Same-sex motion defeated by wide margin

[Wilber]

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.

It's unfortunate that the BQ and the NDP invoked party discipline. If there is anything that tarnishes the result and can be used to make it questionable in any way, this is it.

[ClearWest]

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".

True, that's definitely a good point. Churches have remained free from such gov't interference thus far - but I don't expect it will always be like this. Government likes to get its hands into everything, and eventually I expect they will dip into churches. As far as I can recall, it has only happened in extreme cases throughout history, where dictators were in power and didn't want churches competing with them. Of course, there were also cases where churches were allowed to co-exist with the powers to be (Mussolini's Italy for instance, see the Lateran Accord). But again, there's nothing really stopping a future government from implementing the same anti-discrimination laws that they've imposed upon employers - except for the religious voters, but I expect they are definitely not as numerous as they once were. I don't anticipate something like this happening soon, but there's nothing to stop it from happening and government always wants to grow - so the logical conclusion is that it will happen. I guess it depends on how much you can trust our leaders.

[Figleaf]

A bonus though is that Harper basically forced Dion into an unwhipped vote by the Liberals, a first for them on this topic.

I'm not sure why you see that as a 'bonus', but it's incorrect. The original vote on this matter under Paul Martin was unwhipped for the Liberals.

If you were refering to the traditional requirement of cabinet solidarity that's something completely different. In fact, it appears cabinet solidarity may have been breached by the Tory neo-cons on this motion, but I guess since it was only a motion, not an act they're trying to finesse that.

The bigger picture though, is that now Harper has shot himself in both feet. By having this motion at all, he's proved himself unacceptable to liberal democrats. By having this motion now, with such desultory effort to win, he's alienated the so-cons.

I wonder who's doing Harper's thinking lately. First, he saves the Liberal party's bacon on Quebec. Now he blunders with this resolution.

[Black Dog]

rue, that's definitely a good point. Churches have remained free from such gov't interference thus far - but I don't expect it will always be like this. Government likes to get its hands into everything, and eventually I expect they will dip into churches.

If I'm the government and I want to sock it to churches, I go for their wallets, I don't make them marry gays.

I don't anticipate something like this happening soon, but there's nothing to stop it from happening and government always wants to grow - so the logical conclusion is that it will happen

Actually, that's not the logical conclusion at all. First, there is something to stop it from happening. For starters, there's the much maligned Charter of Rights. There's also religious voters and anyone else who actually thinks that the separation of church and state is a two-way street. So no, it's not inevitable at all.

[kimmy]

It's extremely disheartening and disturbing to see that 175 members of parliament contributing to the destruction of Christianity.

Y'know, I think Christianity is going to be just fine.

-k

[Figleaf]

...contributing to the destruction of Christianity.

Where can we send our cheques?

[ClearWest]

rue, that's definitely a good point. Churches have remained free from such gov't interference thus far - but I don't expect it will always be like this. Government likes to get its hands into everything, and eventually I expect they will dip into churches.

If I'm the government and I want to sock it to churches, I go for their wallets, I don't make them marry gays.

With employers, first they went for their wallets (taxes), then they forced them to adjust their hiring habits (Affirmative action / Preferential hiring / Positive discrimination, whatever you want to call it). The gov't saw that discrimination was happening, so they enforced regulation. I don't find it hard to imagine a future socialist government doing this same thing to churches. The left-wing of the spectrum have already proven that they don't mind upsetting Christians (they changed the definition of marriage afterall). They won't do it if it gets too many people up in arms - but think about it - a hundred years ago it would have been unthinkable that gays would be allowed to lawfully wed, now it's apparently accepted. Today, people would be up in arms if the gov't forced churches to marry gays. Tomorrow, it likely won't be such a big deal.

[normanchateau]

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.

Apparently having atheists subsidize churches through their taxes, a socialist concept, is fine with you.

I guess even fiscal conservatives have no problem with socialism when it comes down to special interests like rampant religion which they favour.

[Black Dog]

With employers, first they went for their wallets (taxes), then they forced them to adjust their hiring habits (Affirmative action / Preferential hiring / Positive discrimination, whatever you want to call it). The gov't saw that discrimination was happening, so they enforced regulation. I don't find it hard to imagine a future socialist government doing this same thing to churches. The left-wing of the spectrum have already proven that they don't mind upsetting Christians (they changed the definition of marriage afterall). They won't do it if it gets too many people up in arms - but think about it - a hundred years ago it would have been unthinkable that gays would be allowed to lawfully wed, now it's apparently accepted. Today, people would be up in arms if the gov't forced churches to marry gays. Tomorrow, it likely won't be such a big deal.

You omit that whole "constitutionally protected right to religious freedom" thing.

It's extremely disheartening and disturbing to see that 175 members of parliament contributing to the destruction of Christianity.

Yeah, having survived persecution, turmoil, war, crusades, sectarian strife, reformation and modernization, the 2,000+ year-old Christian faith is brouht low by a parlimentary vote. If it was easy as that, then radical Islam should be no problem at all.

[ClearWest]

With employers, first they went for their wallets (taxes), then they forced them to adjust their hiring habits (Affirmative action / Preferential hiring / Positive discrimination, whatever you want to call it). The gov't saw that discrimination was happening, so they enforced regulation. I don't find it hard to imagine a future socialist government doing this same thing to churches. The left-wing of the spectrum have already proven that they don't mind upsetting Christians (they changed the definition of marriage afterall). They won't do it if it gets too many people up in arms - but think about it - a hundred years ago it would have been unthinkable that gays would be allowed to lawfully wed, now it's apparently accepted. Today, people would be up in arms if the gov't forced churches to marry gays. Tomorrow, it likely won't be such a big deal.

You omit that whole "constitutionally protected right to religious freedom" thing.

Religious freedom is guaranteed in the constitution, but how long will that really hold up? Looking at this thread, you can tell that a lot of people don't have much respect for religious tradition. If that becomes the norm, I won't put much faith in the charter to defend religious freedom - constitutions can be changed. It may not be a popular thing to do to change the charter, but if it's for the cause of ending discrimination, a ruling body could probably get away with it.

[normanchateau]

Religious freedom is guaranteed in the constitution, but how long will that really hold up? Looking at this thread, you can tell that a lot of people don't have much respect for religious tradition.

Even those who have little use for religious tradition still have respect for religious freedom.

[Renegade]

Religious freedom is guaranteed in the constitution, but how long will that really hold up?

As long as we have a charter. This isn't really about SSM anymore. It is about how you don't have faith in the charter to protect your rights, and if that is true, you shouldn't just fear for your religious rights, you should fear for all rights.

Looking at this thread, you can tell that a lot of people don't have much respect for religious tradition.

Many may not respect the part of religious tradition which discrimminates, however if asked I would bet that the vast majority would support the right of "freedom of religion" and the separation of church and state.

If that becomes the norm, I won't put much faith in the charter to defend religious freedom - constitutions can be changed. It may not be a popular thing to do to change the charter, but if it's for the cause of ending discrimination, a ruling body could probably get away with it.

So, what would you put your faith in, if not the charter? What exactly will make you comfortable that your right to freedom of religion will not be violated?

[uOttawaMan]

House: 1

God : 0

[Technocrat]

House: 1

God : 0

no no no you have it all wrong

House: 1

Flying Spaghetti Monster: 1

God: 0

[Leafless]

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!!!

It does not compare the political ideologies of the current Liberals who run the country in a dictatorial manner incorporating a weakened form of Marxism.

I would go so far as to say the Liberals have destroyed this country and transformed democracy into a joke resulting in a CLASSLESS society but still allowing the rich to rule.

Its easy to understand the sectarian violence going on in Iraq and how it compares in nature to the perpetual internal battle (state control-transformation of Canada) going on in Canada being 'government vs. the citizen's of Canada' and how this situation could easily erupt into violence similar to Iraq.

[guyser]

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!!!

It does not compare the political ideologies of the current Liberals who run the country in a dictatorial manner incorporating a weakened form of Marxism.

I would go so far as to say the Liberals have destroyed this country and transformed democracy into a joke resulting in a CLASSLESS society but still allowing the rich to rule.

Its easy to understand the sectarian violence going on in Iraq and how it compares in nature to the perpetual internal battle (state control-transformation of Canada) going on in Canada being 'government vs. the citizen's of Canada' and how this situation could easily erupt into violence similar to Iraq.

So...... this is what it comes to. Same sex marriage will ruin this country if not already and......

SSM = Liberals = downfall of Christianity = Violence = Canada/Iraq

Frankly I welcome it. It will give us all a chance to wipe out ....

1) Immigrants cuz they ruin our healthcare

2) Albertans , they seem to think the country revolves around them

3) Indians on reserves cuz all they do is collect welfare

4) Christianity in all forms...and any other religion.

5) Married hetero's as they cloud the marriage issue. If they had only left it alone to Gays and Lesbians.

Do I really need a smiley face here?

[Technocrat]

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!!!

It does not compare the political ideologies of the current Liberals who run the country in a dictatorial manner incorporating a weakened form of Marxism.

I would go so far as to say the Liberals have destroyed this country and transformed democracy into a joke resulting in a CLASSLESS society but still allowing the rich to rule.

Its easy to understand the sectarian violence going on in Iraq and how it compares in nature to the perpetual internal battle (state control-transformation of Canada) going on in Canada being 'government vs. the citizen's of Canada' and how this situation could easily erupt into violence similar to Iraq.

Are you suggesting we go back to the 'good old days' of the caste and class system??? Wow ... I can't beleive you are actually advocating that removing discrimination based on a persons 'class' is a bad thing.

If that was not your point then you clearly failed to articulate what it is you meant. For your sake I hope that is the case.

Leafless your post was a truly odd statement...

[Charles Anthony]

So, what would you put your faith in, if not the charter? What exactly will make you comfortable that your right to freedom of religion will not be violated?

Small government.

[Black Dog]

Religious freedom is guaranteed in the constitution, but how long will that really hold up?

Have you seen the amending formula for our constitution? Changing that s.o.b isn't as easy as changing socks y'know.

Looking at this thread, you can tell that a lot of people don't have much respect for religious tradition.

And really, why should they? But even someone who has little respect for religious tarditions (like, say, me) would probably concede that religious types have a right to hold to the beliefs they cherish and we ridicule. I would never want the state to interfere with religious traditions, beause those religious traditions are a rich vein of comic material.

[normanchateau]

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!!!

It does not compare the political ideologies of the current Liberals who run the country in a dictatorial manner incorporating a weakened form of Marxism.

Mr. Harper would be surprised to learn that it is "the current Liberals who run the country." Harpeau probably still thinks that he runs the country as opposed to some other Marxist.

[jdobbin]

Small government.

I thought you might support no government based on some of your arguments.

Why any government?

[Leafless]

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!!!

It does not compare the political ideologies of the current Liberals who run the country in a dictatorial manner incorporating a weakened form of Marxism.

I would go so far as to say the Liberals have destroyed this country and transformed democracy into a joke resulting in a CLASSLESS society but still allowing the rich to rule.

Its easy to understand the sectarian violence going on in Iraq and how it compares in nature to the perpetual internal battle (state control-transformation of Canada) going on in Canada being 'government vs. the citizen's of Canada' and how this situation could easily erupt into violence similar to Iraq.

Are you suggesting we go back to the 'good old days' of the caste and class system??? Wow ... I can't beleive you are actually advocating that removing discrimination based on a persons 'class' is a bad thing.

If that was not your point then you clearly failed to articulate what it is you meant. For your sake I hope that is the case.

Leafless your post was a truly odd statement...

Its not really odd when you think about it.

Equalitarism=advancement of the lower class without merit=destruction of the subordinate class.

Is this not what the undemocratic discriminatory charter is all about?

Who has the RIGHT to destroy the subordinate class without a revolution or civil war or at the very least a national referendum?

[Melanie_]

Its not really odd when you think about it.

Equalitarism=advancement of the lower class without merit=destruction of the subordinate class.

Is this not what the undemocratic discriminatory charter is all about?

Who has the RIGHT to destroy the subordinate class without a revolution or civil war or at the very least a national referendum?

You boggle my mind. I've decided you probably are just trying to stir the pot, and can't possibly believe what you are posting. But, just in case, I'd like to hear from you how you can support democracy yet condemn equality for all members of said democracy.

[Leafless]

Its not really odd when you think about it.

Egalitarianism=advancement of the lower class without merit=destruction of the subordinate class.

Is this not what the undemocratic discriminatory charter is all about?

Who has the RIGHT to destroy the subordinate class without a revolution or civil war or at the very least a national referendum?

You boggle my mind. I've decided you probably are just trying to stir the pot, and can't possibly believe what you are posting. But, just in case, I'd like to hear from you how you can support democracy yet condemn equality for all members of said democracy.

Canada is both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy.

I do support democracy, that is a system of government by the WHOLE population and in Canada's case we are represented by elected representatives. But this system is being abused by politicians taking advantage of a parliamentary democracy.

I simply feel there is a serious breakdown between issues concerning Canadians and obtaining PROPER representation to address those issues. The charter is one of those issues I feel Canadians were taken advantage of by politicians, who were addressing there own version concerning charter issues for their own personal benefit as a political party and for the political and financial fortunes and rewards of a specific group.

There are many other important issues like the Bloc gaining federal status as an official separatist party. This alone should require the consent of the majority of Canadians but was allowed by the Liberals under Mr. Chretien.

Polls are also not a real indicator of anything as they can be manipulated or can be simply fraudulent.

Equality is a pipe dream and has NO controls to limit and govern the political power of a 'so called minority'.

This bust the equality balloon.

[August1991]

Out of curiousity, here's the link to the division about the motion. (Search on Division.)

Mackay and Verner voted against the motion but Bernier, Blackburn and Cannon voted in favour.