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

[jdobbin]

A Jewish guy who represents a group that wants an extensive study done BEFORE ANY LEGISLATIONS are made was guest on CPAC Sound Off last Sunday, along with the rep from the proponents of SSM.

He was not there as a theologian. But he has an important point. We should not just simply legislate just to accomodate a special group....without knowing how this legislation will affect society. Its effects will not be visible to us for years.

Would you have agreed to a study of what would happen if the government let women vote?

[betsy]

A Jewish guy who represents a group that wants an extensive study done BEFORE ANY LEGISLATIONS are made was guest on CPAC Sound Off last Sunday, along with the rep from the proponents of SSM.

He was not there as a theologian. But he has an important point. We should not just simply legislate just to accomodate a special group....without knowing how this legislation will affect society. Its effects will not be visible to us for years.

Would you have agreed to a study of what would happen if the government let women vote?

That was clearly about women's rights...for women did not have the same rights as men to vote! Gays had always had the same rights as heterosexuals. They were not forbidden to marry.

This is about the changing of a traditional definition. We are talking of morality.

[Melanie_]

This is about the changing of a traditional definition. We are talking of morality.

The traditional definition of marriage has been changed many times; see post #65. And who gets to decide morality? I would argue that "morality" is being violated by those who deny equal rights to all members of society.

[betsy]

I think the majority does not want to have the issue revisited....but not for the reasons some proponents of SSM would like us to believe. They just want to move on.

But if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

What if at some time in the past we had a referendum on race equality. The question could have been:

"Now that slavery has been abolished and blacks are free to exist in society we believe that blacks should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

Choice #1 We should allow blacks into 'our' schools, restaurants, etc.

Choice #2 Blacks can have their own schools, restaurants, etc which will be the counterparts of the traditional white establisments."

I think choice #2 would have won overwhelmingly in the past as well...good thing we don't hold referendum on human rights issues.

Seggregation isn't the answer Betsy. Canada has chosen equality and tolerance...good on us.

The blacks do not see their fight for their rights comparable to gay "rights!"

Gays can enter any establishments, attend any schools etc. They are not segregated!

Why wouldn't they be content to have the union recognized as the counterpart of marriage in England?

[GreenWhiteandPink]

btsey said: This is about the changing of a traditional definition. We are talking of morality.

And the majority of Canadians now support SSM, the issue has been dealt with and it's settled. Get over it. No one is forcing you to marry another woman, so what business is it to you what 2 other people do. Stop trying to force your beliefs down other people's throats.

Would one of the mod's close thos thread!

[mikedavid00]

NO elections copst us enough already and most people wont get informed. If we put SSM to a vote, the

Its been decided and it s over.

How do you know most people wouldn't get informed. People would get informed if they had a chance to make a difference. No one cares to get informed because they don't have a say. Why can't you let your Canadian ways go? Why do you refuse to beleive your fellow citizens can't make a descision and can't think for themselves? Why do you feel that a single persons ideals must be professed upon everyone?

religious would come out of the woodwork and vote it down.

Yes they would. And it might suprise you that the majority would be immigrants who are extrememly socially conservative. Look at the only Liberals that voted against SSM. That should be your answer.

Womens rights and slavery would never have been voted down.

That is actually not true. Non equal rights for blacks was becoming increadibly unpopular amongst the masses. A higher class, morally superior American had Liberal beleifs.

The progression of society in the last century has been based off Liberal fundementals.

There were discriminitory bylaws in cities that never went challenged federally. When they finally did, they won. But this was backed by a social shift from the people.

Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus because during those times, it was unfasionable and passe to make blacks go to the back of the bus. It was an old outdated law that people were ignoring. The bus driver told her to get to the back and that's what offended her and started the movement.

There were HORDS of white people, probably a majority, on tape who lived in the town saying they felt the laws were unfair and outdated.

Only a small group of people were interested in keeping those laws.

Slavory ended by iteself. In the later years, you didn't own the slave, they were employed servants. This happened on it's own. And it became very unpopular to actually buy and sell slaves. So laws got passed.

Again, if there was a popular vote, things would have turned out the same.

Society evolves itself. We certainly don't need a politician of a party dictating to us our society and hwo they feel the climate of our society should run. How dare Trudeau in his charter proclaim that Canada shall be multicultural and uphold our ehtnic values.

That was a single man's ideas, NOT OURS.

Gay marriage is an issue all of a sudden because society has evolved BY ITSELF and is ready to accept it.

Again though, this is a vote for the people, not politicians.

[Melanie_]

The blacks do not see their fight for their rights comparable to gay "rights!"

Gays can enter any establishments, attend any schools etc. They are not segregated!

Why wouldn't they be content to have the union recognized as the counterpart of marriage in England?

Are you sure you can speak for all blacks?

Why should Canadian gays and lesbians be content with what happens in England?

[betsy]

This is about the changing of a traditional definition. We are talking of morality.

The traditional definition of marriage has been changed many times; see post #65. And who gets to decide morality? I would argue that "morality" is being violated by those who deny equal rights to all members of society.

The traditional definition is that it is the union between one man and one woman.

Where is it said that it had a different definition other than that before it got changed now? And what was that other definition...other than it being "a union between one man and one woman?"

Can you provide a link to back up the statementt?

[jdobbin]

That was clearly about women's rights...for women did not have the same rights as men to vote! Gays had always had the same rights as heterosexuals. They were not forbidden to marry.

This is about the changing of a traditional definition. We are talking of morality.

They were not forbidden from marrying?

[betsy]

That was clearly about women's rights...for women did not have the same rights as men to vote! Gays had always had the same rights as heterosexuals. They were not forbidden to marry.

This is about the changing of a traditional definition. We are talking of morality.

They were not forbidden from marrying?

Nope. A lot of gays got married and had children.

[Melanie_]

The traditional definition is that it is the union between one man and one woman.

Where is it said that it had a different definition other than that before it got changed now? And what was that other definition...other than it being "a union between one man and one woman?"

Can you provide a link to back up the statementt?

Did you go back and read the post? Would you deny that at one time women were considered the property of men? That is where the custom of giving away the bride comes from - the father passes the ownership of the woman to the new husband. Interracial marriages were also seen as a deviation from "tradition". As for polygamy, how many wives did Jacob have? Seems to me there were four listed in the Bible, a popular source for Christians when they are defining tradition.

When you talk about the "traditional" definition of marriage, whose traditions are you upholding? Christian, Muslim, European, African, First Nations...... I'd say there are many traditions, not all of which I would like to see upheld or returned to. Traditions that have outlived their value can be changed.

[jdobbin]

Nope. A lot of gays got married and had children.

That was recognized by the government?

And if they weren't recognized, why not? Seems traditional if it has been happening all along.

[betsy]

Nope. A lot of gays got married and had children.

That was recognized by the government?

And if they weren't recognized, why not. Seems traditional if it has been happening all along.

Yes, it's all perfectly legal! It's recognized! Practically most places all over the world too! Not just Canada.

[jdobbin]

Yes, it's all perfectly legal! It's recognized! Practically most places all over the world too! Not just Canada.

Same sex marriage, huh? And you want to have a referendum why?

[mikedavid00]

This is about the changing of a traditional definition. We are talking of morality.

The traditional definition of marriage has been changed many times; see post #65. And who gets to decide morality? I would argue that "morality" is being violated by those who deny equal rights to all members of society.

That's where your ideologically wrong. The people shall have the right to decide.

Gay's can have all the same benefits as a married couple. It's the wording that has centimantal value to some Canadians. It belongs to us, not the gov't. The gov't is there to represent us, and instead have played closed door politics with this whole thing.

This is undemocratic and wrong.

The people shall decide and educate themselves on this issue. Only if we were allowed to vote, you would see studies come out and politics would be engaging for once.

But no, lets let inside politics and personal viewpoints of a minority decide the definitional for the greater majority of all its citizens.

[betsy]

The traditional definition is that it is the union between one man and one woman.

Where is it said that it had a different definition other than that before it got changed now? And what was that other definition...other than it being "a union between one man and one woman?"

Can you provide a link to back up the statementt?

Did you go back and read the post? Would you deny that at one time women were considered the property of men? That is where the custom of giving away the bride comes from - the father passes the ownership of the woman to the new husband. Interracial marriages were also seen as a deviation from "tradition". As for polygamy, how many wives did Jacob have? Seems to me there were four listed in the Bible, a popular source for Christians when they are defining tradition.

When you talk about the "traditional" definition of marriage, whose traditions are you upholding? Christian, Muslim, European, African, First Nations...... I'd say there are many traditions, not all of which I would like to see upheld or returned to. Traditions that have outlived their value can be changed.

You're speaking of old customs of marriage. The issue here is about the TRADITIONAL DEFINITION of the word, marriage. And I'm speaking about Western societies.

[Melanie_]

[That's where your ideologically wrong. The people shall have the right to decide.

Gay's can have all the same benefits as a married couple. It's the wording that has centimantal value to some Canadians. It belongs to us, not the gov't. The gov't is there to represent us, and instead have played closed door politics with this whole thing.

This is undemocratic and wrong.

The people shall decide and educate themselves on this issue. Only if we were allowed to vote, you would see studies come out and politics would be engaging for once.

But no, lets let inside politics and personal viewpoints of a minority decide the definitional for the greater majority of all its citizens.

The government doesn't deal in sentimental value, it deals in equality for all citizens. The government is there to represent us, I agree - and that means all of us, not just the majority.

You can't vote on minority rights, as there is a power imbalance inherent in that. Someone here used to have a great quote as their signature: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner."

[Melanie_]

You're speaking of old customs of marriage. The issue here is about the TRADITIONAL DEFINITION of the word, marriage. And I'm speaking about Western societies.

Please distinguish for me the difference between "old customs" and "tradition".

[mikedavid00]

The government doesn't deal in sentimental value,

Sure it does. It deals with emotional and sentimental value all the time. Especially Canada's gov't.

it deals in equality for all citizens.

I disagree. When you declare a group of people a Nation within Canada, you are not creating equality of rall citizens.

When you have a government job posting saying on it that only visible minority women need apply, you are not creating equality.

When you are giving monies to ethnic groups to be able to teach them their mother tonque from the old country, you are not creating equality.

You're grasping onto idealism rather than the truth of the matter. You are listening to what they want you to beleive.

The government is there to represent us, I agree - and that means all of us, not just the majority.

Read what you just said above. Then read it again.

All of us *is* the majority, don't you see?

You can't vote on minority rights, as there is a power imbalance inherent in that.

Minorities already have rights. Yes, gay's should be able to form a civil union and have equal rights to tax benefits and other perks that getting married gives you. The majority of Canadians and Americans agree to this.

But the definition of marriage is something different. It's a religious union between a man and woman to any religion in the world. It's a promise under God to uphold our vows. It's a moral, meaningful value to some Canadians and thus Canadians have the right to decide whether we want this to be extended to gay relationships.

The chances are yes, people would be willing to extend those values anyway. What I'm saying is, the gov't doesn't have a right to dictate to the people what marriage means.

Someone here used to have a great quote as their signature: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner."

And eventually, the two wolves will decide that it's not nice to kill the sheep. But this is not for the Lions to decide

[Melanie_]

But the definition of marriage is something different. It's a religious union between a man and woman to any religion in the world. It's a promise under God to uphold our vows. It's a moral, meaningful value to some Canadians and thus Canadians have the right to decide whether we want this to be extended to gay relationships.

Here is the crux of the argument. Religions may have a vision of what marriage is, but that vision doesn't apply to those who don't subscribe to religion. Many people have no need or interest in making a promise to some magic sky pixie, but that doesn't mean they don't want to make a promise to their life partner. That is why religion can't be given the mandate to define marriage for others.

[mikedavid00]

Here is the crux of the argument. Religions may have a vision of what marriage is, but that vision doesn't apply to those who don't subscribe to religion.

And maybe those people can go to the justice of the peace and form a civil union between a man and a woman. The overwhelming majority that believe in religion can get married. Actually, doesn't the church have to sign your marriage certificate?

Many people have no need or interest in making a promise to some magic sky pixie,

hehe.. but the overwhelming majority of Canadians identify with God and we're actually seing a re-emergance of religion in Canada due to recent immigration from religiously conservative countries (fact).

Remember, I didn't say Christianity, I said religion.

but that doesn't mean they don't want to make a promise to their life partner.

And they can make that promise wherever they choose and whichever ceremony they would like. There are a lot of non religious 'promise ceremonies'. And then they can form a civil union and have equal rights to equal benefits.

That is why religion can't be given the mandate to define marriage for others.

Religion doesn't. It's the people that decide what the word means to them. Meanings of words can change, but it's the people who decide, not 300 people in the house of commons who are voting on their 'personal feelings' of the matter.

If our citizens want it to not include gay's then so be it. And if you just asked the people and let them vote on this, at least we could settle this and they could say 'yes' the citizens do want the definition of marriage to include gays.

[Melanie_]

And maybe those people can go to the justice of the peace and form a civil union between a man and a woman. The overwhelming majority that believe in religion can get married. Actually, doesn't the church have to sign your marriage certificate?

Nope - a marriage isn't valid until it is registered with the state - church endorsement is not required. Why should people who don't believe in religion be subject to restrictions based on someone else's superstitions? Civil unions are a cop out - people don't want to get "civil unioned", they want to get married.

If our citizens want it to not include gay's then so be it. And if you just asked the people and let them vote on this, at least we could settle this and they could say 'yes' the citizens do want the definition of marriage to include gays.

Voting on minority rights implies a power imbalance in favour of the majority. What the citizens want is secondary to the basic human right to equality before the law.

[gc1765]

Someone here said earlier that, among those members of Parliament who were free to vote their conscience (the Liberals and Conservatives), the vote on the motion to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage carried 56% to 40%, with 4% undecided. And that it was only the "whipped" vote of the Bloc and NDP (131 against; none in favour) that moved the "no" vote into a majority.

Which is true?

Does anyone actually believe that the majority of constituents who elected an NDP or Bloc member would be opposed to SSM?

[mikedavid00]

Someone here said earlier that, among those members of Parliament who were free to vote their conscience (the Liberals and Conservatives), the vote on the motion to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage carried 56% to 40%, with 4% undecided. And that it was only the "whipped" vote of the Bloc and NDP (131 against; none in favour) that moved the "no" vote into a majority.

Which is true?

Does anyone actually believe that the majority of constituents who elected an NDP or Bloc member would be opposed to SSM?

Yes they would. A certain chord gets struck with Canadians when you talk about the definition of marriage regardless of what side of the fence your on.

Or region of the country.

[gc1765]

Yes they would. A certain chord gets struck with Canadians when you talk about the definition of marriage regardless of what side of the fence your on.

Or region of the country.

In a recent poll, 58% of Canadians said they would keep SSM, while only 38% want to repeal it. Which party do you think those 58% support? If they don't support the NDP or Bloc, then a lot of them must support the Conservatives, much more than the handful of MPs who voted against the recent motion.

Jack and Gilles obviously do. That's why they pulled out the whips.

I said the constituents, not the MPs. The constituents were not the people voting on this motion, it was the MPs.