Harper introduces SSM motion

[Renegade]

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."

Only if he allows a free vote, and only if enough Tory MPs vote against it, or if his social liberal supporters think he is diliberately setting up this bill for failure. I'm not sure most people read that much into it. Most socially liberal CPC supporters will just be happy the resolution goes down in defeat, they won't really give props to Harper for engineering the defeat.

[myata]

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.

Oh, you have a truly high standard! I assume it applies to all legislation passed in the Parliament? None is final unless it had that "truly free vote", correct? Now what's your definition of the same?

[stignasty]

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.

Oh, you have a truly high standard! I assume it applies to all legislation passed in the Parliament? None is final unless it had that "truly free vote", correct? Now what's your definition of the same?

. . . and. . . if it wasn't closed, why is the motion on whether or not to reopen the debate?

[August1991]

So this is the latest thread about same sex marriage.

I liked this quote from Coyne about Harper's motion and so I thought I'd paste it here:

Putting the matter to a truly free vote would send an important signal: that the 40% or so of my fellow Canadians who do not feel the same way as I and my liberal friends do about gay marriage are not pariahs or bigots, but on the whole are decent people with legitimate concerns that are entitled to be represented in Parliament.

Rewriting the marriage laws to include homosexual unions is a radical social experiment, one that only a handful of countries have been willing to embark upon until now. It is a step we should take, in my view, not simply because we are required to by the Charter, but as a positive gesture of respect for gays and lesbians, a sign of their acceptance by mainstream society. But we owe as much respect to people of goodwill who worry where it will all lead. We owe them a free vote.

My feelings exactly.

Coyne's column is a good read - and even offers (impossible!) something new about this.

[Argus]

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...

What world are you calling in from? You can never go wrong by playing the Canadian electorate for fools. The Liberals have been doing it for decades.

But so what? So they'll hold a vote on homo marriage. The sky is not gonna fall. It's not a shocking development. They did promise it, and they're keeping the promise. So freaking what?

[Argus]

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?

Depends on how much support they have. When the Chretien government amended the marriage act and firmly enshrined within it that marriage was between man and woman only did the SSM people "go away" and say "Well, it's settled now. We'll just forget about it." ? Hardly.

This is a political issue. I think the position some have taken - which is that there is no legitimacy to the other side, is simply childish. Both sides are equally free to promote their views to their parliamentarians, and those parliamentarians are free to decide the issue as they choose - well, unless they are in a party which does not allow individuals to make moral choices, like the NDP.

[Argus]

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.

reported to moderator

[Argus]

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?

It seems to me that proponents of SSM ignored repeated turn downs from parliament, never admitted the issue had been "decided" and eventually got their way. Where is it written that because it passed once the issue is now "Decided"?

[August1991]

The radical gays would have us believe that if we don't allow gay marriage, then we are bigots who are no different from slave owners in the ante-bellum south. By that logic, we should immediately impose trade sanctions against Denmark, Sweden and Norway because of their bigotted and apartheid ways.

Opposing gay marriage is a perfectly legitimate position - it happens to be the position of Tony Blair. It's not my opinion but alot of civilized people around the world disagree with me on many things.

[Argus]

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;

But not the Supreme Court.

2) it has been discussed and voted in the Parliament;

A different parliament. The motion was also rejected by earlier parliaments but advocates of gay marriage didn't then decide the matter was "settled" and give up.

3) it is accepted by majority of Canadians according to a number of polls.

Last I saw, actually, the majority of Canadians would prefer gays have a "civil union" not marriage.

[Black Dog]

Both sides are equally free to promote their views to their parliamentarians, and those parliamentarians are free to decide the issue as they choose - well, unless they are in a party which does not allow individuals to make moral choices, like the NDP.

Or, as the "nation" vote showed, the CPC.

[Argus]

Both sides are equally free to promote their views to their parliamentarians, and those parliamentarians are free to decide the issue as they choose - well, unless they are in a party which does not allow individuals to make moral choices, like the NDP.

Or, as the "nation" vote showed, the CPC.

Seems to me some CPC members voted against it and they were not immediately kicked out of the party like the last NDP MP who dared to oppose homosexual marriage was.

[Black Dog]

Seems to me some CPC members voted against it and they were not immediately kicked out of the party like the last NDP MP who dared to oppose homosexual marriage was.

If you're talking about Dejarlais, she was not "immediately kicked out of the party". As for the nation vote: no Conservative voted against it.

Conservatives, most Liberal MPs, the NDP and the Bloc voted 266 to 16 in support of the controversial motion, which earlier in the day had prompted the resignation of Michael Chong as intergovernmental affairs minister.

Fifteen Liberal MPs voted against the motion, including Liberal leadership candidates Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe, along with Independent MP Garth Turner

Link.

15 Liberals+1 independent=16

[normanchateau]

Last I saw, actually, the majority of Canadians would prefer gays have a "civil union" not marriage.

"The most recent public opinion poll on same-sex marriages became available on June 19th, 2006. The poll, conducted by Environics Research, showed that support for the law increased, as Canadians accept gay marriage by a 59-33 majority. An Environics poll taken in January of 2005, showed the majority favoured the law, but by a tighter margin: 54-43. The poll also asked respondents if they favoured reopening the issue, as Stephen Harper has promised to do in the fall. 62% responded that the issue is settled, 27% felt the issue should be reopened. An Environics poll taken in January, 2006, showed a margin of 66-30 against reopening the debate. Thus, although opposition to reopening the debate fell by 4 points, support for raising it again fell by 3. Finally, only a slim majority of conservative voters felt the issue should be reopened. Strong opponents have fallen from 46% per cent to 35%."

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

[jdobbin]

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.

It might not be the last vote on it. I can't imagine any Conservative liking it.

[normanchateau]

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.

It might not be the last vote on it. I can't imagine any Conservative liking it.

I think they'll let it die. Even Harper, who pointlessly voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals, seems to have decided not to re-open that issue. So-cons realize that their only chance at reversing any current legislation is to pretend that Harper is not a so-con and hope that this will improve his chances of winning a majority government. But with Dion as Liberal leader, even a Conservative minority has become elusive to Harper. The only hope for Cons is a new leader, something which Dion is unprepared for.

[jdobbin]

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.

For today. There is pressure for another promise of a vote if and when the Tories get a majority. And if not then, after the next time. And if not then...

Meanwhile, Mary Cheney, daughter of Dick Cheney announced today that she is expecting a child with her female spouse.

[jdobbin]

If you're talking about Dejarlais, she was not "immediately kicked out of the party". As for the nation vote: no Conservative voted against it.

Desjarlias just had to face a vindictive NDP who went full out to nominate a 23 year old daughter of an NDP cabinet minister instead.

[scribblet]

Betsy: 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.

This is true, it won't pass of course as even some Liberals who voted against SSM the first time . are voting against this motion tomorrow - to get rid of it once and for all.

Dion voted against same sex marriage about 6 years ago but I don't think the Charter and rights has somehow changed. Oh well, Que Serra....

[normanchateau]

Dion voted against same sex marriage about 6 years ago but I don't think the Charter and rights has somehow changed.

So Dion's position has changed. Has Harper's position changed that advocating and promoting the killing of homosexuals is not a hate crime, or do you suppose he will he always feel that way?

[watching&waiting]

Norman

You are at this gay thing again. So let me take the devils advocate part. Why would we claim that calling for the death of homosexuals should be a hate crime? It was not that long agao that if you were gay you were sent to prison. That was why many crimes against gays were never reported, as to do so the person would have to admit to being gay. That was 1967, so it was not so long ago. Gays were given legal status but it was not something that was seen openly in the neighbourhoods, but yes all the teens and young adults knew who ere the gay people and for the most part gave them a wide birth. That took well into the 80's early 90's . Then came the gay pride parades which were watched more as freak shows then anything else. It really was not some thing any really cared about. Gays became more public and openly flaunted behaviour that if a hetrosexual did the same would be arrestes for it. Then it came to where gays were openly seeking partners that they knew were straight or maybe too young to know for sure, and that is when we now see the gay movement going back to freakish behaviour. Where girls and boys pretty much try their dating skilles and a no means no, but what they are finding that gay people, take a no as well maybe and then try friend and wait till vulnerable and again push for lover. This is seen all over so please do not deny it. At this very moment gays are given the benefit of the doubt more often then heteral sexuals, and that is not right. When gays expose their gay side and all the rest of their pride, it breaks the laws. The Ottawa gay pride parade had many people laughing and gigiling about what to the ypoungster was touching and posing the bad places that momies and daddies have told then to report to them if anyone ever tries to touch them that way. Now is that something we want our children to see? No, so why are we allowing a parade down Bank St, so these, freaks can put on a show that is only funny to adualt only crowds.

So if and when one of these gays trys to touch your kid and you see it and beat the daylights out of him, is it wrong? Yes, but it is also a very large mitigating factor. The crime would not be a hate crime, because it was more lokely a temporaary insanity thing. That is just one long reason why you can not make all those crimes against gays hate crimes. We as a society have allowed the gays way too much leiniency in many things. We alow the pardades etc. so we are not being anti-gay. But when a gay person steps over the line and forces, or touches a child or teen in that wrong way, what happens after that is not a hate crime against gays, but rather child molesters or what ever elkse you want to call it. So yes I am glad that Harper did not vote to make it a hate crime as it clearly can not be shown that all the crimes are hate crimes against gays.

Now can we once and for all quit bringing this up in your posts. Or you will make me write even longer winded answers to it.

[scribblet]

Norman

Now can we once and for all quit bringing this up in your posts. Or you will make me write even longer winded answers to it.

I find it best not to answer the continual repetition and insertion of 'harper and etc." into threads, it becomes tiresome and boring. Repeating the same assertion continually doesn't make it so.... I think I'll put him on 'ignore', after all its the same old same old.

[normanchateau]

Norman

You are at this gay thing again. So let me take the devils advocate part. Why would we claim that calling for the death of homosexuals should be a hate crime? It was not that long agao that if you were gay you were sent to prison. That was why many crimes against gays were never reported, as to do so the person would have to admit to being gay. That was 1967, so it was not so long ago. Gays were given legal status but it was not something that was seen openly in the neighbourhoods, but yes all the teens and young adults knew who ere the gay people and for the most part gave them a wide birth. That took well into the 80's early 90's . Then came the gay pride parades which were watched more as freak shows then anything else. It really was not some thing any really cared about. Gays became more public and openly flaunted behaviour that if a hetrosexual did the same would be arrestes for it. Then it came to where gays were openly seeking partners that they knew were straight or maybe too young to know for sure, and that is when we now see the gay movement going back to freakish behaviour. Where girls and boys pretty much try their dating skilles and a no means no, but what they are finding that gay people, take a no as well maybe and then try friend and wait till vulnerable and again push for lover. This is seen all over so please do not deny it. At this very moment gays are given the benefit of the doubt more often then heteral sexuals, and that is not right. When gays expose their gay side and all the rest of their pride, it breaks the laws. The Ottawa gay pride parade had many people laughing and gigiling about what to the ypoungster was touching and posing the bad places that momies and daddies have told then to report to them if anyone ever tries to touch them that way. Now is that something we want our children to see? No, so why are we allowing a parade down Bank St, so these, freaks can put on a show that is only funny to adualt only crowds.

So if and when one of these gays trys to touch your kid and you see it and beat the daylights out of him, is it wrong? Yes, but it is also a very large mitigating factor. The crime would not be a hate crime, because it was more lokely a temporaary insanity thing. That is just one long reason why you can not make all those crimes against gays hate crimes. We as a society have allowed the gays way too much leiniency in many things. We alow the pardades etc. so we are not being anti-gay. But when a gay person steps over the line and forces, or touches a child or teen in that wrong way, what happens after that is not a hate crime against gays, but rather child molesters or what ever elkse you want to call it. So yes I am glad that Harper did not vote to make it a hate crime as it clearly can not be shown that all the crimes are hate crimes against gays.

Now can we once and for all quit bringing this up in your posts. Or you will make me write even longer winded answers to it.

The legislation which Harper voted against was legislation that made it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals.

We already have legislation which makes it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of people of different races. Harper has no problem with that legislation. If a man of another race molests your child and you assault him, do you think that you would be accused of a hate crime?

We also have legislation which makes it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of people of different religions. Harper has no problem with that legislation. If a man of another religion molests your child and you assault him, do you think that you would be accused of a hate crime?

Hate crime legislation was not put in place to protect pedophiles no matter what the race, religion or sexual orientation of the pedophile. And if you sincerely believe that hate crimes legislation will protect pedophiles, you should argue against ALL hate crimes legislation whether it pertains to race, religion or sexual orientation. But Harper only opposes it for sexual orientation. He favours it for race and religion.

[jdobbin]

So if and when one of these gays trys to touch your kid and you see it and beat the daylights out of him, is it wrong?

I think you mean pedophile rather than gay.

I don't think we can assume that anyone who goes after young girls or boys is straight or gay. From all scientific accounts, they don't aspire to straight or gay relationships. They prey on children instead.

Do you have evidence of the contrary?

[myata]

That's (see above) one big kudo of support for Mr. Harper. Not sure he wants to be associated with the kind ... then, who can tell for certain?