Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next

IMHO - It's small potatoes and won't really make a difference in most Canadians lives but there are folks who care, on both sides, and they deserve a discussion.
I like the Alberta idea above. Seperate the religious from the legal. It does bother me that gay people can claim they belong to a specific religion and then force churches to peform these ceremonies.

   

"Promise made, promise kept, most of the time, if the timing is right, as long as there's no unforseen problems, like us changing our minds..."

   

With both Dion & Harper allowing free votes this ought to defuse this issue for the upcoming election. As a supporter of same-sex unions (I don't care if it's called marriage or not - in the vernacular it will be "marriage") I am pleased the question gets put before the House under these circumstances (a Conservative minority government with the luxury of tabling a motion meant to be defeated). Detractors will be taking on an issue that will have been voted upon freely in Parliament and thus more firmly entrenched. On this the "liberal" element of society ought to thank the Conservative government for this confirmation vote.

Funny we haven't heard the opinions of any Conservative backbenchers in the media though. I know the Conservative from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton ( Cheryl Gallant) is an absolute whack-job on this issue. It was revealed she has mailing lists that identify anyone who supports "SSM" - same sex marriage so they don't receive mailouts from the MP. It was also revealed she'd troll people's confidential information so she could send birthday greetings. A nice re-election effort, but illegal use of Passport information...

   

For the same reason we haven't heard from them during the election. Conservatives seem only to care about MPs freely expressing themselves when they know it won't get them into trouble. For a party that talks a lot about openness, they sure don't believe their MPs should be allowed to express their true feelings about certain subjects...


I guess as long as she only uses it to direct mailouts, then there's nothing illegal. But the impression I would take from that is that she's a bigot who judges people on their beliefs. And I really wouldn't want someone like that representing me in office.


How would she get ahold of such info? Or is she on a committee that has access?

   

The only thing churches are being forced to do is provide facilities, the preists aren't being forced to do anything.

It's a human rights issue. If you let the local 33rd ladies sewing club hold their annual meeting in the church basement, you can't say the gay couple wanting to get married can't use the building, as long as they paid their fee. If you didn't let the ladies club use the facility either, then the argument falls apart.

I'm sure you could put restrictions on it, like you can't use the alter area, because that only gets used for religious ceremonies anyway, so they can't claim that you're favoring one group over the other.

The only group being "forced" to perform marriages are the Justices of the Peace. And it's their job to enforce the law. If they can't enforce the law, just like police officers, they are free to resign. We don't tolerate a police officer who selectively ignores certain criminals because he sypathizes with their views. So why should we tolerate a JoP who refuses to enforce the law because they're trying to bring religious beliefs into a legal matter?

The whole "forced to wed gays" issue is a straw man conservatives hold up to try to scare religious people into believing this legal issue will be forced into their religious issues. Which is complete bull.

   

I don't think gay people should be able to force churches to perform the ceremonies that go against their beliefs. I also don't think gay marriage is an attack on traditional marriage. Gay's are not saying that straight people can't get married if they can't, they're saying they want to be able to marry just like everyone else. I still believe this to me a non issue and that most Canadians don't actually care about the "issue" either way. I'm surprised the divorce attorneys arn't lobbying for gay marriage, talk about a windfall for them....hehe.

   

Already protected in the Charter of Rights. It's under freedom of expression, which also covers "compelled speech" (basically the government forcing you to perform a ceremony, or say something you don't want to). That's why these lawsuits are only affecting the church facilities which are open to the public, and don't affect the priests themselves.

Churches that allow gays to congregate, be members, partake in other church ceremonies, etc, cannot then turn around and say the gay couple can't use the church facilities for a "meeting". They'd need to come up with some other reason other than sexual orientation as to why the ceremony can't happen there.


Well, they don't want to seem TOO eager to roll in the money, they know it'll pass without their help.

   

I don't think he expects it to go anywhere and neither does anybody else. It was a campaign promise and so he's going to do it. He can now say to his social conservatives, "See? I tried" and Harper can chalk up another promise fulfilled. Nobody gets hurt and everyone goes home happy.

   

Exactly. This is just politics.

Nobody is really against SSM, save the odd bible bashing type and the more fundamentlist versions of our new and diverse culture.

Muslims are pretty opposed to this stuff but then we are all aware of some of the socially regressive issues that Islam has to deal in order to come within a century or two closer to the mainstream of western thinking.

The vote will be defeated and the Christian right will have to live with it.

   

Except everyone who wanted the debate re-opened in the first place. See Avro's post above. The people who wanted the debate re-opened, the ones the promise was made to, seem to feel betrayed by the fact that the Conservatives didn't have a vote on whether to "restore" the definition of marriage, essentially using the Notwithstanding Clause to override the Charter. Of course the Conservatives also promised to never use the Clause, so they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

It's a lose-lose position for the Conservatives. They can't weasel out and say "promise made, promise kept" on this one, no matter how much spin they put on it.

   

You are overthinking this, most Tory voters were well aware of this matter as it was in the election platform.

We on the centre of the party are cognizant that Harper has to do this for the Christian right in the party.
The Tories are in a minority and have a great excuse for this act not passing. Now is the time to do it.
A majority Tory government may have had less wiggle room to bin this bill, but the NDP, Libs and Bloc will all vote against it now, save the odd Lib, and Harper can then say it's been dealt with once and for all.

It's called Politics and Harper is well in control of this one. I'd call it a win-win for Tories like me.
SSM will stand and that will be the end of it.

   

So do you support leaders making promises to appease special interest groups, knowing the promise is a hollow gesture that was made merely to placate those involved?

   

Er, politics? You are having a hard time grasping this concept aren't you?

All politics is made of some compromise, some consensus and a bit of double-dealing. The Liberals were famous for hollow gestures. This is real politik.
Sorry to break the news to you!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next