Larry Spencer, "make It A Crime To Be Gay"

[Greg]

Lets discuss Larry Spencer's statement that he would support any initiative to put support any initiative to put homosexuality back in the Criminal Code of Canada.

"I do believe it was a mistake to have legalized it," Spencer (Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre) told The Vancouver Sun.

"If somebody brought a bill in the House to do that I'd certainly vote for it. Yeah, I'd like to see that [to] be the case. It's not that I would want spies in everybody's bedroom or anybody following anybody.

But Spencer said any MP, and especially someone from his party, risks being labelled "a redneck or a hate-monger or homophobic" if they even mention such views in Parliament.

Spencer's pronouncements come at a difficult time for his party, which is stickhandling a merger with the Progressive Conservative party.

Delegates from both parties are due to vote on a ratification of the merger Dec. 6.

This incident brings up some interesting questions. Including, how does this affect the merger process? How does Harper counter these types of statements? Should Spencer's have the right to say such things?

[SirRiff]

just cant believe this stuff....

i am not up to date on all the merger politics, but i know this is just another reason why no national conservative threat exists to liberal dominance for the next decade. but that aint a good thing. democracy needs several competative parties in order to make the winners work for it.

why would PCs want to associate with these morons anyways? i thought goverment was about taxes, and roads, adn hospitals and schools and crimes. not what two consenting law abiding adults choose to do in their private lives.

anyways, if there was any doubt, apparently this is a large part of what the CA stands for these days, bigotry and hate instead of concern with the well being of canadians (who are naturaly tolerate and proud of diversity)

nobody would question his right to say these things. but since only a very very small group of people actually feel this way relative to all of canada, it seems the mechanism for represtative goverments shoudl keep his party and people like him out of power. which it will. its just too bad that other CA policies like spending and military get taken from the national spotlight becaues of these clowns.

sirriff

[Lost in Manitoba]

It may be the perfect oppurtunity for Harper, though, if he handles this right. Such as cracking down on that behavior, or maybe making a speach about freedom and personal choice.

As for Spencer, his job is to represent the people who elected him. If they are homophobic rednecks, maybe they'll appreciate his comment. If not they can get rid of him. If the Alliance doesn't like him they can remove him from their party and he would sit as an independent, wouldn't he?

[RT_1984]

SirRiff,

Harper immediately fired Spencer from his portfolio and caucus. I don't think this will hurt the merger with a party who touts Elsie Wayne as a senior MP. Give me a break. And you're right: you haven't been following the merger. That's been quite clear from the offset of any of your comments and discussion.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Wow, its unbelievable how Canadian's automatically hate anybody that speaks against the establishment. People should start looking at the facts about homosexuality. I for one do not believe in bringing in sodomy laws, but the fact is that homosexuality is seen as a happy lifestyle, even though most homosexual men die before their 42nd birthday.

I believe that all of the values we were founded on are dying off, look at homosexuality, it has been placed on such a high pedastal, I sure wonder where the hell our countries going to.

Homosexuals, and Feminists, can hate catholics, mock the pope, and call for the end of freedom of religion. Yet when a person strikes back they are called a redneck, and homophobic.

[Morgan]

I suspect the readers of the article will recognize that Spencer has been "set up" and will regard the interview as reflecting the views of an older man who was once a member of the clergy, rather than reflecting Alliance party policy. Btw, Spencer subsequently apologized for his comments, according to the Toronto Star.

IMHO the Sun comes off poorly for the questionable method it used to put Larry Spencer on the spot.

He made his comments during an hour-long interview after The Vancouver Sun obtained a copy of an e-mail from Spencer to a Canadian citizen outlining his conspiracy theory. The Sun requested an interview so Spencer could elaborate on his views.

The gay issue is such a red herring anyways with regards to voting for the best political party to head the nation. Who cares what Spencer's feelings are about how the gay movement may or may not have have gained political clout? Or whether Spencer would vote for criminalizing homosexuality again. It's a moot point.

But look how Spencer's comments have been distorted:

"Jail Homosexuals Canadian Politician Says" article headline in 365Gay.com Newscenter

As to whether this controversy will cause problems for the proposed merger. Maybe yes. But the Red Tories were iffy anyways from the start, so maybe this will give them the final reason to follow their gut feelings and join the LPOC or NDP, which would be a better party match up .

But bottomline, I think most voters will vote according to issues that have impact on their daily lives (economy, crime, education) rather than in response to Spencer's ill-advised comments.

[Slavik44]

hey, let the guy say what he want's may not be great for his poliitical career...but he is old enough as it is...

I dont see anyhting wrong with his commits, I mean Svend robinson who had some harsh words about the statements made by Larry Spencer, is the same person who tried to take God out of the Charter of rights and freedoms.

It may slightly affect the merge vote, but it will nto be an extra 20% jumping ship tot he no side, it will just re-afrm the beliefs of orchard and his followers but just be shrugged off by the other 70% of the party, now weather or not all 70% vote yes for the merge is a different question but i can't see it being based on the comments made by Larry Spencer.

[SirRiff]

i dont know why you would believe this is an absolutely unique event or that its based on any reasonable perspective.

this segragating and bigoted view is often spewed by politcial hacks who claim to hold some religious principle or represent 'traditional' values. gays are just the lagging group to be accepted by civilized society. blacks and women wouldnt stand for it and it would be politically suicide. gays are just starting to get the same clout with the expansion of charter protection and the completion of the civil rights bubble enveloping all citizens of democratic nations.

Wow, its unbelievable how Canadian's automatically hate anybody that speaks against the establishment

this is the kind of bizarre excuse made by some that is just an excuse for some political party. as if middle aged white men arent the establishment. its wrong on every level, there is no reason to peddle this kind of backwards thinking except to try to appeal politically to people who cant deal with the concept of modern democratic equality. all civilized nations move towards absolute equality given the chance. fringe groups try to get attention by blaming all sorts of subpopulations like immigrants, gays, minorites, or whoever. when all else fails blame the guy who is different.

yes you might have to work beside a black man or a gay man. get over it. its 2003.

Harper immediately fired Spencer from his portfolio and caucus. I don't think this will hurt the merger with a party who touts Elsie Wayne as a senior MP. Give me a break. And you're right: you haven't been following the merger. That's been quite clear from the offset of any of your comments and discussion.

RT_1984 i'm sure you find it fantastic that faced with a potential political backlash harper realized he only had one option, but i dont. its fairly obvios spencer is a nut and the CA cant afford to have public nuts talking nutty stuff if they want to make a viable alternative to liberals. so yea, the obvious and unavoidable was done. big deal.

what would have been impressive is if the CA and PCs actually weeded these guys out in the first place..theres a thought....not appealing to backwards wingnuts...hmmm...

and as for my merger knowledge, i am well aware of what the whole merger was proported to be and the recent legal challanges, but i am uninterested in every single detail that CA or PC supporters can fool themselves into thinking might make a difference on a national level. which middle aged white guy replaces this middle aged white guy in the CA? doesnt matter. i dont know why you think that has any effect on my posts, and i dont think i ever discuss the merger at all, so you must be confused with what i said. i'm sure you will be able to follow my posts better once you get 50 of your own under your belt. if not, just blame it on the gay guy.

sirriff

[Morgan]

Sir Riff said:

i dont know why you would believe this is an absolutely unique event or that its based on any reasonable perspective. ..

I agree with Slavik44 that Spencer is entitled to his own opinions, which are no more objectionable than Svend's. Spencer's age and religious background should give him some leeway, just as Svend's youth and personal membership in the homosexual community allowed him some leeway for his brash, abrasive comments.

Keep in mind that Spencer and people of his generation grew up until they were about 30 years old, believing that homosexuality was a crime. Decriminalizing homosexuality is a fairly recent phenomenon from the viewpoint of someone who is 61 years old.

Besides, the Left should be rushing to Spencer's defence, since they are the ones touting high minded watchwords like inclusion, diversity [opinion as well as a color and gender, I would think] and always looking out for the underdog...Spencer did the interview inspite of advisors telling him it was political suicide.

Discrimination in any form is not right, whether it be against age or colour or gender or ethnicity or life style choice like homosexuality. That's why Spencer does not have the opportunity to vote on re-criminalizing homosexuality.

[Communist_boy]

He is an elected represenative and therefore if he says this than more than 50% of the people in his riding must believe this. That is the problem.

It is amazing how many people will say they are "good christians" but yet when it comes to actually accepting other people as they say they do, they dont wanna accept homosexuals as people.

In Fredericton Andy Scott was beat up. The man who did it was a "good christian" and thats why he beat him up.

The fact is democracy doesnt work. tyranny of the majority is too rampent. We need to change our system of government before it destroys us.

[Alliance Fanatic]

That website which was posted was fairly disgusting. In my view I believe that many gay rights activists do not see a problem with persecuting christians. One gay rights activist said of Stockwell Day, the "it reminded him of the good old days when christians were fed to the lions".

Spencer is right on many points, it is true that gays have a unhealthy lifestyle, to say that it is positive to be gay to kids, is the equivalents of saying that using cocain, meth, and drugs is an acceptable lifestyle.

Some lifestyles are recognized by society as harmful to people, and harmful to society. In order to stop such lifestyles which would damage the society we must do the following,

outlaw activities associated with these lifestyles, sodomy, prostitution, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, and the like.

Many people in this form have said that spencer is not really christians because of his views, that is false, the fact is that most christians do not embrace "homosexuality", they embrace the person, and do the best they can to help him have a good life.

Many have said that Spencer's comments will damage the unite the right efforts, I doubt it will. However if the right does not unite then this country will be doomed for sure. I will probably move to the United States where they actually VALUE FREEDOM, AND LIBERTY. Canada will probably outlaw the bible, by 2010, and pedophilia, and sexual abuse will be considered normal.

[Hugo]

That website which was posted was fairly disgusting. In my view I believe that many gay rights activists do not see a problem with persecuting christians. One gay rights activist said of Stockwell Day, the "it reminded him of the good old days when christians were fed to the lions".

Quite so. I remember an incident in Montreal where a group of feminists vandalised and desecrated a church, assaulted the clergymen and burned a cross on the steps. Hedy Fry didn't bat an eyelid - but you can bet that if a bunch of Christians had broken into and vandalised a gay bath house and assaulted the patrons there would have been hell to pay.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Its sad that to many liberals Canada must be turned into a moral sewer, but I sure hope that the silent majority will start speaking out. Those who speak out against the politically correct mindset in Canada are couragoues, after all they may be butchered in the streets.

Here's an interesting article on the decline of our culture.

http://www.amconmag.com/11_17_03/buchanan.html

[Alliance Fanatic]

Here are some interesting articles on the issue of gay rights

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terence...j20030709.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisp...p20030429.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshap...s20030423.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/patbuch...b20030608.shtml

[Moderate Centrist]

Firstly, homosexuality should not be re-criminalized. Having said that the government should move on. This issue is completely trivial and it's a sad state of affairs that the governement has spent so much time addressing this.

Homosexuals have all the rights that the rest of us have. As far as I'm concerned the issue is closed.

Trudeau said the Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. However the reverse has not been held - the bedrooms of the nations have entered governement.

What I would like to see from a conservative party is a move towards hard core political issues that affect the majority of Canadians:

-Employment

-Educations costs

-National Defense

-Foreign Policy

-Poverty

-National Unity

-Protection of Natural Resources

-Addressing problems facing our aging population

-Dealing with Urban issues

-Protecting our National Independence

-Health Care

-Maintaing the country's water quality

The problem I have with the Alliance is not so much with what they think but rather what they say and how they say it.

They are their own worst enemy in the PR department.

A clear policy should be established regarding issues and communicated to the party at large. It seems this is just another case where they've put their foot in their mouth.

Alliance - I read the article you mentioned which takes some shots at Europe - in many ways rightly so.

However to portray America as a bastion of Christianity is a bit silly. We (Canada & USA) are every bit as decadent if not more.

Let's see, Canadians and Americans regularily engage in idol worship (Celebrity obsession) and soft core pornography is widely available on cable T.V. in the US and Canada.

One of the principles of Christianity is to be wary of materialism - yet in both Canada and the States there is very little of the spiritual left.

America imports crap from Europe and then spreads it the world over - I'm speaking of reality T.V. here which has people degrading and prostituting themselves in every which way imaginable.

If society is declining we need only look at ourselves for the cause.

[Michael Hardner]

A clear policy should be established regarding issues and communicated to the party at large. It seems this is just another case where they've put their foot in their mouth.

I'm not sure if that would work. As part of caucus, Spencer was supposedly a 'cut above' a backbench MP, and as the family critic, well...

From what I understand, Spencer was only temporarily removed.

The Alliance has once again shown why they're not fit to govern.

And I also agree that stupid issues like this divert attention from serious economic issues that aren't as interesting to follow.

[Goldie]

The man is entitled to his views but the politician has to speak on government issues. The state has no right to intrude into the bedrooms of the nation. Therefore criminalizing homosexuality is not a federal mandate. As a consevative I also believe the state has no right in many other aspects of our life, pensions, insurance, banking, ECT. So it goes like this, "leave that which is Ceasars unto Ceasar." Also we should leave that which is Gods unto God. You can't legislate good behaviour nor should we try. Marriage should also be left to the churches and not states.

Elsie wayne made a comment that offended Gays not that long ago and nobody fired her. I just think the media will play this up like crazy and may doom the merger unless cooler heads prevail on the progressive conservative side. Perhaps the MP will rather sit as an independant.

Lets not forget the Liberals had a convicted criminal in their midst but for some reason that is ok.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Yes, but if the MP is speaking for himself, and his constituents, then why not let him do so. I feel that the media has been using "Facist" tactics to make anybody who would dare stand up against the politically correct mindset in Canada. The media can easily twist up, and turn whatever a person says into something else. For example the MP said

I dont believe we should have spies everywhere, we should simply have something saying that we as a society do not approve of this behavior.

I also find it hard to believe that this country has tolerance for almost everything, and anything, for example terrorism, oh we should show tolerance of those who wish to see the west destroyed, we should show tolerance for pedophiles since they were "born that way", we should show tolerance for abortion. But we should be intolerant of all of those who share traditional values.

[sir_springer]

How did Harper really react to all this?

An exerpt from today's Toronto Star:

While Harper tempered his public comments about Spencer, saying there is room for "legitimate social conservative views" in the party, in private he warned his caucus intolerance would be harshly dealt with.

An angry Harper "blew a gasket" when he addressed the Alliance caucus behind closed-doors, sources said. After informing MPs about the meeting with Spencer, Harper signalled he would not tolerate anybody else expressing similar views that do not reflect party policy.

"Let me be blunt," Harper told the meeting. "What happened today to Larry Spencer was mild compared to what will happen to the next person who does something like this," Harper was quoted as saying.

"I've never heard him speak like that before," said one insider, who said "it was really a one-way conversation" with Harper thumping the podium.

"He was very upset. No one is under illusions as to what would happen to the next guy who says something stupid on that issue."

[Morgan]

Michael Hardner said:

The Alliance has once again shown why they're not fit to govern.

What reason do you have for reaching that conclusion? Because a 61 year old man spoke his mind on a subject that has split the country in two from the get go? What did Spencer say that was so hateful? He said that the gay movement has consciously sought to gain political clout. How the word "conspiracy" got in the conversation, we don't know...was it Peter O'Neil leading on a 61 year old guy or was it a term that Spencer had used in a private email that the Sun surreptitiously accessed?? He said that gays' life style choice pretty much ensures them a shortened life and that as a society we should not be promoting this lifestyle choice in our schools to young impressionable people. He said that in retrospect he believes Trudeau's de-criminalizing homosexuality in 1969 helped homosexuality as a life style choice gain public acceptance and that hypothetically if a bill were presented to turn back what Trudeau did he would vote for it because it would give homosexuals the opportunity to shake off this deadly life style choice.

Spencer said nothing that was hateful. He spoke from the heart and considering he is 61 years old and has seen the horror of AIDS take hold of modern society as of the 70's on, I think he has every right to make an observation that this may not have happened if society had not allowed homosexuality so easy to pursue. People may not like or agree with what Spencer said, but I see no hatred in this politician's words. Spencer's perspective is not one of a bigoted politician but of a politician, a former Baptist minister by gosh, who has obviously thought long and hard about whether politicians have contributed to the modern plague called AIDS that is currently sweeping the world and is specifically cutting the lives of males when they are in their prime.

IMHO Chretien is the more dispicable politician. He openly says he cannot abide by the homosexuality choice of sex preference, but then he makes that very same life style more "respectable" by forcing through legislation on hate laws and legalizing gay marriage which serves to muzzle criticism of a high risk sexual life style and which will cause young children to be introduced into a situation where one or both parents are leading risk filled lives and may leave them orphans. It's patently clear that Chretien did this to get votes, not because he approves of homosexuality. Yet gays think Chretien is on their side and Spencer is hateful. What a sad joke.

Harper immediately asked Spencer to relinquish his Family Critic portfolio because Spencer's highly personal sentiments were ill-advised in light of the proposed merger and could be misconstrued as being hurtful to gays, which they were. Harper did the right thing. Perhaps you want Harper to cruciufy old Spencer in a public square in Regina? Would that make a you happier? Harper's action made it clear that MP's like Spencer would suffer consequences if they spoke out of turn and reflected poorly on party policy. Spencer choose to yak about his personal opinions on homosexuality in a 1 hour interview and against the advice of party members.

Sir_Springer says:

How did Harper really react to all this?

Um...what's your point? Yes, it's true that Harper did not embrace the gay life style and recommend it to every Canadian to pursue. Harper did not kiss Svend's rump and swear allegiance to Egale's goals. Get it through your head. Tolerance does not mean embrace or love; tolerance means tolerance, that's all and nothing more. Gays don't love religious people but they tolerate "fundies."Gays don't love heterosexuals but they tolerate "breeders."

Harper did what a political leader is supposed to do. He disciplined Spencer for mis-representing personal opinions to the press as party policy. But Spencer was elected as an Alliance member fair and square and Harper could not throw him out of the party for sentiments that may indeed be reflective of the electorate he represents. You want to be Thought Police for the people of Regina? Is that your goal, you and Lost and Hardner ? You don't like what other people think so you'd prefer to make a pariah of their duely elected representative. Go blow that ridiculous notion out your ears.

B. Let's look at outrageous comments of MP's representing parties I suspect you three think are more "fit" to govern and let's see how the party leaders dealt with their disgraceful comments:

1. Svend, Mr. uber tolerant orator of the NDP.

Svend is far more "open-minded" and way, way less hateful than Spencer when he talks about Jews. Um...did Svend get bounced out of his party? What a spanking Svend got from McDonough...she took the Middle East egion from his International Foreign Affairs portfolio. Ouch, that really hurt, Flora, too cruel. Lost, you fussed about the "tyranny of the majority"... I guess Svend disproves your theory with his distasteful irresponsible anti-Semitic diatribe... his political party and sexual preference membership are both in minority positions but that doesn't seem to temper Svend's dispicable yapping to the press...

Robinson spoke out against Israel after visiting the West Bank recently. "The Israeli government and the Israeli military are guilty of torture and murder," he said upon his return.

Mr. Tolerant Svend Robinson calls Israelis torturers and murderers.

And then there was Svend's anti-American hate-filled rant as a response to the suggestion that Sept.11 be named America Day.

The disgrace of Svend Robinson, National Post Oct.06/03

But while reasonable people will disagree on whether and how Canadians should commemorate 9/11, one politician has already distinguished himself in the worst possible way over the subject. No surprise on his identity: Svend Robinson, NDP MP for Burnaby-Douglas, B.C. According to Mr. Robinson, 9/11 might instead be named "Chile Day" -- a sneering reference to the fact that Chilean president Salvador Allende died on the same day in a 1973 U.S.-backed military coup that resulted in shameful bloodshed. The ouster of Mr. Allende's Marxist regime became an obsession among communists and other Cold War-era enemies of the United States, and is still dredged up now and again by modern-day critics. But only a tactless anti-American bigot would suggest the memory of a coup in a country with which Canada has relatively scant connections should supplant the commemoration of a savage terrorist attack -- the greatest the world has known, and one in which 25 Canadians died -- against Canada's best ally and friend. This is hardly the first time Mr. Robinson has disgraced himself. Since being elected to the House of Commons just one year after he was called to the B.C. bar -- in 1979, at age 27 -- Mr. Robinson has made a career of apologizing for terrorists and rogue states.  One of his favourite causes has been the brutal communist regime of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Just as he did with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Robinson blames the drownings of raft-borne Cuban refugees on U.S. foreign policy.In April, 2002, while on a junket to the Middle East, Mr. Robinson provoked outrage even in his own NDP caucus when he enthusiastically sided with Yasser Arafat, condemning Israel as a "terrorist state," guilty of murder and torture ...His outburst was so contemptible that it forced then-NDP leader Alexa McDonough to forbid him to speak for the party on Mideast issues.Mr. Robinson was an apologist for Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq for many years, and even claimed the country was a veritable Eden with "an extensive health care system, clean and abundant drinking water, sewage-treatment plants ... free education at all levels, and a comprehensive network of social services." Such propaganda, we now know, masked the hideous truth that Saddam's Iraq was a hell-hole in which secret police murdered and tortured citizens at will. Homosexuals, a group whose rights he stridently champions in Canada, got the death penalty.When it comes to his right to protest trade meetings or a visiting U.S. President, Mr. Robinson is Canada's greatest free-speech booster. But he has little patience when his opponents try to indulge the same freedoms. In January, 2000, Mr. Robinson attempted to tear down placards displayed on Parliament Hill by a priest who believes homosexuality is "deviant" behaviour ...

Carolyn Parrish's bigotry against a whole nation of people is "special" too. On Feb. 26, 2002, Ms. Duncehead, after leaving a Liberal caucus meeting, said that she held out little hope for a peaceful resolution to the Iraq situation because the American government was hell-bent on war[according to Ms. Parrish's teeny tiny brain] and then she said: "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards." To add insult to injury, Chretien did not discipline Ms. Parrish but instead blamed the media for making a big story out of something that should be forgiven because of the situation. Chretien said sometimes MPs need to "vent" after caucus meetings and what they say shouldn't be held against them because they are frustrated. (TORONTO SUN, March 1, 2003)

Say what????That's leadership for you. That's tolerance for you. The Liberals get the prize for both. Even Liberal Senator Leo Kolber wrote at length in his new book "Leo-a life" that he was "profoundly disturbed" by the wave of anti-Americanism that was being promoted by Liberal MP's focusing on Ms. Parrish in particular as well as David Collenette and Don Boudria. Kolber spoke up in the Senate about this type of anti-American hate mongering, which he felt was as unacceptable as anti-Semitism, anti-Arabic sentiment or the dissemination of hatred against 'any identifiable group'. Kolber showed more leadership than Chretien.

And narry a word of criticism or outrage come from the keyboards of Hardner, Lost, or Springer re: Svend and Parrish and their political parties.

[sir_springer]

Morgan...

I guess I could have made my post a tad clearer.

IMHO, Harper handled this, in the public venue, about as well as anyone could possibly have done.

But, he went one better.

He let his caucus know...and apparently in no uncertain terms whatsoever...that he's not going to put up with this sort of crap.

Awesome!

That's an aspect of leadership that the Reform/CA has been lacking since day-one.

I think Harper will make for about the best Prime Minister this country has seen in many decades.

That I think this is not that much of a secret around here, eh?

[SirRiff]

two probems;

1) this is NOT an unique thought in modern conservative politics in Canada, it is just renamed and repacked to link it to some "policy", but harper and other leaders obviously know these morons are on their party. i think its a minority of the party but its still prevalent as every year or two you get some conservative party moron trying to push his outdated and stupid view.

2. there is no truth underlying these bigoted views. first women would destroy society by working, then blacks cant have job equality because they are not as smart, now gays can have private consensual sex because it will destroy "morality". the people who cite morality never seem to want to actually act to make Canada better, just rant and rave about who they want to blame for the way it is. and why is there only one version of morality, that type that comes from old white men? if you have had a divorce, or havnt built build a school or orphanage, you better shut your mouth about morality untill you prove you have some yourself. gays dont hurt anybody, and there are so many other ways people recklessly hurt themselves and others -- tobacco, alcohol, and guns- gays are as good citizens as anybody else. often better.

its rather pathetic to preach without some social accomplishment yourself.

sirriff

[sir_springer]

Such views certainly aren't unique to just the CA, eh?

Will be interesting to see how the media play this one out, considering their treatment of the CA.

And this morning Martin said Harper should have permanently gassed Spencer. Waiting now to see how he handles his own MP.

______________________________________________

Kilgour sees same-sex marriage leading to incest, polygamy

But MP and junior cabinet minister must show backbone, moral leadership

Paula Simons

The Edmonton Journal

Friday, November 28, 2003

Legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to the acceptance of polygamy and incest, says David Kilgour, the Liberal MP for Edmonton Southeast and the Secretary of State for the Asia-Pacific region.

I spoke to Kilgour Thursday afternoon, the day after he held a town hall meeting in his riding, to explain to his constituents why he ducked a controversial vote on same-sex marriage in the House of Commons in September. For two months, Kilgour has been silent on the matter, refusing to talk to the media about why he failed to show up for the vote, or about his own views about gay marriage.

On Thursday, Kilgour told me that he opposes gay marriage, in part because, he says, once the government made same-sex marriage legal, it would have no logical reason not to allow three people to get married.

"So you're saying your fear is that gay marriage could lead to legalized polygamy?" I asked him, puzzled.

"And, I'm afraid, and I'm not the only one afraid of this, it could lead to mothers marrying sons and all kinds of things," he responded.

It wasn't what I expected to hear from a respected parliamentarian and junior cabinet minister -- especially not on the same day that Canadian Alliance MP Larry Spencer was disciplined by his party for suggesting that homosexuality ought to be recriminalized.

Kilgour has always had a reputation as a maverick, a defender of the little guy, as a strong moral leader who stood up for his own personal values, as a social liberal, a friend to immigrants, refugees, the poor and the oppressed.

But on gay marriage, he's been sending very mixed signals. While he's never supported gay marriage, he's never before come out strongly against it. When the Canadian Alliance moved its mischievous motion in support of traditional, heterosexual marriage -- a move designed to embarrass the Liberal government caucus which is divided on the issue -- Kilgour was nowhere to be seen.

I support same-sex marriage. But Kilgour's behaviour seemed to me an act of hypocrisy.

If he, and his constituents, were so opposed to gay marriage, I asked him, why hadn't he at least shown up and put his abstention on the record or even voted with the Alliance?

"I told the prime minister I could not go and support his side of the motion, and frankly, I thought he was going to throw me out of cabinet over that," Kilgour told me. "We assumed that since I'd been ordered to show up for the vote, and I didn't show up for the vote, I would be out of cabinet. So I thought that was showing some backbone."

Kilgour said that it would have seemed like grandstanding, if he'd shown up and abstained, or voted with the Alliance. Not coming to the House, he said, was the middle road, which respected the views of his constituents, who were overwhelmingly, opposed to same-sex marriage.

"People who are married see that their institution is being deconstructed."

But what, I asked him, were his own views?

"My own personal opinion is a complicated one," he told me. "There are an awful lot of people who are gay who have suffered all kinds of abuse and what-not and a lot of them, I gather, attempt suicide, and that, as a parent, as a person, bothers me enormously. The last thing I want to do is to create a situation that makes that more common. But there are very, very few things in society that are really important, and marriage is very important to an awful lot of people in Alberta and in Edmonton and Edmonton Southeast."

But it was then Kilgour raised the bogeymen of legalized incest and polygamy. When a respected Liberal cabinet minister compares a committed gay relationship to an exploitative crime like incest or polygamy, he gives aid and comfort to homophobes, whatever his intent.

David Kilgour has built a remarkable reputation in our community as a moral leader. What a tragedy it would be for him squander that legacy now, when moral leadership is so badly needed.

"I just feel that I'm to represent the views of the people of Edmonton Southeast," he told me.

I'm not asking Kilgour to grandstand. I am asking him to show a some real backbone. He's right. The institution of marriage has profound significance to many people, straight and gay. We must treat it with care. But that's why we need leaders, not followers, politicians willing to put their principles ahead of their cabinet careers.

[email protected]

[Morgan]

Sir Riff,

1. I didn't say Spencer's opinions were "unique." For heavens sake, Spencer got elected by a constituency in Saskatchewan. In fact, that's the reason why I said Harper could take the Family portfolio from Spencer, but Harper could not banish Spencer from the Alliance Party. The man was duly elected as an Alliance MP.

What I said was that Spencer's personal opinions, opinions [likely shared by many in his constituency] did not reflect Alliance policy and for that reason, Spencer needed to be disciplined. While I don't agree with everything Spencer said nor do I agree with the way he presented his arguments, I don't see his comments as "hate" speech. Spencer's opinions were based on his perspective as a senior citizen and as a former Baptist minister and as such his conclusions were thought out and not wild rants.

Whereas I believe the same cannot be said about either Svend or Parrish. Both MP's have behaved despicably on a number of occasions/issues and neither the NDP or the LPOC leadership have done much to discipline them. Even you pointedly choose to ignore criticising them for the examples I posted of their egregious actions.

2. Spencer's view is not an example of bigotry. I didn't read Spencer condemning gays for immoral behaviour. He criticized gay activists for consciously promoting a deadly sex behaviour to the public as a benign sexual preference.

Actually, IMHO, the motives of gay activists are more suspect than Spencer's. The activists were the ones who did not care about homosexual individuals' health, but rather were looking out for their own self-serving political image. eg. keeping bath houses open inspite of the obvious health risks; tolerating the insidious practice of "bug chasers' and "bug givers" in the gay sub-culture

25% of new HIV infected gays may have sought out the virus, Rolling Stone Magazine article.

Spencer sincerely believes that homosexuality is a high risk life style, and rightly so, and that politicians have been co-opted by gay activists to help make a deadly life style seem attractive which has enabled the spread of AIDS. What's the bigotry in that observation?

When was the last time you heard a politician say that the homosexual life style is a high risk behaviour and that gays' life spans are considerably shortened due to AIDS? But politicians regularly speak out about the evils of guns, tobacco, and alcohol. In fact, the Liberals use alcohol as their bad guy, arguing that pot seems less malevolent by comparison.

3. Sorry, you're flat out wrong to diss accomplishments of "white guys" like Spencer.

It's because of white guys like Spencer that the USA and Canada were built into the great democratic nations they are, whose freedoms you and others take for granted.

If you think "gays don't anybody," you are nuts. Gays hurt each other. Duh...why do you think gays die from AIDS? Maybe you think they pick up the virus from toilet seats? Get a clue before you start calling Spencer and white men like him "pathetic."

4. Re: article posted by Sir_Springer about Kilgour's interview...there you go, another example of an MP feeling discomfort with the gay "hot button" issue.

But I think Kilgour's situation addresses another problem that goes beyond balancing the perceived "rights" of a minority versus the public good....and that is how the Canadian political system forces an MP to be more obliging to the concerns of his political party leadership than to the views of his constituents.

I agree, Sir_Springer, it will be interesting to see how Paul Martin deals with Kilgour's public admission and if the media will give this story as much play as the Spencer/Alliance party saga.

[Slavik44]

two probems;

1) this is NOT an unique thought in modern conservative politics in Canada, it is just renamed and repacked to link it to some "policy", but harper and other leaders obviously know these morons are on their party. i think its a minority of the party but its still prevalent as every year or two you get some conservative party moron trying to push his outdated and stupid view.

2. there is no truth underlying these bigoted views. first women would destroy society by working, then blacks cant have job equality because they are not as smart, now gays can have private consensual sex because it will destroy "morality".  the people who cite morality never seem to want to actually act to make Canada better, just rant and rave about who they want to blame for the way it is. and why is there only one version of morality, that type that comes from old white men? if you have had a divorce, or havnt built build a school or orphanage, you better shut your mouth about morality untill you prove you have some yourself. gays dont hurt anybody, and there are so many other ways people recklessly hurt themselves and others -- tobacco, alcohol, and guns- gays are as good citizens as anybody else. often better.

its rather pathetic to preach without some social accomplishment yourself.

sirriff

sorry SirRiff but i got a few problems

1. Outdated views

-If the views are still around they are not outdated. What you mean by outdated, is a wonderfull form of propaganda of a basterdized word. This new word is used now not to describe the views themselves but to immediatley imprint an idea in someones head of evil stupidity.

Next what are we replacing these outdated views with?

Curbing freedom of speech, of certian religous groups? Turning right around and not excepting people who hold these views as members of this modern society? Treating the people who commited these evil deeds, with evil in return? Treating some one's old views that we pertain to be intolerant as intolerant and then not tolerating this person in return? To take 1 person who says this evil and blame a whole group of people, who may or may not be "guilty", and in a sence casting judgement with out knowledge, over riding the system of you are innocent until proven guilty? Deciding that Certian groups offended these new accepted groups and treat them with hatred and intolerence back?

That is just a few problem's with these new views!

These new views are not new at all, infact they are old views. That is all your new views are SirRiff, and old policies with a new leader so to speak. The same hatred, racism, and oppression you seak to eliminate, you employ on millions more people, all it is is a different group being oppressed and a different group doing the oppressing how is that something new. Your views are just as outdated as spencers, they just involve hating a new group of people...making them the new "acceptable" norm. So for that these New views have already failed at achieving there goals before they have even begun.