marriage

A tie vote

by alec on September 7, 2003

Most disheartening of all about last nights’ vote was that the first time round it was a tie vote – 134 to 134.  It was not until the speaker of the house ruled that the original Alliance motion had to stand, which called on Parliament to take "all necessary steps" to preserve marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution, invoking the spectre of the notwithstanding clause, that enough Liberal MP’s felt compelled to vote against the motion.  Nearly a third of the Liberal caucus supported the Alliance motion.

Toronto Star: PM wins same-sex vote, but only just.

John Ibbitson, writing in the Globe and Mail this morning, takes Stephen Harper to task in A stark reflection of the two halves of Canada.  He writes:

Mr. Harper and his followers have forgotten that, while homosexuality is as ancient as the race, so too is persecution of homosexuality. We have persecuted them as we have persecuted Jews and women and blacks and every other group who, to paraphrase Cecil Rhodes, were losers in the lottery of life.

Stephen Harper’s careful choices of words, referring to "homosexual behaviour", rather than sexual orientation, and Stockwell Day’s nasty fear mongering about the "homosexual lifestyle" and "compulsory social reprogramming" hearken back to Nazi Germany and the propaganda and fear mongering that Hitler used to justify genocide against the Jews.

Chantal Hebert, writing in the Star in a piece titled Neither side can force the issue, analyzes the politics behind yesterday’s vote.  She notes that:

The front bench of the government sat empty for the best part of the debate leading up to the vote. With the sole exception of Cauchon, no cabinet minister waded into the discussion. Neither leadership contender Sheila Copps nor the Prime Minister himself took the opportunity to defend the government’s plan.

It seems clear what is going to happen here. The Government knows that, as Hebert puts it, the dice are loaded in favour of same-sex marriage. So, Stephen Harper will try to make this into a wedge issue for the next election, same-sex marriage will happen by default, and Canadians are in for a round of hate-mongering the likes of which we haven’t seen in a long long time. 

  

Reviewing the Marriage Laws

by alec on September 3, 2003

The flap continues over same sex marriage here in Ontario.  The letters page in this morning’s Citizen was wall to wall opinions on the topic.  Now Ernie Eves is weighing in during the election despite the fact that marriage is federal territory, and not provincial at all.

Around our house we’ve had pretty spirited debates on the topic as well.  We reflect the electorate, 50% in favour and 50% opposed, and we’ve debated just about every angle the politicians have thought of, and some they haven’t, and (feeling somewhat smug about it) usually in advance of reading the latest "thoughtful stance" from the pols in the papers.

Although I favour legalized same-sex marriages, I am concerned that the approach the government is taking is the slippery slope to legalizing polygamous unions.  Initially, I dismissed the idea that this might lead to legalized polygamy as fear-mongering on the part of those opposed to gay marriage.  Out of curiousity, however, I googled "polygamy Canada".  Wow! The National Post published a piece about a year ago in which the government lawyers in BC have apparently asserted that the Criminal Code prohibition on polygamy would fail the Charter of Rights test.  This piece in the Report asserts that polygamy is already defacto legal in Canada, and that the marriage laws are a "hodgepodge".

It seems clear that there will be a Charter challenge at some point.  Rather than propose a simple law legalizing same-sex marriages, rubberstamping what the courts have already done, the government should be rethinking and rewriting all of the legislation on marriage. 

As an aside, why oppose polygamy and support same-sex marriage?   Rights groups, like Tapestry Against Polygamy, contend that physical and sexual abuse are common, and that the women are forced into marriages at a very early age, for the sole purpose of bearing as many children as possible.  This is slavery, not a marriage. Moreover, unlike homosexuality, the practice of polygamy is a lifestyle choice.  Polygamists can choose not to be polygamist – gay people can’t choose not to be gay.

  

Canada stalls on Gay Marriage

August 17, 2002

Canada stalls on gay marriage question.  Isn’t this just an inevitable conclusion?  From what I read, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has pretty much pre-ordained this.  So get over it! And get over this too! Let Charles be king and marry Camilla – poll   

Read the full article →
Alec on LinkedIn Alec on Twitter Alec on Facebook Calliflower on Youtube RSS Feed Contact me