Poll: Should We Have A Referendum On Same-Sex Marriage?

[betsy]

I know the matter had been setteld in the House. However, there are several callers on CPAC who would like to see a referendum on the matter.

Someone had noted the vote that happened in the House was not all democratic since the NDP had whipped their members. And as a caller had sarcastically stated with a laugh, the MPs are there for their careers...not for their constituents.

[mikedavid00]

I know the matter had been setteld in the House. However, there are several callers on CPAC who would like to see a referendum on the matter.

Someone had noted the vote that happened in the House was not all democratic since the NDP had whipped their members. And as a caller had sarcastically stated with a laugh, the MPs are there for their careers...not for their constituents.

We should have propositions when we vote each two years over issues like immigration, drug laws, unions, same sex marriage, etc. This works well in the US so I don't know why we don't bring democracy here.

The country belongs to the people, not elites.

[normanchateau]

I know the matter had been setteld in the House. However, there are several callers on CPAC who would like to see a referendum on the matter.

Someone had noted the vote that happened in the House was not all democratic since the NDP had whipped their members. And as a caller had sarcastically stated with a laugh, the MPs are there for their careers...not for their constituents.

The last poll on the issue was an Environics Research poll which became available on June 19, 2006.

It showed 59% supported ssm and 33% opposed it. But a poll is not a referendum and a referendum would be a great idea. It would remind Liberal, NDP, BQ and Green Party voters that Harper voted twice against same-sex marriage. It will give Stephen Harper a third chance to vote against it. Perhaps in the next election, he could campaign on a platform of a referendum on same sex marriage.

He might also want a referendum on another issue that he voted against, Bill C-250. Maybe in a referendum, voters will, like Stephen Harper, show that they don't believe that advocating or promoting the killing of homosexuals is a hate crime. Or as Harper, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, Real Women of Canada and the Canadian Alliance phrased it, C-250 is an attack on free speech.

[Remiel]

Would you people just give it up? I'm surprised no one refers to SSM in the context that conservatives bringing it up time and time again after the question was settled in the same freakin' fashion as every other issue before the House, is wasting a butt-load of money! Should we go back and repeal every piece of legislation that was ever passed that any party was whipped for? I mean, its not like the NDP even have enough seats to have made the difference!

The sooner we forget about this whole issue and let bygones be bygones, the less it is going to cost us.

[normanchateau]

The sooner we forget about this whole issue and let bygones be bygones, the less it is going to cost us.

No, no, no, let's have a referendum so that the one third of Canadians who want to take away the rights of lesbians to marry can remind the rest of Canada where so-cons like Harper stand on the issue.

And let's not forget that the Liberals, NDP and BQ, with Bill C-250, took away the "free speech" and "religious rights" of Canadians who wanted to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. We need religious folks like so-con Harper leading the way to a referendum to restore that free speech which was taken away from religious folks by social moderates, liberals and socialists. This is far more important than same sex marriage which only affects gays and lesbians. C-250 takes away the religious freedom to hate from all religious folks who far outnumber the gays and lesbians who don't vote for Harper anyway.

[Canuck E Stan]

Someone had noted the vote that happened in the House was not all democratic since the NDP had whipped their members.

The issue of whipping members is one between the party and it's members. If the New DEMOCRATIC Party or the Bloc thinks this is a proper way to represent the constituents then I would suggest that the opposition to those parties make it an issue in the next election.Vote for a member who will vote as the constituents wish, or don't bitch about the outcome.

[jdobbin]

I know the matter had been setteld in the House. However, there are several callers on CPAC who would like to see a referendum on the matter.

Someone had noted the vote that happened in the House was not all democratic since the NDP had whipped their members. And as a caller had sarcastically stated with a laugh, the MPs are there for their careers...not for their constituents.

We don't even need MPs. Why not set up 1-800 numbers for every issue? Who need representatives?

[gerryhatrick]

Someone had noted the vote that happened in the House was not all democratic since the NDP had whipped their members.

The vote was 176 to 123.

That caller obviously knows little about the reality. Why would you even repeat that? Do you see it as a valid point also?

[normanchateau]

If the New DEMOCRATIC Party or the Bloc thinks this is a proper way to represent the constituents then I would suggest that the opposition to those parties make it an issue in the next election.Vote for a member who will vote as the constituents wish, or don't bitch about the outcome.

Yeah, those homophobic BQ constituents must be outraged at Duceppe. They'll vote for Dion, who allowed a free vote, next time.

[August1991]

Many people legitimately question whether parliament should decide minority rights but I think many more would question whether minority rights should be decided by referendum.

We have a Charter of Rights precisely because we must protect the minority against the will of the majority. It seems odd then to seek a majority vote.

[normanchateau]

We have a Charter of Rights precisely because we must protect the minority against the will of the majority. It seems odd then to seek a majority vote.

It's not odd if you're motivated by religion and view the legislation as an affront to your religion's right to discriminate.

[geoffrey]

We have a Charter of Rights precisely because we must protect the minority against the will of the majority. It seems odd then to seek a majority vote.

It's not odd if you're motivated by religion and view the legislation as an affront to your religion's right to discriminate.

Religion has the right to discrimate... the Charter doesn't apply to anyone but the government... remember that. If the Church doesn't want to marry gays, no one should ever force them to. Bottom line.

--

A referendum on such a topic is an ugly sign of our society. We can't let minority rights be decided by the majority of the people. There is a moral right or wrong here, it's not up to what the majority wants.

[cybercoma]

Should we have a referendum on heterosexual marriage?

[geoffrey]

Should we have a referendum on heterosexual marriage?

No, we shouldn't referendum anything really.

The majority of people are too stupid to be trusted with governing and making binding decisions. At least elected officals have the chance to break a promise that they realise is too destructive or ridiculous.

[cybercoma]

I guess what I was trying to do is make people think about it for a minute.

Homosexuals have been living together married (whether defined as such or not) for ages.

If there was a referendum on mixed-sex marriage and it was struck down, do you think mixed-sex couples would actually stop being couples and living as married couples do?

Absolutely not, and neither would homosexual couples if this absolutely ridiculous thing happened.

[mikedavid00]

We can't let minority rights be decided by the majority of the people. There is a moral right or wrong here, it's not up to what the majority wants.

I saved the above quoute.. i don't know when or if I'll ever use it, but I guess that qoute is fundamental thing that makes him a 'Canadian'; the feeling that a minority should over rule a majority. A minority of elites dictates what is right or wrong for the greater masses. To me that's just a dictatorship.

Unlike the US where they vote on propositions so the gov't and state rules belong to the people. The voters send out a messege to their elected officials and they did the same with Bush. Now Bush is reacting.

Canadians sit on their hands hoping and waiting for the Harvard elite who's been out of Canada for 30 years to march in and tell them what to think, say, and believe.

I couldn't care less for that charter which was made on the back of a napkin from a tipsy politician in a resturaunt.. that doesn't impress me.

Guess i'm 'too American'... or maybe I haven't been 'socially engineered' enough to agree with this way of thinking.

[cybercoma]

I think you completely missed the point, which had nothing to do with the minority ruling over the majority.

The point has everything to do with how no one should be oppressed by the 'rule' of any other group. The point is, leave consenting adults' private lives alone.

[geoffrey]

I guess what I was trying to do is make people think about it for a minute.

Homosexuals have been living together married (whether defined as such or not) for ages.

If there was a referendum on mixed-sex marriage and it was struck down, do you think mixed-sex couples would actually stop being couples and living as married couples do?

Absolutely not, and neither would homosexual couples if this absolutely ridiculous thing happened.

Great point.

I saved the above quoute.. i don't know when or if I'll ever use it, but I guess that qoute is fundamental thing that makes him a 'Canadian'; the feeling that a minority should over rule a majority. A minority of elites dictates what is right or wrong for the greater masses. To me that's just a dictatorship.

You obviously know little about dictatorship. You can pick the people that make those choices for you, you can even be one if you so desire.

Unlike the US where they vote on propositions so the gov't and state rules belong to the people. The voters send out a messege to their elected officials and they did the same with Bush. Now Bush is reacting.

And a motion had 40%ish support in Arizona to give each voter a million dollars. What if that had passed?

Like I said, people are generally too stupid to make decisions for everyone, haven't you seen those street level interviews in the media. Do you want those people choosing for you?

Canadians sit on their hands hoping and waiting for the Harvard elite who's been out of Canada for 30 years to march in and tell them what to think, say, and believe.

I sure didn't... obviously not many Canadians did either. Where exactly are you going with this?

[mikedavid00]

I think you completely missed the point, which had nothing to do with the minority ruling over the majority.

The point has everything to do with how no one should be oppressed by the 'rule' of any other group. The point is, leave consenting adults' private lives alone.

What about poligamy? See your argument eventually fails. This is one politicians viewpoint and idealism. Not realism.

He said "We can't let minority rights be decided by the majority of the people. There is a moral right or wrong here, it's not up to what the majority wants."

And I think that it is up to what the majority wants. Just me opinion.

The courts and elites have no rite to decide the climate and conditions of our country. We have just opened a *major* immigration loop hole now.

[cybercoma]

I think you completely missed the point, which had nothing to do with the minority ruling over the majority.

The point has everything to do with how no one should be oppressed by the 'rule' of any other group. The point is, leave consenting adults' private lives alone.

What about poligamy? See your argument eventually fails. This is one politicians viewpoint and idealism. Not realism.

He said "We can't let minority rights be decided by the majority of the people. There is a moral right or wrong here, it's not up to what the majority wants."

And I think that it is up to what the majority wants. Just me opinion.

The courts and elites have no rite to decide the climate and conditions of our country. We have just opened a *major* immigration loop hole now.

What about polygamy?

Are the adults consenting in the relationship?

We can love all of our family members equally. We can love many of our friends. Why then is it so odd to have more than one lover? Why can't a person love more than one person, equally?

I'm really not seeing the failure in the argument.

Is it abusive to the children to have multiple adults in the household? Does that sound like a retort that comes to mind? I ask you then, is it abusive for a child to be raised by a single parent?

[Canuck Monk]

I wouldn't mind having a referendum.

[mikedavid00]

And a motion had 40%ish support in Arizona to give each voter a million dollars. What if that had passed?

And poeple were smart enough to do the right thing.

Like I said, people are generally too stupid to make decisions for everyone, haven't you seen those street level interviews in the media. Do you want those people choosing for you?

Yes I do. People are stupid in groups, but smart by themselves. Voting on propositions allows people to educated themselves on issues and talk about politics.

For instance, If I had a proposal that would reform our immigration system to people could only come in on work permits sponsored by employers, then people would ask 'why' and the answers would be healthcare, and then the discussions from normal Canadians would start and people might learn a thing or two about their own country. In the past week, you can't deny that a lot of people learned something new about their own country. But that's only because i put the debate forward. Don't you see?

I sure didn't... obviously not many Canadians did either. Where exactly are you going with this?

2. Dictatorship 5 up, 2 down

Dictatorship is a form of government where the leader of the country owns all of its citizens and their souls.

Actually, I wonder how much the house prices are in Arizona?

[geoffrey]

Dictatorship is a form of government where the leader of the country owns all of its citizens and their souls.

Harper doesn't own my soul unfortunately... I keep the title to it under my pillow.

[mikedavid00]

Are the adults consenting in the relationship?

Yes it's called Islam. There is a small lobby for polygamy rumored to be for another immigration loop hole to get many, many over. and yes it's against the law and Martin said that he would not open this up for discussion.

We can love all of our family members equally. We can love many of our friends. Why then is it so odd to have more than one lover? Why can't a person love more than one person, equally?

In Islam you are allowed to. It's granted to do so in the Quran. Thus, we are opressing a religious freedom of Muslims. SHAME ON US! (lol)

I'm really not seeing the failure in the argument.

See above.

Is it abusive to the children to have multiple adults in the household? Does that sound like a retort that comes to mind? I ask you then, is it abusive for a child to be raised by a single parent?

No it's not abusive. But the point is that there is no such things as a true 'right' or true 'freedom'. Everything in this world is almost a privilage or can be taken from you.

All we have to do as citizens of our border and country is make sure we protect ourselves so we can have an easy and happy life with one another. The politicians are elites, many of which have never experienced the real world. They are interested in power. Preston Manning was the last of the Canadians who had a legitimate concern about Canada and giving the gov't back to the people.

[cybercoma]

I don't see what the horribly oppressive dogmas of religion have to do with the discussion of polygamy. Not all polygamists are Islamic (hell, not all Muslims are polygamists).

And what's your point about it being illegal? Homosexuality is illegal in some States in the US.

The laws aren't always correct.

What the majority wants is NOT the answer. Protecting the freedoms of consenting adults who mind to themselves is. Unfortunately, sometimes the politicians don't do this, sometimes the courts don't do this and sometimes the majority of people don't do this. So, it's up to people who've had their consciousness raised to be vocal. It's unfortunate that when these values aren't held by the majority of people because that's when they cry that the minority is trying to rule the majority.

Well, no. The minority is trying to stop being ruled by the majority. Our freedom as a nation is dependant on how free our minority groups feel against the majority.