones accusing the liberals of not having a free vote even though many liberals voted against it? This time there will probably be one person from the conservatives voting for it, and that's it. There is no such thing as a "free vote".

There were only three or four CPCers who voted for SSM last year. What does it matter how many vote for or against it if that represents their personal views? I think more than one will vote for - Baird, Prentice, MacKay.

[Charles Anthony]

Leaving every issue to the will of the people is not always the best answer.

Is it better to leave this issue to the will of the members of parliament to whom the people sold their votes? is that a better answer?

Is anybody afraid of having a referendum on the issue?

Not afraid, but I don't see the point in putting such a relatively minor issue through the referendum process.

Because we want it.

there's other issues that are far more pressing and that affect more Canadians than this one.

Why not put them all on the ballot? Are we afraid of democracy? or is democracy just a tool to gain power under the illusion of "will of the people" to give some semblance of legitimacy?

As far as I know, you can't just add questions to general election ballots (like they do in some States) anyway.

Why not make that change?

[Black Dog]

Is it better to leave this issue to the will of the members of parliament to whom the people sold their votes? is that a better answer?

Well, that's what Parliment is for.

Because we want it.

Who's "we?" I don't. I doubt a significant number of Canadians would either.

Why not put them all on the ballot? Are we afraid of democracy? or is democracy just a tool to gain power under the illusion of "will of the people" to give some semblance of legitimacy?

Uh because I don't know if the Canadian election process allows for such measures. I'm pretty sure that, by law, referendums can only be proclaimed by the government of the jurisdiction concerned or, in some cases, the legislative assembalies. IOW, they must be held as seperate votes.

Why not make that change?

Because we have a representative democracy to deal with these issues.

[gc1765]

Is it better to leave this issue to the will of the members of parliament to whom the people sold their votes? is that a better answer?

No, I meant it's an issue of charter rights so the supreme court should decide, and has. A lot of people will argue that it's bad to leave the decision to unelected judges instead of the people, but so long as those judges uphold the rights given in the charter of rights then I disagree.

[gc1765]

There were only three or four CPCers who voted for SSM last year. What does it matter how many vote for or against it if that represents their personal views? I think more than one will vote for - Baird, Prentice, MacKay.

I just don't believe that MPs aren't influenced by the leader of their party (ie harper in this case). I think a lot of people will always vote with the party, perhaps so that they are favoured for a cabinet position, even if they disagree. Although I think that you are correct that more than one will vote for it, I guess I was exaggerating, maybe more like 4-5 will vote for it. Still I don't understand how only a few people in the party could be opposed to taking away rights.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I just don't believe that MPs aren't influenced by the leader of their party (ie harper in this case). I think a lot of people will always vote with the party, perhaps so that they are favoured for a cabinet position, even if they disagree. Although I think that you are correct that more than one will vote for it, I guess I was exaggerating, maybe more like 4-5 will vote for it. Still I don't understand how only a few people in the party could be opposed to taking away rights.

Look where the tories come from - rural Ontario, rural Prairies. By voting against SSM they are just following the views of their constituents.

[MightyAC]

I just don't believe that MPs aren't influenced by the leader of their party (ie harper in this case). I think a lot of people will always vote with the party, perhaps so that they are favoured for a cabinet position, even if they disagree. Although I think that you are correct that more than one will vote for it, I guess I was exaggerating, maybe more like 4-5 will vote for it. Still I don't understand how only a few people in the party could be opposed to taking away rights.

Look where the tories come from - rural Ontario, rural Prairies. By voting against SSM they are just following the views of their constituents.

I'm from an urban riding and my CPC MP says he will vote against SSM because of his religious views. No regard for the views of his constituents, no regard for the separation of church and state. My MP also defended the floor crossing incident and the senate appointment. In my opinion he's a party lap dog hoping to climb the ladder. I wonder how many MPs are like mine...more interested in advancing their political careers than representing their constituents. I have to wonder if there really are free votes. Maybe the idea of the free vote in the CPC is just a way for the party to avoid taking a stand on divisive, vote loosing, issues.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Lets not stop with just free votes. How about an actual constitution that citizens get to ratify? Throw in some recall legislation and maybe some fixed election dates. Perhaps we could even have a tri-cameral system with term limits in the executive branch....

Opps, sorry about that I got carried away dreaming about what a real democracy might look like.

[Charles Anthony]

Canadians do not want more democracy. They want power. The current form of "democracy" in Canada gives more of an opportunity for concentrations of power than what you propose. When Canadians vote they want to get something from somebody else.

Opps, sorry about that I got carried away dreaming about what a real democracy might look like.

Never stop dreaming -- particularly about Canadian democracy because it is all that you will have.

Of course, that will all change after Quebec separates! There is still hope!

[Guest Warwick Green]

I'm from an urban riding and my CPC MP says he will vote against SSM because of his religious views. No regard for the views of his constituents, no regard for the separation of church and state. My MP also defended the floor crossing incident and the senate appointment. In my opinion he's a party lap dog hoping to climb the ladder. I wonder how many MPs are like mine...more interested in advancing their political careers than representing their constituents. I have to wonder if there really are free votes. Maybe the idea of the free vote in the CPC is just a way for the party to avoid taking a stand on divisive, vote loosing, issues.

I'm not sure that will do much for him. Harper isn't proceeding with the SSM review out of conviction; it's a bone he is throwing to the tory socons. He has come out in favor of abortion so he has to show he is willing to do something for his grumbling backbenchers. I am sure he has a plan underway to ensure that the resolution is defeated and SSM stays in place.

[MightyAC]

I'm not sure that will do much for him. Harper isn't proceeding with the SSM review out of conviction; it's a bone he is throwing to the tory socons. He has come out in favor of abortion so he has to show he is willing to do something for his grumbling backbenchers. I am sure he has a plan underway to ensure that the resolution is defeated and SSM stays in place.

I hope so. I've already heard rumours that the question that will be asked will not be 'Should the traditional definition of SSM be restored' but something more like 'Does the topic of SSM need to be revisited'. So that's a good sign.

This leads me to some off topic questions so I'll start a new thread in the Federal Politics section.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I hope so. I've already heard rumours that the question that will be asked will not be 'Should the traditional definition of SSM be restored' but something more like 'Does the topic of SSM need to be revisited'. So that's a good sign.

It's a better question. It allows MPs to vote without exposing their own views on the topic -- at least, hypothetically. Whether it will pass or not depends on how good a job the socons do in pushing the issue over summer.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I hope the Tories do set up a vote on SSM. Make it a confidence vote while they are at it. I would really like to see the Liberals have to appoint a leader because there will not be time for a convention. I also want to watch the NDP's whack a few Conservatives across the country, trust me this will happen. Meanwhile in Quebec the Tories will probably NOT gain the seats they want. With a little luck the NDP will hold the balance of power, and then the government will be forced to actually do something for citizens instead of business for a change.

[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?

No one is going to tackle this one eh... Well I must be honest, I knew no one would. Once we put all the rhetoric and hatred aside, there really is no answer.

[FTA Lawyer]

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?

No one is going to tackle this one eh... Well I must be honest, I knew no one would. Once we put all the rhetoric and hatred aside, there really is no answer.

Well, I'll bite...

I was married to my wife 5 years ago on July 21 (back when the legal definition of marriage did not include same-sex couples).

How was any gay or lesbian person affected personally?

See, I think your question is unfair. I can pose a number of similar questions which demonstrate the logical disconnect between your question and the point you are trying to make:

Last week a 20 year old man who killed a child while driving drunk was given a discharge by the court as he met the diagnosis for FAS...How has this affected you personally?

Today a young Brazillian boy was deported from Canada because he didn't meet the criteria for refugee status...How has this affected you personally?

A month ago, a shipment of books destined for the Little Sisters book store was released by customs officials as it is no longer deemed to be obscene material...How has this affected you personally?

These are just made-up by the way.

My point is that whether or not a particular person can say that they have been personally affected by an instance of the application of a legal definition has nothing to do with whether that definition is valid or defensible.

I support the previous definition of marriage as it represents a tradition and a defining institution of our society...my view is that all such traditions ought to be valued and protected and not changed unless there is compelling reason to do so. I personally think that the right balance could have been struck by keeping the previous definition but addressing the question of collateral benefits for same-sex couples via the often suggested "legal union".

But that's just my personal view.

The current definition may indeed be the prevailing opinion of most Canadians, and if so, I accept that as a valid expression of democracy in action. I can just imagine the opposition that existed at the time to the re-defining of "persons" to include women...I'm certainly not upset with that development, but at the same time I would not have summarily dismissed anyone arguing in opposition to the development as being simply rhetorical or hate-filled.

Meaningful debate requires input from all sides, and sometimes opposing change for no other reason than it is change (i.e. to protect and support tradition) can be a very valuable and worthy cause. Doesn't mean those opposing change will or should win the day, but they deserve to be heard every bit as much as those who are backing the new way of doing things.

Given the importance and apparent divisiveness of the issue of SSM, my view has always been that there ought to have been a vote without party discipline in the House to ensure that the result was more likely an expression of the views of Canadians as a whole and not an expression of party politics with a view to shaping a future election campaign.

I guess my question then is, what would be the harm in having such a vote now?

FTA

[Shakeyhands]

It is a very fair question. It is a law affecting a fair number of Canadians who seek equality under the law that we are discussing, not a criminal case w/ extenuating circumstances, nor an Immigration case that effects very few people not related to the claimant. Does majority rule in Canada anyway?

[August1991]

Well, I'll bite...

I was married to my wife 5 years ago on July 21 (back when the legal definition of marriage did not include same-sex couples).

How was any gay or lesbian person affected personally?

See, I think your question is unfair. I can pose a number of similar questions which demonstrate the logical disconnect between your question and the point you are trying to make:

Last week a 20 year old man who killed a child while driving drunk was given a discharge by the court as he met the diagnosis for FAS...How has this affected you personally?

The last thing this forum needs is another same sex marriage discussion but I'll answer this particular example.

This decsion affects me personally because my child could be the next victim of someone who drives drunk. If the penalties for drunk drivers are lenient or drunk drivers are rarely caught, there will be more drunk drivers. And that potentially does affect me.

Or as I once argued, it's not mayonnaise if it doesn't have whole eggs. Mayonnaise makers are affected if salad dressing can present itself as mayonnaise.

I guess my question then is, what would be the harm in having such a vote now?

Well, Harper promised to hold a parliamentary vote so I reckon he'll keep his promise because that seems to be his modus operandi.

[Guest Warwick Green]

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?

No one is going to tackle this one eh... Well I must be honest, I knew no one would. Once we put all the rhetoric and hatred aside, there really is no answer.

The fact that the gay couple down the street are married of course doesn't affect me personally - anymore than their relationship affected me when they were, in effect, just shacked up.

The question is: does it in any way denigrate society? I cannot see how it does. A very limited number of people will avail themselves of it and it is difficult to see how that will adversely affect society as a whole - I have not heard persuasive arguments that it will. There will be those that will also argue that common law relationships and single parenthood impair our society but I don't agree with that either. I'd rather have marriages fall apart and let one partner bring up the children than have the continuation of a marriage that might harm them. As for common law situations I agree that we should recognize relationships that are the equivalent of marriage. It provides protection for the partners and any kids.

If marriage is going the tubes it's not caused by SSM or common law situations or single parentships - it's because those in marriages are not working hard enough to make their marriages work.

I don't really care if SSM is overturned but realistically only the courts could have provided it. If the court decisions had not been hanging over the HofC's head like the sword of damolces there is no way that SSM would have been passed.

[geoffrey]

Lets not stop with just free votes. How about an actual constitution that citizens get to ratify? Throw in some recall legislation and maybe some fixed election dates. Perhaps we could even have a tri-cameral system with term limits in the executive branch....

Opps, sorry about that I got carried away dreaming about what a real democracy might look like.

Technical point, tri-camel doesn't mean elected exec. The US system is still bi-cameral.

See, I think your question is unfair. I can pose a number of similar questions which demonstrate the logical disconnect between your question and the point you are trying to make:

Never mess with someone of his profession.

I support the previous definition of marriage as it represents a tradition and a defining institution of our society...my view is that all such traditions ought to be valued and protected and not changed unless there is compelling reason to do so. I personally think that the right balance could have been struck by keeping the previous definition but addressing the question of collateral benefits for same-sex couples via the often suggested "legal union".

I definitely agree, and my religious views have little to do with it, this isn't a Church and State issue. Whether straight or gay, you deserve the same treatment by the government, no need for discrimination there. Why change the definition of marriage though? Why no compromise? Marriage doesn't need to be changed in order for equality of right to be established.

Interesting legal inquiry here... what about gay Indian marriages? How would they determine status transfers? Remember that status is generally speaking transfered through the male side of the marriage, a status woman's children don't get status if she marries a non-status man. The other way around though they do get status. What happens there now?

Not that it had much to do with the topic at hand, but there are many such problems that came from raming this legislation through as quickly as possible to satisfy the wanna-be European voters. Maybe this time with some extra thought we can get this right.