Harper introduces SSM motion

myata · December 6, 2006

Now there's no denying that social conservative shadow in the new Con party we were warned about. The lamest excuse I'm hearing a lot on the news now is the "promise": really... we didn't want it... but we made a promise ... so you've got to respect us ... for keeping it ... (and for making it in the first place).

Well, if anything, the past experiences show that holding Canadians for idiots never plays out well in the end. We'll see...

Charles Anthony · December 6, 2006

Now there's no denying that social conservative shadow

Wrong. There is denying this social conservative boogeyman shadow.

The lamest excuse I'm hearing a lot on the news now is the "promise": really... we didn't want it... but we made a promise ... so you've got to respect us ... for keeping it ... (and for making it in the first place).

Actually, NO, it is not an excuse. It is a response to the unfounded attacks levelled by raging socialists.

Well, if anything, the past experiences show that holding Canadians for idiots never plays out well in the end. We'll see...

Wrong, again. The Conservatives are not playing Canadians for idiots at all. It is quite the contrary. The Conservatives are responding to the cheap attacks by the opposition parties.

From now on, the raging socialists will never be able to attack the Conservatives for being anti-gay or anti-marriage or anti-SSM or anything. The issue will be closed. The smear campaigns will have to be based on something else.

White Doors · December 6, 2006

Yes, shame on Harper for actually allowing Democracy to work.

betsy · December 6, 2006

Now there's no denying that social conservative shadow in the new Con party we were warned about. The lamest excuse I'm hearing a lot on the news now is the "promise": really... we didn't want it... but we made a promise ... so you've got to respect us ... for keeping it ... (and for making it in the first place).
Well, if anything, the past experiences show that holding Canadians for idiots never plays out well in the end. We'll see...

Even a Liberal MP was saying on MDuffy Live, the only way to make this thing go away and settled once and for all is to have this motion.

cybercoma · December 6, 2006

Now there's no denying that social conservative shadow in the new Con party we were warned about. The lamest excuse I'm hearing a lot on the news now is the "promise": really... we didn't want it... but we made a promise ... so you've got to respect us ... for keeping it ... (and for making it in the first place).
Well, if anything, the past experiences show that holding Canadians for idiots never plays out well in the end. We'll see...

Do you believe MPs should be forced to vote what the party dictates on an issue like SSM? Or do you think, perhaps, that an issue as controversial as this should have a free-vote?

I think the MPs should be allowed to use their own conscious and have a free-vote on this issue and that's why I support this motion.

watching&waiting · December 6, 2006

I am a supporter of this motion, not because I am anti-gay but rather I want to see what a free and clear vote on a simple and clear question, will finally give as a result. If the majority votes for gay marriage then that will be that. The same can be siad if they vote against it. But I do want to see what the true democratic vote will be. Not the party partisan voting that came about with the last vote. Personally I have no reason to care either way it goes and marriage to me is just a civil thing as I am not religious in any way. I have no faith in gods wrath or benevelence. Many do and I can live with that as I also do not want or expect others to have my own thoughts on the matter. Each MP should vote the conscience of his own electorate majority view, and if they do then we can put an end to all the bickering over this once and for all.

Yes I know all the special interest groups are screaming that this is unfair, but so was all the lobbying to get the vote to go their own way, even though it was not a true representation of the system. I probably think it will be voted to stay the way it is, but that does not mean it will. Only the numbers of the true electorate can say for sure.

myata · December 6, 2006

Wrong. There is denying this social conservative boogeyman shadow.

Wrong. It's real socially conservative because: 1) it's a matter of Charter that has been decided by courts; 2) it has been discussed and voted in the Parliament; 3) it is accepted by majority of Canadians according to a number of polls.

This government is using it's position of power to bring in the matter that is not on the agenda of majority of citizens. Why? Because it's concerned about socially conservative minority.

Actually, NO, it is not an excuse. It is a response to the unfounded attacks levelled by raging socialists.

Actually, it's the lamest response to well founded (see above) concerns of Canadians about socially conservative agenda of this government. There's no guessing how far it'll go should it get its majority.

Wrong, again. The Conservatives are not playing Canadians for idiots at all. It is quite the contrary. The Conservatives are responding to the cheap attacks by the opposition parties.

See 1, 2, 3 above. The lame "promise" thing is very much like holding me (for once) for an idiot. Surely is cheap excuse.

From now on, the raging socialists will never be able to attack the Conservatives for being anti-gay or anti-marriage or anti-SSM or anything. The issue will be closed. The smear campaigns will have to be based on something else.

??? Stretch of imagination? And no, it'll stay on the records to clearly show which way this government will head if it had any chance of getting a majority.

Black Dog · December 6, 2006

Wrong, again. The Conservatives are not playing Canadians for idiots at all. It is quite the contrary. The Conservatives are responding to the cheap attacks by the opposition parties.
From now on, the raging socialists will never be able to attack the Conservatives for being anti-gay or anti-marriage or anti-SSM or anything. The issue will be closed. The smear campaigns will have to be based on something else.

If this fails (which it probably will) will that mean the anti-SSM side wil go away? Promise?

Do you believe MPs should be forced to vote what the party dictates on an issue like SSM? Or do you think, perhaps, that an issue as controversial as this should have a free-vote?
I think the MPs should be allowed to use their own conscious and have a free-vote on this issue and that's why I support this motion.

Didn't Harper whip the "nation" vote?

Saturn · December 6, 2006

Do you believe MPs should be forced to vote what the party dictates on an issue like SSM? Or do you think, perhaps, that an issue as controversial as this should have a free-vote?
I think the MPs should be allowed to use their own conscious and have a free-vote on this issue and that's why I support this motion.

No, they shouldn't. If tomorrow they decide that their beliefs dictate that white Jewish women should not be allowed to vote, would you let them do it? Ok, you perhaps would but I don't care for your sexist, racist views, so it's just not going to happen. It's not up to the majority to take away the rights of minorities.

Saturn · December 6, 2006

Yes, shame on Harper for actually allowing Democracy to work.

You are kidding, right? Harper and democracy do not belong in the same sentence. Democracy does not include wasting our money on an issue that's been decided long ago and whipping his caucus to vote a certain way on all issues that are currently being decided.

scribblet · December 6, 2006

Now there's no denying that social conservative shadow in the new Con party we were warned about. The lamest excuse I'm hearing a lot on the news now is the "promise": really... we didn't want it... but we made a promise ... so you've got to respect us ... for keeping it ... (and for making it in the first place).
Well, if anything, the past experiences show that holding Canadians for idiots never plays out well in the end. We'll see...

Errr, hate to break it to you there certainly is a lot to be denied about a 'social conservative shadow' whatever that means. There are people in all parties opposed to SSM, so free vote on the issue should clarify it.

cybercoma · December 6, 2006

No, they shouldn't. If tomorrow they wanted to vote on whether white Jewish women should not be allowed to vote, would you let them do it? Ok, you perhaps would but I don't care for your sexist, racist views, so it's just not going to happen. It's not up to the majority to take away the rights of minorities.

Watch who you're calling sexist and racist, you myopic twit. You have no idea what sex or race I am, nor has anything I said even been remotely close to sexist or racist.

We're talking the 'legal' definition of marriage, something the government most certainly does have the right to vote on. Marriage is not a universal human right, as you so dishonestly are trying to indicate.

Besides this, I haven't indicated which side of the fence I'm on, have I? Did cross your ignorant little mind that perhaps I want SSM to be legal, but I don't want it on the books as a vote forced by partisan politics? Did it even occur to you that a free-vote would result in a definitive win for SSM advocates, one that is not constrained by the boundaries of party politics? Obviously not, since you were so quit to be so distastefully insulting to me, extending the issue of personal lifestyle to include such disgusting things as racism and sexism.

Save your high-horse rants for the morons in your everyday life you impress with such tough talk.

geoffrey · December 6, 2006

Didn't Harper whip the "nation" vote?

Only cabinet... but they always vote together anyways.

--

Remember here, if this motion passes and the issue is reopened... it's the Liberals that will have made it possible.

myata · December 6, 2006

Now there's no denying that social conservative shadow in the new Con party we were warned about. The lamest excuse I'm hearing a lot on the news now is the "promise": really... we didn't want it... but we made a promise ... so you've got to respect us ... for keeping it ... (and for making it in the first place).

Well, if anything, the past experiences show that holding Canadians for idiots never plays out well in the end. We'll see...

Errr, hate to break it to you there certainly is a lot to be denied about a 'social conservative shadow' whatever that means. There are people in all parties opposed to SSM, so free vote on the issue should clarify it.

But bringing it back and again, after it's been closed, does tell us something about this leader and this party, no?

geoffrey · December 6, 2006

But bringing it back and again, after it's been closed, does tell us something about this leader and this party, no?

It was never closed, there has never been a truly free vote.

Black Dog · December 6, 2006

Only cabinet... but they always vote together anyways.

Actually no. From the Post:

Harper had made it known he was wielding a three-line whip.
All ministers and parliamentary secretaries were expected to vote for the motion or suffer the consequences.

Backbenchers could abstain without repercussion, so Chong said his only option was resignation from Cabinet.

That means backbenchers could only abstain or support, not oppose, the motion.

geoffrey · December 6, 2006

Fair enough.

MightyAC · December 6, 2006

I am completely for our current definition and believe it should be left as is. However, I don't think MPs should be forced to vote either for or against. Harper has been terrible for controlling his MPs from the top down. Despite the fact that current definition is the only fair choice I really hope Dion doesn't follow suit.

MPs should be free to represent their constituents...in theory anyway.

My Con MP will vote in favour of the motion to restore the previous definition despite the fact that local polls show the majority of my region prefers the status quo.

One candidate receives 40% of the vote, stands up for the 2 in 5 that got him a job, while 3 in 5 are left without representation. Winner take all electoral systems just don't make any sense at all.

geoffrey · December 6, 2006

One candidate receives 40% of the vote, stands up for the 2 in 5 that got him a job, while 3 in 5 are left without representation. Winner take all electoral systems just don't make any sense at all.

Local runoffs?

Renegade · December 6, 2006

It would be interesting to know how many still sitting MPs flip-flops from their 1999 vote:

June 8, 1999:
Although many laws will have to be revised to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in May, the federal government votes 216 to 55 in favour of preserving the definition of "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman. Justice Minister Anne McLellan says the definition of marriage is already clear in law and the federal government has "no intention of changing the definition of marriage or legislating same-sex marriage."

link

This motion has no chance of passing and even if it does it has no chance of affecting SSM in Canada. That can only be done by invoking the notwithstanding clause.

Actually this is a clever move by Harper, in that he knows it will go down in defeat, but he can turn to his religious conservative supporters, shrug his shoulders and say "well, we tried". Better he does this now and gets it over with then when he has a majority and can alienate part of his support base.

cybercoma · December 6, 2006

It would be interesting to know how many still sitting MPs flip-flops from their 1999 vote:
June 8, 1999:
Although many laws will have to be revised to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in May, the federal government votes 216 to 55 in favour of preserving the definition of "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman. Justice Minister Anne McLellan says the definition of marriage is already clear in law and the federal government has "no intention of changing the definition of marriage or legislating same-sex marriage."

link
This motion has no chance of passing and even if it does it has no chance of affecting SSM in Canada. That can only be done by invoking the notwithstanding clause.

Actually this is a clever move by Harper, in that he knows it will go down in defeat, but he can turn to his religious conservative supporters, shrug his shoulders and say "well, we tried". Better he does this now and gets it over with then when he has a majority and can alienate part of his support base.

Look at the other side of the coin as well. He can turn to fiscally conservative and socially liberal voters and say, "the Conservative Party is not filled with religious zealots."

stignasty · December 6, 2006

Liberal MPs will be allowed to vote freely on a Conservative government motion to reopen the same-sex marriage debate, Leader Stéphane Dion says.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/dion-samesex.html

MightyAC · December 6, 2006

One candidate receives 40% of the vote, stands up for the 2 in 5 that got him a job, while 3 in 5 are left without representation. Winner take all electoral systems just don't make any sense at all.

Local runoffs?

That would be a step in the right direction, but that doesn't really help provide representation. It works at a party convention when members of the same team have to pick 1 leader but the ideologies between separate parties can vary significantly. Often people only support one choice. For example it may be more palatable for NDP and Green voters to support a Liberal candidate as a second choice than it would be for a Conservative voter to support any party as a second choice. Take the riding of London by-election riding from a couple weeks ago. In a runoff CPC voters would have to support a Liberal or Green candidate...not a great fit for the most part.

What if we each had two votes? The first vote would be cast for a local MP. It would rank each candidate to facilitate a runoff without having to cast additional ballots. The second vote would be for the governing party. It would be used to calculate the popular vote and list MPs would be added to the house so that each party is represented proportionally.

In the end every voter helped create representation.

MightyAC · December 6, 2006

Liberal MPs will be allowed to vote freely on a Conservative government motion to reopen the same-sex marriage debate, Leader Stéphane Dion says.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/dion-samesex.html

That's great news.. Dion made his first good decision. Now I just hope the status quo can be upheld and we can put this issue behind us.