Harper introduces SSM motion

[geoffrey]

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?

Promoting the death of anyone is crime, what's your beef?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Jack & Gilles will yet again whip the vote, but still ........... miracles happen!

[August1991]

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

I'm generally considered a Conservative in these parts and I'm in favour of same sex marriage. Andrew Coyne is also conservative and supports it too.

But like Coyne, I'm not going to say that those opposed to same sex marriage are somehow equivalent to racist bigots. To do that, you'd have to condemn almost every government or politician in the western world.

The Conservative Party is a big tent with people holding various viewpoints. If Canada had never allowed same sex marriage or were to forbid it, I wouldn't think that it was the end of civilization. IMO, most Conservative Party members concede that gays have a right to live as anyone else - and many Conservatives support civil unions but not gay marriage. (I can understand this as the "mayonnaise" argument. If it doesn't have whole eggs, it can't be labeled as mayonnaise. That doesn't mean salad dressing is any less. It's just different.) Anyway, there are other issues that are frankly more pressing.

As an aside, I'm nervous about this "equality" argument or the idea that gays should be treated teh same as straight people. Each person is different and it is often unfair to treat them equally. Fewer gays than straights will benefit from child tax credits but then again, more gays than straights will benefit from state-financed old age care.

Promoting the death of anyone is crime, what's your beef?

Murder is one thing. Murder of someone in an identifiable group another thing. We could all be a victim of random violence. But a random black faces a greater threat when a murderer aims to murder a black person. The penalty for such a "hate" murder should be greater than "ordinary" murder. In the same sense, murdering a random police officer (simply because of the uniform) usually carries a greater penalty than murdering a random individual.

The key question is: are gays an identifiable group? Gays usually claim that they're just like anyone else which kind of undermines their argument for being identifiable. In practice though, I think gays should be included in hate crime legislation.

[jdobbin]

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

I'm generally considered a Conservative in these parts and I'm in favour of same sex marriage. Andrew Coyne is also conservative and supports it too.

I have a feeling that conservatives are going to keep requesting a vote on this till they get the answer they want.

[mikedavid00]

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

I'm generally considered a Conservative in these parts and I'm in favour of same sex marriage. Andrew Coyne is also conservative and supports it too.

I have a feeling that conservatives are going to keep requesting a vote on this till they get the answer they want.

I dont think anyone cares about SSM. I do because I feel that it will be an immigration loophole, but most people don't care.

The real reason he's doing this is because there was no free vote in the house of commons. It's a symbol of democracy. I'm sure SSM will pass and everyone knows it.

I hope it doesn't for the reason I outlined.

[gc1765]

I do because I feel that it will be an immigration loophole, but most people don't care.

How so?

[jdobbin]

I dont think anyone cares about SSM. I do because I feel that it will be an immigration loophole, but most people don't care.

The real reason he's doing this is because there was no free vote in the house of commons. It's a symbol of democracy. I'm sure SSM will pass and everyone knows it.

I hope it doesn't for the reason I outlined.

What is your citation for immigration loopholes?

[myata]

Now of all the laws that were voted in not entirely free manner, is this the one most deserving our attention? Has anyone stats? And if no, why has it been brought up anyways? If not because of great love for freedom, then, maybe, just maybe, because this government does have socon roots, however strongly they may deny it?

[hiti]

Actually this law was voted on more fairly that when Harper whipped his MPs for the "Quebecers is a Nation" vote last week when he had MPs hiding behind the curtains. The Bloc had a free vote and the Liberals had a free vote except for the caucus. Only the NDP whipped their MPs and ejected their one MP who voted against the SSM bill.

This babbling that there was insufficient debate and not a free vote is bogus. The debate lasted more than three years and it went through the Supreme Court plus seven provinces have legalized SSM.

When will Steve quit playing his political games? Even his hard-right supporters are mad at him regarding the wording of this bill cause he allows for civil-union for gays which was not what he promised on the campaign trail. Promises made, promises broke.

[myata]

Well then, it's not the zeal for pure democracy that's driving this motion, as it appears? Let's remind for the record the events of the same week (thanks to other users pointing it out): #1 Conservatives whip the vote on "Quebec nation", having a minister resign over refusal to toe party line; #2 Conservatives introduce the SSM motion on the pretense that it wasn't voted in a free vote previously (from ... forgot the name, the member of CPC who introduced the motion in the House yesterday, on CBC record). Is something not right here? or is it plain BS?

If not the democracy than what is it what's making this government challenge a legislated social reality accepted by majority of population? I can only see one other possibility: its socially conservative views.

Here, a mathematical proof that Harper's is a socon government. He may deny it all he wants but his actions speak for themselves.

[scribblet]

The 'zeal' (actually foot dragging it was later coming than anticipated) as you know is to fulfill a promise and to put the issue to bed once and for all. Considering how Paul Martin fast tracked the previous bill and limited debate it was felt by many that it should be revisited.

Pat O'Brien (Lib) left theLiberal caucus to sit as an independent because Paul Martin had gone back on his promise to give adequate public consultation on the SSM legislation.

O'Brien also said the PM had gone on his word and that the process to legislate same-sex marriage was “unfolding to be a farce.”

"Witnesses are given too short a notice to testify, he said, and then, when they appear, they are berated and lectured by MPs on both sides of the table. He called the committee's June 16 deadline to report back an artificial timeline and said there is not need to rush.Pat O'Brien (Lib)

Even the Star at that time reported that "Liberals plan to fast-track debate on gay-wedding bill," 2005-FEB-02, Page A6.

“Gay bill fast-tracked Same-sex nuptials law by summer, Liberals say

Tim Naumetz; with files from Scott Stinson CanWest News Service, June 2, 2005″

[watching&waiting]

People should just get over trying to make more of this then it really is. Harper had promised a free vote on SSM before the next election and he is fore filling that promise with this vote. It is going to take 2 days of time but it will mean he did what he said. He will use that in the next election campaign to show he means what he says. He will have to show also the reasons for the flip flop on income trusts, but that will not be a hard thing to do and most voters were not hurt by it in a big way.

He will have a harder time explaining the Unelected Fortier and the switch if a liberal and his appointment, to the people. I think that will cost him some points but not really many. What you are seeing is the CPC setting up for election mode and I would probably say that Harper himself will have the writ dropped if the opposition does not have it done for him.

An election campaign takes the shine off of things and gets to the real meat of the matters, and that is where Harper has the advantage. He will have done what he said for most of his promises and will explain those he could not do or flipped on. The people will have to decide. The Sponsorship will still be a deciding factor in Quebec and the whole scanelous finding of Fraser will keep the Liberals at the edge. Duceppe will bring up all the dirt on the Liberals and will do the most harm to them. Harper will only need to say he concurrs.

So this vote is the CPC using it place in the house to keep a promise it made. I really do not think it will change things at all, and it will not be brought back by them again. It is not a real brainer to see what this is and why.

[scribblet]

People should just get over trying to make more of this then it really is. Harper had promised a free vote on SSM before the next election and he is fore filling that promise with this vote. It is going to take 2 days of time but it will mean he did what he said. He will use that in the next election campaign to show he means what he says. He will have to show also the reasons for the flip flop on income trusts, but that will not be a hard thing to do and most voters were no hurt by it in a big way.

----

So this vote is the CPC using it place in the house to keep a promise it made. I really do not thing it will change things at all, and it will not be brought back by them again. It is not a real brainer to see what this is and why.

Agreed, it seems to me that all this (among other issues) is much ado about nothing. It is partisan politics thats all.

[myata]

Foot dragging? Maybe you can shed the light on the nature of that mysterious force that's draggging Harper to do this almost against his will? We've already established that it's got nothing to do with love for democracy. Must be something else... Let me guess.

[Topaz]

I think most Canadians are sick hearing about two things, SS marriages and separation within Canada. I feel the Charter of Rights answers any question to both issues and so lets move on to more important issues!

[Shakeyhands]

but hang on a second, just because he promises to "revisit" the issue, does it not make it an empty promise?

[scribblet]

Foot dragging? Maybe you can shed the light on the nature of that mysterious force that's draggging Harper to do this almost against his will? We've already established that it's got nothing to do with love for democracy. Must be something else... Let me guess.

I don't know that it was totally against his will but he is doing it only to keep a promise to the few anti SSM people many of whom felt that as shown, Martin fasttracked the previous bill. It serves to fulfil the promise and to close the issue. Nothing more to it.

[Leafless]

Foot dragging? Maybe you can shed the light on the nature of that mysterious force that's draggging Harper to do this almost against his will? We've already established that it's got nothing to do with love for democracy. Must be something else... Let me guess.

I don't know that it was totally against his will but he is doing it only to keep a promise to the few anti SSM people many of whom felt that as shown.

How can you possibly make such a statement when there is NO legal documentation of any kind to establish if what you say is true, pertaining to the citizens of Canada.

[myata]

Foot dragging? Maybe you can shed the light on the nature of that mysterious force that's draggging Harper to do this almost against his will? We've already established that it's got nothing to do with love for democracy. Must be something else... Let me guess.

I don't know that it was totally against his will but he is doing it only to keep a promise to the few anti SSM people many of whom felt that as shown, Martin fasttracked the previous bill. It serves to fulfil the promise and to close the issue. Nothing more to it.

OK let's get to the bottom of it. If he makes a promise to those socon people, would that, perhaps, seem like him being sympathetic to their cause? No? Then why make the promise? Then, some may perhaps "feel" that other issues like e.g. (any of of the list of well known and extremely popular on this board) were fasttracked too? How can we be sure Mr Harper won't feel obliged to reopen them as well, should he get in his prized majority situation? And you know what - I think we can't. Period.

[g_bambino]

OK let's get to the bottom of it. If he makes a promise to those socon people, would that, perhaps, seem like him being sympathetic to their cause? No? Then why make the promise? Then, some may perhaps "feel" that other issues like e.g. (any of of the list of well known and extremely popular on this board) were fasttracked too? How can we be sure Mr Harper won't feel obliged to reopen them as well, should he get in his prized majority situation? And you know what - I think we can't. Period.

There's nothing barring the revisiting of issues or laws in the House - it happens all the time, and for various reasons. Just because a bill has passed and is made into an act does not mean it's enshrined in stone, and whenever something is revisited there will always be people who say: "Why? What's wrong with the way it is now?" Of course, it's being revisited because there are people who think there is something wrong with the way it is now, and it is their right to express opposition to it, and argue why it should be changed or reversed. That's called debate, and that's what goes on in the House of Commons. Anyone who asserts that we absolutely cannot revisit same-sex marriage because the bill has been passed are simply stating that anyone opposed to their opinions should be forced to shut-up and take it.

There are currently Canadians who oppose SSM, and those who feel the last vote on the issue was too controlled by those in power; the latter group may well contain some who support SSM but also believe in a fair vote. Harper made a promise to see if there were enough people in the House who belong to either camp to open up the debate again. That's all he promised, and so far that's all he's doing. Anything else is just pure speculation about the outcome of the vote, though most people seem pretty convinced already that it will not pass.

[watching&waiting]

Harper made the promise to revisit SSM during the last election and the electorate voted for him with that in mind. So yes this is fore filling a promise. The people had their say and this is what they chose. To now say anything different would be to deny the people thier right to choose. But again that is the Liberal way now is it not. Hell the one thing you can count on with Liberals is if they promise it at election time it will have a 30% chance of being true and 70% chance they are lieing. At least with Harper you will get what is promised and if by chance circumstances change and it can not be done, it will be explained clearly. The Liberals just ignore any iquiries about things they do not want to answer to.

[scribblet]

OK let's get to the bottom of it. If he makes a promise to those socon people, would that, perhaps, seem like him being sympathetic to their cause? No? Then why make the promise? Then, some may perhaps "feel" that other issues like e.g. (any of of the list of well known and extremely popular on this board) were fasttracked too? How can we be sure Mr Harper won't feel obliged to reopen them as well, should he get in his prized majority situation? And you know what - I think we can't. Period.

There's nothing to get to the bottom of, what more can anyone say, he promised he'd do it to satisfy those who

wanted it - it won't pass - case closed.

[Wilber]

OK let's get to the bottom of it. If he makes a promise to those socon people, would that, perhaps, seem like him being sympathetic to their cause? No? Then why make the promise? Then, some may perhaps "feel" that other issues like e.g. (any of of the list of well known and extremely popular on this board) were fasttracked too? How can we be sure Mr Harper won't feel obliged to reopen them as well, should he get in his prized majority situation? And you know what - I think we can't. Period.

There's nothing to get to the bottom of, what more can anyone say, he promised he'd do it to satisfy those who

wanted it - it won't pass - case closed.

Agreed. Much better to get this done, put it to bed and move one to more important things. Unless Parliament deals with it once and for all, it will continue to waste time and energy, ad infinitum.

[jdobbin]

The 'zeal' (actually foot dragging it was later coming than anticipated) as you know is to fulfill a promise and to put the issue to bed once and for all. Considering how Paul Martin fast tracked the previous bill and limited debate it was felt by many that it should be revisited.

But it won't bed put to bed for very long. There is talk amongst anti-same sex marriage advocates that Conservatives will probably bring this up again once they secure a majority.

I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

[Wilber]

But it won't bed put to bed for very long. There is talk amongst anti-same sex marriage advocates that Conservatives will probably bring this up again once they secure a majority.

I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Ah, the old hidden agenda again. You haven't heard anything to the contrary, therefore it must be fact.

Wishful thinking on their part I think, politically it would be just plain dumb and that is one thing Harper is not.