1  2  3  4  Next

Tories blasted on same-sex marriage backup plan
Updated Wed. Oct. 4 2006 11:13 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff


The Conservative government is brushing off as speculation reports they would legislatively support opponents of gay marriage if their attempt to revive the traditional definition of marriage fails.


"Isn't this an attempt to remove sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination?" interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham asked in question period on Wednesday.


He was referring to a Globe and Mail report that the Conservative government is working on measures that would protect ministers and justices of the peace who refuse to marry same-sex couples.


The legislation will also include measures that would protect religious leaders' rights to voice criticism of homosexual behaviour without risking complaints of human rights violations.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "the government has no plans along the lines (Graham) is suggesting."


Speaking on CTV's Mike Duffy Live Wednesday, Conservative MP Jason Kenney echoed the prime minister's words. However, he added that the government "wants to protect the rights of all minorities, both gays and lesbians and religious minorities as well."


NDP MP Bill Siksay said any attempts by the Conservatives to protect religious rights and freedoms would be redundant.


"There's no crisis around religious freedoms in Canada. They're absolutely protected in the (Charter of Rights and Freedoms)," said Siksay.


"Even the marriage bill that was passed ... went out of its way to include religious protection -- to make sure no church, no synagogue, no temple was forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will, if that was against their beliefs. It couldn't be clearer."


But he argued same-sex couples should not have to go through difficulties trying to find a willing marriage commissioner.


"These are people who are performing secular marriages -- state marriages, civil marriages. If they're not prepared to do that for the people who come to them, and if there's no duty of accommodation ... then something is wrong with the system," said Siksay.


Same-sex marriage debate


Since the election campaign, the Conservatives have promised to move a motion to re-open the debate on same-sex marriage and put the issue to a free vote in the House of Commons.


The motion is expected in the fall. Harper repeated that on Wednesday.


If the motion passes, it will give the government the authority to bring in legislation to repeal the law that made same-sex marriage legal last year.


If it is defeated, the Globe reported the government intends to bring forward the new Defence of Religions Act as a backup plan.


Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government's intentions in an interview Tuesday with the Globe.


However, Toews wouldn't go into specifics.


"The nature of the concerns that are being raised with me are relating to freedom of religion and freedom to practice religion (and) freedom of expression," he said.


"The prime minister has indicated that he is bringing the matter forward -- the issue of same-sex marriage -- on a free vote. And there may be certain options open to the government as to what the response should be in either event, whether that opening is successful or not successful."


A few rebel Conservatives are likely to join with opposition MPs to defeat the motion to reopen the same-sex marriage debate, which would prompt the government to introduce the backup legislation.


The legislation would also protect religious groups from being forced to do business with groups they disagree with for religious reasons. By example, a church couldn't be forced to rent its reception hall for a same-sex wedding if it disagreed with the union.


Religious leaders have long worried their free-speech rights to express religious beliefs on the subject of homosexuality were coming under fire, and ministers would one day be forced, by law, to perform same-sex marriages.


The former Liberal government claimed existing laws and court precedent already protected ministers from performing same-sex marriages if they chose not to.


Courts and tribunals, however, have sent mixed signals over the rights of individuals to publicly criticize homosexual behaviour, and as a result the new legislation could face challenges under the Charter.


A source told the Globe that the legislation is a work-in-progress but "the point is there. People have to have the right to say what they want."


Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons on Tuesday that he is also committed to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian Canadians.


"At the same time," he added, "we also defend the right of people of religious faith to practice their religion and to express their religious views."

   

Quote: "At the same time," he added, "we also defend the right of people of religious faith to practice their religion and to express their religious views."

I agree with him, excluding religion in this equation is wrong. Christians have a right to preach from their Bible to their flock. I don't agree with the Born Agains but I respect their right to preach.

   

The Fiberal Bill is the discriminatory one. The Human Rights commisioners in each Province should be fired and sent to hell.

Every religion and businesses in this country of ours does NOT have rights to say NO. The fucking Lieberals did this because they are nothing but a bunch of communist idiot bastards.

A business owner in Toronto was fined $5,000 because he refused to print brochures that was against his reiligion and he was warned that if didn't do it then his business would be shut down. Hello?????.

In lefty BC The Knights of Columbus were fined $5,000 because they refused to rent their hall for a same-sex marriage party. The Knights are Catholics and their religion is against same-sex marriage.

So why did these communist lefty idiot Lieberals do this? Because they are racists, bigots, support terrorist organizations to process at least $250million dollars a year within Canada to support terrorist actions abroad.
The RCMP and CSIS couldn't do a damn thing about it. This has been going on for years under Chretien and Martin

So discrimination against religions, fund raising for terrorist organizations are fine by the Lieberals and they passed laws to make sure that this would happen which it did.


So the reason Stephen Harper and his Government is preparing this new Bill is ensure that all religions and businesses have the right to say NO. I repeat NO !! Anyone has the right to say NO !

That is fair and correct.

   

Fundies should move to the prairies. Pansies and girls in plaid should move to Lotusland. Everyone has the right to say no? I say no to religious fundies.

(I actually disagree with the Knights of Columbus decision but I'm not going to let that get in the way of a perfectly good rant )

   

I say NO to allowing religious organisation free of taxation! NO NO NO
Gays pay taxes like em all.

   

Maybe they should become Muslim instead. They appear to be getting away with almost anything these days.

   

Aint that the truth. I was just reading on how Michelle Malkins vids have been taken off Youtube. Though I like Malkin only slightly more than Coulter, I view this as unfair censorship.

   

My religion is against niggers, colored people, I shouldnt let does fucking black slaves in to my store. But I'm forced to by the government. I SAY NO TO ALLOWING BLACK PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THE SAME SOCIETY AS WE NORMAL WHITE PEOPLE DO. They are slaves, put em in camps.

   

If I didnt think that was sarcasm I might be a bit concerned

   

Do you or these people know and understand the terms "Biting the bullet" or "sucking it up and taking it"?

Evidently not.

   

You might want to specify if you're trying to make a point, otherwise you kinda look like an ass.

   

I'm taking it at face value.

   

Ok Genius, would it be ok say if I was gay to go to a mosque in Canada with my partner and demand that the cleric marry us ?

Would you ask them to bite the bullet or suck it up ?

   

There is NO law that states that any religious facility needs to marry any couple that they do not wish to. There are already safe guards in place to stop something like this from happening. So whatever they propose is going to be redundant and useless.

   

Ok what if you were a deeply religous man who ran a printing company, and a client came up to you wanting to print an advertisements "promoting" a gay event ?

And according to your beliefs, you cannot print the material. But give the names of other companies that would be more than happy to print the material for them.

Are you protected from lawsuits and fines ?

   

1  2  3  4  Next