Same-sex motion defeated by wide margin

Melanie_ · December 8, 2006

It's extremely disheartening and disturbing to see that 175 members of parliament contributing to the destruction of Christianity. They have directly contributed to transforming Canada into a pagan society driven by an unholy and an unqualified charter, that caters to groups that can be labelled nonconformist and un-Candian and a hazard and danger to mainstream Canadian society.

This is not about Christianity, it's about equal rights for all Canadians. And seeing as how the majority of MPs and the majority of Canadians support SSM, perhaps the "nonconformist and un-Canadian" viewpoint is yours.

BTW, nonconformity isn't necessarily a bad thing. The world would be a very dull place if we all simply did the same thing as everyone else, like lemmings swarming over a cliff.

jbg · December 8, 2006

This is wonderful news . It means that Canada rejects discriminating against people .
Let this be the last of it and move onto many more important things this country faces.

Majority or not.

It means that the Bloc and the NDP whipped the vote. Too bad it wasn't a confidence vote.

ClearWest · December 8, 2006

This is wonderful news . It means that Canada rejects discriminating against people .

You don't have to change the traditional definition of marriage to avoid discriminating against people. If someone lives a different lifestyle it's none of my business, but they don't have to go to government and say: our sexual devience is now a legal norm.

A person can choose to eat rubber tires, but they shouldn't have the right to change the legal definition of food in order to incorporate their own eccentricity into every day society. Likewise with marriage.

Charles Anthony · December 8, 2006

You don't have to change the traditional definition of marriage to avoid discriminating against people. If someone lives a different lifestyle it's none of my business, but they don't have to go to government and say: our sexual devience is now a legal norm.

You are mistaken because those people want to got to the government.

A person can choose to eat rubber tires, but they shouldn't have the right to change the legal definition of food in order to incorporate their own eccentricity into every day society. Likewise with marriage.

Your analogy is akin to comparing apples and oranges within a garden salad.

In our society, coersionists have attributed rights to those who fall under the classification of marriage. Thus, the definition of marriage becomes important.

ClearWest · December 8, 2006

A person can choose to eat rubber tires, but they shouldn't have the right to change the legal definition of food in order to incorporate their own eccentricity into every day society. Likewise with marriage.
Your analogy is akin to comparing apples and oranges within a garden salad.
In our society, coersionists have attributed rights to those who fall under the classification of marriage. Thus, the definition of marriage becomes important.

I don't think there should be any one definition of marriage. Marriage should be defined by the individuals and the organizations which institute marriage - namely, Churches, but not necessarily exclusively. My personal definition of marriage is a union, under God, between one man and one woman. The government shouldn't have power to set a definition for marriage. Their 'legal' definition doesn't change my views on the matter - however, it remains a concern because they have basically said in a ceremonial kind of way, that homosexuality is now a social norm.

I'm mainly concerned about religious freedoms. Eventually, Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will probably be tried for discrimination. That likely won't happen for several years, but the beginning stages are in motion. When Paul Martin oversaw the change of the definition of marriage, he said it wouldn't affect Churches, and he promised to protect freedom of religion - but there really isn't anything stopping the government from saying: by refusing to perform gay marriages you are infringing upon equality rights. Freedom of Religion is still a charter right, but something tells me they won't let religions 'infringe' upon their equality rights for very much longer.

bradco · December 8, 2006

This is wonderful news . It means that Canada rejects discriminating against people .

You don't have to change the traditional definition of marriage to avoid discriminating against people. If someone lives a different lifestyle it's none of my business, but they don't have to go to government and say: our sexual devience is now a legal norm.

A person can choose to eat rubber tires, but they shouldn't have the right to change the legal definition of food in order to incorporate their own eccentricity into every day society. Likewise with marriage.

blah blah blah who cares about the legal definition of marriage. I thought objections were based on religious grounds??? when did legal interpretations ever have anythigng to do with religion. The fact is churches still and always will have the right to decide if they want to marry homosexuals. Regardless of right wing hysteria, homosexuals and religous rights can coexist.

either way, fact is the majority of Canadians support changing the legal definition so your little analogy is flawed. If the majority of Canadians vote to change the definiton of food to include tires its a go.

scribblet · December 8, 2006

This is wonderful news . It means that Canada rejects discriminating against people .

You don't have to change the traditional definition of marriage to avoid discriminating against people. If someone lives a different lifestyle it's none of my business, but they don't have to go to government and say: our sexual devience is now a legal norm.

A person can choose to eat rubber tires, but they shouldn't have the right to change the legal definition of food in order to incorporate their own eccentricity into every day society. Likewise with marriage.

I tend to agree, I'm not a religious person but changing the definition of marriage never sat well with me; bno problem with equal rights and civil marriages. I'm also not comfortable with amount of influence homosexuality and the gay agenda is having on our schools. Teaching tolerance and acceptance is one thing, promoting such a lifestyle as perfectly normal is another. I'm happy I have no children in school these days.

However, the MSN missed the real story. This was a 'free vote' where MPs could vote their conscience, or preferably in accordance with their constituents' wishes. House debates on a motion under a 'free vote' would only give value if the MPs consult with their constituents.

The BQ and NDP apparently don't subscribe to the notion of representation nor of consulting with constituents as they required their members to vote against the motion 'en bloc'. Party discipline was invoked on 80 or 26% of the MPs.

The result of all of this is that the SSM debate and vote in Parliament currently reflects political ideology rather than social conscience. I wonder what the results would have been if the 10 members who abstained and those disciplined were given a vote without political repercussions.

Either way, there is no going back, I don't see any options for those who are still unhappy unless there is some means of instituting a citizens's referenda but doesn't that still have to go through Parliament? I believe the issue to be dead in the water now.

normanchateau · December 8, 2006

The result of all of this is that the SSM debate and vote in Parliament currently reflects political ideology rather than social conscience.

It also reflects the views of most Canadians:

"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."

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marr..._post-enactment

The 33% now opposing same sex marriage is a figure so low that it's almost as low as current CPC support nation-wide. Even so-con Harper now realizes that taking away legislated rights from one sector of the population is far more difficult than granting them in the first place.

cybercoma · December 8, 2006

This is wonderful news . It means that Canada rejects discriminating against people .

You don't have to change the traditional definition of marriage to avoid discriminating against people. If someone lives a different lifestyle it's none of my business, but they don't have to go to government and say: our sexual devience is now a legal norm.

A person can choose to eat rubber tires, but they shouldn't have the right to change the legal definition of food in order to incorporate their own eccentricity into every day society. Likewise with marriage.

Sexual deviance? How is a loving relationship between consenting adults deviant in any way? If your discrimination isn't obvious, I feel sorry for you.

MightyAC · December 8, 2006

I don't think there should be any one definition of marriage. Marriage should be defined by the individuals and the organizations which institute marriage - namely, Churches, but not necessarily exclusively. My personal definition of marriage is a union, under God, between one man and one woman. The government shouldn't have power to set a definition for marriage.

You basically agree with the current definition of marriage then. The previous legal definition prevented SS couples from marrying at all. The current definition allows them to marry civilly or at any church that chooses to accept homosexuals. Any church that doesn't is free to wed just heteros if they like.

I'm mainly concerned about religious freedoms. Eventually, Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will probably be tried for discrimination. That likely won't happen for several years, but the beginning stages are in motion. When Paul Martin oversaw the change of the definition of marriage, he said it wouldn't affect Churches, and he promised to protect freedom of religion - but there really isn't anything stopping the government from saying: by refusing to perform gay marriages you are infringing upon equality rights. Freedom of Religion is still a charter right, but something tells me they won't let religions 'infringe' upon their equality rights for very much longer.

First of all many churches have discriminated against women forever and despite the fact that the charter forbids discrimination based on gender churches have not been affected. The same will go for SSM. Besides the ridiculous slippery slope argument that people like you use as a scare tactic works both ways. If we discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry or segregate them with the use of civil unions it's just a matter of time before we start enslaving blacks and stripping women of their rights again. Both arguments are equally absurd. Religions will always be free to be as discriminatory and anachronistic as they are now.

cybercoma · December 8, 2006

I don't think there should be any one definition of marriage. Marriage should be defined by the individuals and the organizations which institute marriage - namely, Churches, but not necessarily exclusively. My personal definition of marriage is a union, under God, between one man and one woman. The government shouldn't have power to set a definition for marriage. Their 'legal' definition doesn't change my views on the matter - however, it remains a concern because they have basically said in a ceremonial kind of way, that homosexuality is now a social norm.
I'm mainly concerned about religious freedoms. Eventually, Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will probably be tried for discrimination. That likely won't happen for several years, but the beginning stages are in motion. When Paul Martin oversaw the change of the definition of marriage, he said it wouldn't affect Churches, and he promised to protect freedom of religion - but there really isn't anything stopping the government from saying: by refusing to perform gay marriages you are infringing upon equality rights. Freedom of Religion is still a charter right, but something tells me they won't let religions 'infringe' upon their equality rights for very much longer.

Why does the church get to go about its business indoctrining children and being a highly divisive force unquestioned? Freedom of religion doesn't mean the church gets to go and do whatever the hell it wants. There are many, many different religions in Canada (regardless of which one you feel 'founded' this nation) and they all deserve equal footing under the law (IMO, that means no footing, even though others will disagree).

If a religion requires its practitioners to take narcotics, one would hope that it wouldn't be allowed by law (unless of course we're talking about the case in Nevada, where the church actually won the ability to distribute and have its members take hallucinogens). If a religion requires its practitioners to arm their children with daggers before they send them off to school, a rational person would hope this wouldn't be allowed (oh wait a minute...).

You see, churches (tax-exempt) are allowed free reign to do whatever they want. Our nation creates laws for a reason -- laws that make concealing a weapon and distributing narcotics illegal -- but when a church does these things, it is supposed to go unquestioned and be respected as a matter of faith. Well, I'm sorry, that's just plain ridiculous.

Freedom of religion shouldn't be absolute to the point that other laws are ignored. It should not be a defense for breaking the law, such as descriminating between which people are allowed to marry and which ones are not. If the church wants to become a private organization, with no political ties such as being tax-exempt, then maybe I can accept them being idiotic bigots. If they don't want to perform same-sex marriages between their four walls, when they stop receiving government support, they can go on their merry way being intolerant troglodytes.

None of this gives the Church the RIGHT to dictate to the government how to setup benefits for married couples. IF the state wants to be indiscriminate to which married couples it allows tax benefits and family laws to, then kudos to them for doing what they should've been doing all along. And to those Christians who are disgusted by it: too bad. You're also the same people that would be disgusted if your sons or daughters were to marry say an Orthodox Jew, a Muslim or a Sikh girl/boy. None of those things are illegal because the intolerance is obvious.

normanchateau · December 8, 2006

religion also serves many other purposes to society including charity directed towards the poor, something alien to governments.
When is the last time you have seen a federal food bank in any city in Canada?

When is the last time you saw welfare cheques distributed by churches?

Yet churches are tax-exempt. They don't even pay property taxes despite using the same municipal services as home owners and businesses. The rest of society, atheists included, subsidize churches through their hard-earned taxes.

Leafless · December 8, 2006

The Charter has one thing in it that Harper refused to use: an exemption. Why didn't he use it?

Harper is FORCED to continue to play Liberal politics stemming from the Liberal initiated 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' an UNQUALIFIED piece of socialist legislation.

This charter forces recognition and financial support, concerning the Liberals interpretation of how nonconformist and other groups of Canadians (so called MINORTIES) unwilling to adapt to the ways of mainstream Canadians.

Harper as leader of a 'national party' is trapped to participate (or be condemned by other socialist parties) in conventional politics until something is done to ABOLISH this UNDEMOCRATIC discriminating charter.

Leafless · December 8, 2006

religion also serves many other purposes to society including charity directed towards the poor, something alien to governments.

When is the last time you have seen a federal food bank in any city in Canada?

When is the last time you saw welfare cheques distributed by churches?

Yet churches are tax-exempt. They don't even pay property taxes despite using the same municipal services as home owners and businesses. The rest of society, atheists included, subsidize churches through their hard-earned taxes.

The churches deserve a break.

They are supplying a traditional service that also helps keep many Canadians mentally and perhaps even physically conditioned to persevere the many hardships of life, rather then end up in mental institutions or hospitals with society paying the full cost.

The churches also supply moralistic and other beneficial traditional services to those who wish to subscribe to this beneficial organization which is also the religious HOME to the MAJORITY of Canadians.

normanchateau · December 8, 2006

If a religion requires its practitioners to take narcotics, one would hope that it wouldn't be allowed by law (unless of course we're talking about the case in Nevada, where the church actually won the ability to distribute and have its members take hallucinogens).

The Native American Church is legally permitted to use the hallucinogen peyote just as some Christian churches use alcohol in their religious practices.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/nachurch.htm

normanchateau · December 8, 2006

religion also serves many other purposes to society including charity directed towards the poor, something alien to governments.

When is the last time you have seen a federal food bank in any city in Canada?

When is the last time you saw welfare cheques distributed by churches?

Yet churches are tax-exempt. They don't even pay property taxes despite using the same municipal services as home owners and businesses. The rest of society, atheists included, subsidize churches through their hard-earned taxes.

The churches deserve a break.

They are supplying a traditional service that also helps keep many Canadians mentally and perhaps even physically conditioned to persevere the many hardships of life, rather then end up in mental institutions or hospitals with society paying the full cost.

The churches also supply moralistic and other beneficial traditional services to those who wish to subscribe to this beneficial organization which is also the religious HOME to the MAJORITY of Canadians.

Not taxing churches means atheists and others who have no use for religious institutions subsidize them. I thought you were against socialism. Are you saying that socialism is OK as long as it's used to support religions?

stignasty · December 8, 2006

This charter forces recognition and financial support, concerning the Liberals interpretation of how nonconformist and other groups of Canadians (so called MINORTIES) unwilling to adapt to the ways of mainstream Canadians.

:blink: Goodness, the last thing we want in a FREE country is for people to act the way that they want. Those dumb ideas of freedom of speech and expression are actually the nooses that are STRANGLING us. Everyone should be exactly like mainstream Canadians. No more of these crazy notions of individualism. :blink:

All sarcasm aside, I believe I've found my doppelganger.

Leafless · December 8, 2006

Not taxing churches means atheists and others who have no use for religious institutions subsidize them. I thought you were against socialism. Are you saying that socialism is OK as long as it's used to support religions?

And I suppose Atheist don't enjoy the multitude of benefits paid by Canadian Christians and Canadians of other faiths in Canada. You are not restricted from subscribing to any religion in Canada.

Democratic governments by nature must support certain initiatives to the benefit of it's citizens and buisness.

Leafless · December 8, 2006

This charter forces recognition and financial support, concerning the Liberals interpretation of how nonconformist and other groups of Canadians (so called MINORTIES) unwilling to adapt to the ways of mainstream Canadians.

Goodness, the last thing we want in a FREE country is for people to act the way that they want. Those dumb ideas of freedom of speech and expression are actually the nooses that are STRANGLING us. Everyone should be exactly like mainstream Canadians. No more of these crazy notions of individualism.

All sarcasm aside, I believe I've found my doppelganger.

No country in the world is FREE.

What kind of crap are you smoking to-day?

stignasty · December 8, 2006

What kind of crap are you smoking to-day?

I'm smoking the destruction of Christianity through allowing people of the same gender to marry each other weed today.

Under the influence of that drug, I go around saying "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

scribblet · December 8, 2006

The churches deserve a break.
They are supplying a traditional service that also helps keep many Canadians mentally and perhaps even physically conditioned to persevere the many hardships of life, rather then end up in mental institutions or hospitals with society paying the full cost.

The churches also supply moralistic and other beneficial traditional services to those who wish to subscribe to this beneficial organization which is also the religious HOME to the MAJORITY of Canadians.

The only taxes churches are exempt from are property taxes on Church property, if they were required to pay them you would see a lot less charitable work as they would not have the money to do it. That would then require the gov't or individuals to put more money and time into charity.

I would think those who oppose this should be careful what they wish for, as once religious groups are no longer constrained by the tax issue, they would be come far more vocal and politically active. Then watch out.

fellowtraveller · December 8, 2006

Regarding the OP, I can say with some smugness that this has unfolded exactly as I predicted. Nicely finessed by Harper both through the whackjobs on the fringe of the Tories, and through the House. Say goodbye to this issue, you'll never see it again.

A bonus though is that Harper basically forced Dion into an unwhipped vote by the Liberals, a first for them on this topic. The LIberals voted against Same Sex marriage twice in the Commons en masse, then the Cabinet were whipped in the last 'free' vote.

Just one week in, and already Dion is Harpers bitch.

Lovely.

Renegade · December 8, 2006

Eventually, Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will probably be tried for discrimination. That likely won't happen for several years, but the beginning stages are in motion. When Paul Martin oversaw the change of the definition of marriage, he said it wouldn't affect Churches, and he promised to protect freedom of religion - but there really isn't anything stopping the government from saying: by refusing to perform gay marriages you are infringing upon equality rights. Freedom of Religion is still a charter right, but something tells me they won't let religions 'infringe' upon their equality rights for very much longer.

This is a baseless fear. Churches already discrimminate today, yet are not prosecuted for it. In the Catholic church only men can become priest. I don't see a movement to force the Church to change. The same church forbids its priest to marry. There is no legal reprecussions forcing the Church to give "equal rights" to its "emplolyees".

Renegade · December 8, 2006

Democratic governments by nature must support certain initiatives to the benefit of it's citizens and buisness.

As socialist statement as has ever been seen!!!

Black Dog · December 8, 2006

Eventually, Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will probably be tried for discrimination. That likely won't happen for several years, but the beginning stages are in motion.

Izzat so? Same-sex marriage has been a fact of life in most provinces for quite a while now (Ontario and B.C. got the ball rolling in 2003 and by the time the federal motion came up in July 05, there were but two provinces and territories that hadn't followed suit), yet there's been no cases of religious officials being forced to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony against their will. Which leads me to wonder how long these "beginning stages" are supposed to take.

(It's also worth mentioning that in the three years since a Canadian province legalized gay unions, there have been no cases of angry sky-gods smiting the sinful down with rains of blood and fire, plagues of locusts or any of the usual methods.)