1967100 Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 Stephen Harper Paul Martin Jean Chretien Kim Campbell Brian Mulroney What were these Prime Minister's stances on same-sex marriage? Quote
geoffrey Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 Stephen Harper - Against Paul Martin - Against Jean Chretien - Against Kim Campbell - Against Brian Mulroney - Against At least up until about 2001-2002ish. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
newbie Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 Martin is for it as was Chretien eventually. Quote
1967100 Posted March 24, 2007 Author Report Posted March 24, 2007 I heard Campbell and Mulroney support it. Though Harper I'm sure is against it. Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 Doesn't really matter anymore, the debates over. Harper had the vote, it was defeated, and as far as I know that's the end of it. Harper won't bring up the issue again because that would probably hurt his chances to win a majority. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
Melanie_ Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 What difference does it make? Regardless of what any of them thought of it personally, they were all bound to uphold the rights of the Canadian people. Whether or not a politician supports a particular stance isn't the best yardstick by which to measure its validity. Quote For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
noahbody Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 Martin is for it as was Chretien eventually. Both Martin and Chretien voted against it. Martin justified his later yes vote as voting for the charter. Quote
geoffrey Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 Both Martin and Chretien voted against it. Martin justified his later yes vote as voting for the charter. Careful, some Liberals are a little red in the face right now. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
BubberMiley Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 What about Diefenbaker, King, Bennett, and Tupper? It's just as relevant what their position was, isn't it? We should start a thread on what Arthur Meighen thought too. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Argus Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 What difference does it make? Regardless of what any of them thought of it personally, they were all bound to uphold the rights of the Canadian people. Whether or not a politician supports a particular stance isn't the best yardstick by which to measure its validity. The problem is when some people use a politician's stance as a measure of the morality of that politician. Harper is an evil neo con for opposing gay marriage, which is a "human right". But Martin and Chretien voted against it, and I rather doubt Pearson or Trudeau ever gave it a thought - and certainly never made any effort to defend this "sacred human right". Nor have any of the Left's heroes around the world put much of an effort into it. When are we going to see gay marriage in Cuba anyway? What about gay marriage in Europe, the bastion of socialism? If gay marriage is a human right should we institute sanctions against the Swiss for violations of human rights? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
geoffrey Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 If gay marriage is a human right should we institute sanctions against the Swiss for violations of human rights? Interesting point. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
guyser Posted March 24, 2007 Report Posted March 24, 2007 The problem is when some people use a politician's stance as a measure of the morality of that politician. Personal morality should never enter into the politicians mind when making a stance. A bit wishful thinking perhaps. But Martin and Chretien voted against it, and I rather doubt Pearson or Trudeau ever gave it a thought - and certainly never made any effort to defend this "sacred human right". I would bet Trudeau thought about it. Not martin. What about gay marriage in Europe, the bastion of socialism? Denmark Norway (partnerships) Netherlands,Germany (not allowed to adopt kids) Belgium and Spain all have it. South Africa does too. Smart countries those. Quote
Argus Posted March 25, 2007 Report Posted March 25, 2007 What about gay marriage in Europe, the bastion of socialism? Denmark Norway (partnerships) Netherlands,Germany (not allowed to adopt kids) People who want "partnerships" instead of marriages are called homophobes and Nazis by the left in Canada. As for not being allowed to adopt kids, the Left would blow a gasket if you suggested gay couples not be allowed to adopt kids, and once again you'd be called a bigot and a homophobe. Belgium and Spain all have it. South Africa does too. Smart countries those. You didn't answer the question. If it is a "basic human right" should we enact sanctions against countries like Switzerland which refuse to recognize gay marriage? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2007 Report Posted March 25, 2007 People who want "partnerships" instead of marriages are called homophobes and Nazis by the left in Canada. As for not being allowed to adopt kids, the Left would blow a gasket if you suggested gay couples not be allowed to adopt kids, and once again you'd be called a bigot and a homophobe. Once again, you're overgeneralizing with your simplistic concept of ideologies. Lots of people on the left couldn't care less about gay rights. There are also a lot of queer rightwingers who bitterly resent not being included in the family values club. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
guyser Posted March 25, 2007 Report Posted March 25, 2007 You didn't answer the question. If it is a "basic human right" should we enact sanctions against countries like Switzerland which refuse to recognize gay marriage? No I dont think that sanctions should be enacted. I happen to think that in time, pretty much all countries will see the light. We can expect some will not in my time. I dont see the need frankly. It is not a life or death situation. There are many other countries doing things that NEED to be sanctioned and we can only do so much. Not going to fix the dripping tap when there is a hole in the roof. Quote
Argus Posted March 25, 2007 Report Posted March 25, 2007 You didn't answer the question. If it is a "basic human right" should we enact sanctions against countries like Switzerland which refuse to recognize gay marriage? No I dont think that sanctions should be enacted. I happen to think that in time, pretty much all countries will see the light. We can expect some will not in my time. I dont see the need frankly. It is not a life or death situation. There are many other countries doing things that NEED to be sanctioned and we can only do so much. Not going to fix the dripping tap when there is a hole in the roof. I dunno. We have a health care system which continues to cost lives while all the left cares about is spending billions if not tens of billions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a fraction of a fraction of a percentage because they suspect those emissions might in some way be vaguely related to global warming. Which could be a big problem in a hundred years, you know!!! I think if Harper promised to spend $100 billion per year on global warming Jack Layton would pop up in his seat, shake his fist, and demand more. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Topaz Posted March 25, 2007 Report Posted March 25, 2007 I think is fairly safe to say Harper is against it and I think proof of his telling his caucus how to vote on this topic. Example is John Baird. While he was in Ontario government he voted and help McGuinty to bring forth the right of same-sex marriage. I don't think a person changes one opinion on this topic once they make it public. So perhaps Baird thought if I want to keep my job , I better agree with Harper. Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 25, 2007 Report Posted March 25, 2007 I think is fairly safe to say Harper is against it and I think proof of his telling his caucus how to vote on this topic. Example is John Baird. While he was in Ontario government he voted and help McGuinty to bring forth the right of same-sex marriage. I don't think a person changes one opinion on this topic once they make it public. So perhaps Baird thought if I want to keep my job , I better agree with Harper. Topaz, do you actually look up anything when you make these comments? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/vote-samesex.html Twelve Tories — including cabinet ministers Peter MacKay, David Emerson, John Baird, Jim Prentice, Lawrence Cannon and Josée Verne — broke from party lines and voted against the motion. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2007 Report Posted March 25, 2007 I dunno. We have a health care system which continues to cost lives while all the left cares about is spending billions if not tens of billions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a fraction of a fraction of a percentage because they suspect those emissions might in some way be vaguely related to global warming. Again, an overgeneralization. I'm on the left and I don't consider the environment to be much of an issue at all. I don't care about future generations because I don't have kids myself. I'm with you on this one. Let the bastards choke to death. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
BC_chick Posted April 27, 2007 Report Posted April 27, 2007 Harper is an evil neo con for opposing gay marriage, which is a "human right". But Martin and Chretien voted against it, and I rather doubt Pearson or Trudeau ever gave it a thought Trudeau doesn't belong on that list. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.