How would you vote on the Canadian Alliance motion?

[cinch]

It really doesn't matter what the internet vote says, nor does it really matter what the majority of the Canadian people say, period. It's a Charter issue; a matter of freedom, and as such, was entirely under the jursidiction of the courts.

It's good to see that it got through the legislature, though, even if the margin was far, far too narrow for a supposedly progressive country.

Ben:

Even after Mr. Chretien called for his party to vote along party lines. Let's see the actual legislation pass now.

When exactly did Mr. Chretien call for party discipline? Seems kinda weird, considering he let them have a free vote...

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


First, Why 'to the exclusion of all others?' If we approve of homosexual marriages, why not polygamy?

Secondly, Not helpful to the churches who oppose gay marriage. They will likely have tax exemptions cut off if they refuse to marry a couple. We see this in the Marc Hall case, and I see further precedents down the line.

Thirdly, we have a low birthrate. This will drop the birthrate further.

Fourth, immigration from other countries of people who cannot get married in their home countries, coming to Canada just to get married.

Fifth, what's going to happen with families? An affirmation of marriage between a man and a woman would finally show that a traditional family is something to be valued.

1. Approve polygamy. As long as it's consensual, I say go for it.

2. I'd like to see cold, hard evidence that this is what's going to happen, please.

3. That is scientificially unsound reasoning, there.

4. That makes no sense. Anyone with enough money to MOVE here (not just visit) just to get married is not likely to be a drain on the economy. Are all gay people extremely poor all of a sudden?

5. That's a harshly biased opinion, and really has no place within a discussion of Chartered rights & freedoms.

Tradition: Buck it!

[Ben Kenobi]

First question, and why this is a victory:

Mr. Chretien announced yesterday that he would impose party discipline. With 54, more than 1/3 ignoring his request, what does this mean for the Federal Liberals?

http://www.canada.com/national/features/samesexmarriage/story.html?id=2D582397-4666-47A1-A1BD-DCC8ED4C5242

OTTAWA - On the eve of a vote on gay marriage, Prime Minister Jean Chretien warned reluctant Liberals a failure to side with the government effectively means they will be authorizing Parliament to overrule the Charter of Rights.


Amid intense lobbying Monday on both sides of the issue, the federal cabinet agreed to a unified front against a Canadian Alliance motion that "marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

The non-binding vote, which takes place in the House of Commons today after a summer of heated debate off Parliament Hill, is an early test of a divisive government bill that would make Canada only the third country in the world to allow gays and lesbians to legally wed.

MPs will be permitted to vote with their conscience on the motion instead of along party lines and the results are expected to be close.

Chretien, who is accused of putting his government in a potentially embarrassing situation by allowing a free vote that could fail, predicted Liberals will reject the motion because it sanctions Parliament's use of the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution.

The motion asserts Parliament "take all necessary steps" to preserve the definition of marriage.

The notwithstanding clause, which has never been used in the House of Commons, allows politicians to overrule court decisions on the Charter of Rights.

"It is something that we, promoters of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, never use, the notwithstanding clause," Chretien said after meeting with his cabinet.

The clause is unpopular in Liberal circles because it is viewed as a rejection of the charter, which the party brought in 21 years ago when Chretien was justice minister.

Chretien, however, voted in favour of the exact motion four years ago when it was introduced by the Alliance, as did most Liberal MPs, including Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. The 1999 vote against gay marriage passed easily by a margin of 216-55. Some MPs say they will not heed Chretien's warning to switch their votes.

"Nothing has happened to make me change my mind," said Liberal backbencher Julian Reed, of the southern Ontario constituency of Halton.

Reed said he is voting based on "my own personal conviction," but he noted he has received 500 letters from constituents against gay marriage, and only five letters in support.

Alliance House Leader John Reynolds said he's perplexed about why the federal cabinet is warning Liberals against the notwithstanding clause, when the Liberal party widely supported its use in the 1999 motion.

"The vote was very significant in favour of the motion, so I don't know why people would change their mind now." Many Liberals who will oppose the Alliance motion say they have been swayed by the courts in the three provinces -- British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec -- that have struck down the federal ban on gay marriage as a violation of the equality guarantees in the Charter of Rights.

Outside the Commons, there was fierce lobbying on Parliament Hill Monday, with supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage holding duelling news conferences.

Robbie Barnett-Kemper, an 11-year-old Toronto boy whose lesbian parents married in June, presented MPs with a 20,000-name petition supporting gay marriage, compiled by the group Canadians for Equal Marriage.

The 63 Canadian Alliance MPs are all expected to vote for their motion. They will be backed by the majority of 15 Tories. The 14-member NDP and 34 Bloc Quebecois MPs are expected to oppose the motion. Its fate, therefore, hinges on the 170 Liberal MPs.

Liberal caucus chairman Stan Keyes said he expects many Liberals who oppose gay marriage will still reject the "undemocratic and irresponsible" motion because it forces a vote now instead of waiting for the federal bill.

The bill has been sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for a non-binding legal opinion on whether it passes constitutional muster. It is not expected to be introduced until at least the fall of 2004, after Chretien leaves office.

"The MPs recognize that the Alliance party is playing a game, that the Alliance party is trying to discredit the government of Canada," said Keyes. "They know the legislation is pending, they know it's at the Supreme Court, they know that it's a gut-wrenching issue for Canadians coast to coast."

Chretien had considered holding a vote on his bill this fall in response to pressure from many Liberal MPs, including Keyes.

But Chretien said Monday the Alliance motion will suffice for now. "Some wanted to have an early vote and the Alliance provided us with an early vote," he said.

[David Floyd]

Ben,

Honest question. How much of your opposition to gay marriage rests on the Bible and Christianity?

[notyoueither]

Mr. Chretien announced yesterday that he would impose party discipline. With 54, more than 1/3 ignoring his request, what does this mean for the Federal Liberals?

MPs will be permitted to vote with their conscience on the motion instead of along party lines and the results are expected to be close.

Chretien, who is accused of putting his government in a potentially embarrassing situation by allowing a free vote that could fail, predicted Liberals will reject the motion because it sanctions Parliament's use of the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution.

What?

[Ben Kenobi]

cinch:

It really doesn't matter what the internet vote says, nor does it really matter what the majority of the Canadian people say, period. It's a Charter issue; a matter of freedom, and as such, was entirely under the jursidiction of the courts.

Hardly.

Show me where the charter endorses gay marriage, please.

The legislature has the power to make the laws, hence the courts can only interpret the laws.

1. Approve polygamy. As long as it's consensual, I say go for it.

Not just polygamy, any combination of any number of people, male or female would then qualify as a 'marriage' under your argument. If you take one piece out of the definition of marriage, than why keep the rest?

2. I'd like to see cold, hard evidence that this is what's going to happen, please.

You want charter evidence? Everytime there has been a conflict between section 3 and section 15, section 15 has won out. Religious freedom counts for very little to our supreme court.

3. That is scientificially unsound reasoning, there.

Why?

4. Anyone with enough money to MOVE here (not just visit)

Precisely my point. They come to visit, get married, and then leave. Is this really the intent of this legislation?

5. That's a harshly biased opinion, and really has no place within a discussion of Chartered rights & freedoms.

Tradition: Buck it!

Two points, there is no charter justification for gay marriage, even under equality rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

How much of your opposition to gay marriage rests on the Bible and Christianity?

Some on the bible, the rest on personal experience, what I have seen, and what I have read regarding homosexuality.

It is not a healthy lifestyle; an endorsement here will not help matters.

If it helps, it's not just Christians who oppose gay marriage here in Canada. Jews, muslims, most East Indians do so as well, on the grounds that this is either incredibly offensive, or has no precedence in their culture.

[David Floyd]

Some on the bible

So you don't think there is a free will argument to be made here? Stipulate homosexuality is wrong. The Bible and God still allow for free will - why should the government get in the way of what appears to be a God-given right?

It is not a healthy lifestyle

Neither is promiscuous heterosexual sex with questionable partners - wanna make THAT illegal too?

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE

However, the fact that something bad might happen, is no reason to continue to deny rights to others.

Tell me why this has to do with rights. Are homosexuals being repressed, discriminated against in Canadian society?

Affirmation of some over the denial of others is not a positive thing, is it?

Again, what are we denying from gay people, since they can have civil unions?

[cinch]

Ben:

Not just polygamy, any combination of any number of people, male or female would then qualify as a 'marriage' under your argument. If you take one piece out of the definition of marriage, than why keep the rest?

Anyone who professes romantic/sexual love for one another, and wishes to be legally married to solidify that relationship should be allowed.

Of course, if someone tries to take advantage of this, and try to have some 43-way marriage or somesuch, just for kicks, then measures would have to be taken, but there will always be extreme cases in every aspect of legislation, so it's really besides the point.

You want charter evidence? Everytime there has been a conflict between section 3 and section 15, section 15 has won out. Religious freedom counts for very little to our supreme court.

Well, you're coming off a little paranoid here. You can't see into the future, and as NYE said, no one would stand for it if churches were FORCED to marry gays.

Why?

Because it makes NO SENSE. Just look at what Asher & NYE posted. Gays can now get married. Heterosexuals can still love as often and as freely as before. No restrictions are being placed on heterosexuality. Heck, marriage may even motivate more gays to adopt.

Why do you want orphans to suffer?

(See how easy it is to make insane extrapolations???)

Precisely my point. They come to visit, get married, and then leave. Is this really the intent of this legislation?

Tourism = $$$.

[David Floyd]

Again, what are we denying from gay people, since they can have civil unions?

This is sorta like "separate but equal", isn't it? Under this doctrine, blacks and whites had separate schools, mandated by law, that were supposedly equal. Sounds nice until you get to the reality.

Same thing here. Everyone knows civil unions aren't the same as a marriage - they are simply a way of denying gays the right to raise a family together and enjoy the same legal status of a heterosexual couple.

[notyoueither]

It is not a healthy lifestyle

Exactly what about it is unhealthy?

Do gays have a shorter lifespan on average?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Bible and God still allow for free will - why should the government get in the way of what appears to be a God-given right?

DFloyd:

Is there a right to marry? The government has no right to change the definition of marriage, since marriage does not fall under their jurisdiction.

However, the courts have overstepped their mandate, hence the need for correction.

Neither is promiscuous heterosexual sex with questionable partners - wanna make THAT illegal too?

Neither do we affirm promiscuity.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
NYE

Tell me why this has to do with rights. Are homosexuals being repressed, discriminated against in Canadian society?

Again, what are we denying from gay people, since they can have civil unions?

Well yes, as a matter of fact. Gays, and those small churches that want to marry them, are having their rights to enjoy the same rights as 'normal' people suppressed.

As for what we deny gay people, since they would still have civil unions... why don't we go Soviet, and ban the sacrament of marriage for everyone? Would you feel denied if that were the case?

[David Floyd]

Is there a right to marry?

Legally speaking, marriage is simply a contract, so yes, you have a right to contract freely with other adults.

The government has no right to change the definition of marriage, since marriage does not fall under their jurisdiction.

Of course not. Given that marriage is simply a contract as far as the government is concerned, then the parties to the contract set the definitions that are outside the purview of the government (that is, they can't redefine "murder", because murder is a crime within the government's purview).

Neither do we affirm promiscuity.

But you allow it.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Neither is promiscuous heterosexual sex with questionable partners - wanna make THAT illegal too?"

The issue of gay marriage is that goes beyond toleration of homosexual behavior to an endorsement thereof that. Many people don't want the government doing that.

Personally, I think the government should back out of the marriage realm. On one hand, it is not good to discriminate against a segment of the population. On the other, it should not take sides in a heated moral debate by affirming(or de-affirming) this type of behavior; which it would be doing were it to legalize gay marriage. I think the best soution is to get the government out of the question.