Canada shelves Gay marriage legislation.

[Ben Kenobi]

OTTAWA -- The federal government is altering its request to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the contentious issue of gay marriage, a move that will likely delay a high court hearing until after an expected spring election.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler announced Wednesday that he wants the court to clarify "whether the opposite-sex requirement is, with regard to the common-law definition of marriage, compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom."

Cotler said the move does not mark a shift in the government's position.

"Our support for same-sex marriage has not changed," he said, but added that "we are aware that there is division in this country."

Former prime minister Jean Chretien chose not to appeal an Ontario court ruling last year that struck down the traditional definition of marriage as an infringement of the rights of gays and lesbians.

Instead, Chretien announced that his government would draft legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, but would hold off introducing it in the House of Commons until the Supreme Court had ruled on its constitutionality.

Critics complained the government was jumping the gun. They maintained it should have asked the country's highest court to rule first on whether traditional marriage - or failing that, civil union - met constitutional requirements.

The issue has deeply divided the Liberal caucus. Martin and Cotler have been under intense pressure from backbench MPs who oppose same-sex marriage to buy some time by modifying the court reference.

The change to the reference raises procedural issues that make it difficult for the court to stick to its currently scheduled hearing date of April 16 for oral arguments from interested parties.

Martin is widely expected to call a federal election in April, a strategy that would have put the original hearing date in the middle of the campaign.


.................................................. ....................................

So if Martin is so confident in the support of his party, why wait until after the election? Why does he continue to delay the right of the people to have a say on this issue?

[cinch]

Eh, it's only a delay until after the election so that Martin won't have to defend gay marriage too much to the Right-leaning portion of the population.

If (who am I kidding? When...) he's re-elected, I expect him to return to form, and get the legislative engine running again.

I'm not happy about the delay, and I don't particularly enjoy seeing such obvious pandering for votes, but I can accept it, knowing that in the end, the proper measures will be introduced.

[Ben Kenobi]

that Martin won't have to defend gay marriage too much to the Right-leaning portion of the population.

He's going to get hammered from both sides for this waffle. Why does he think a delay will just make the issue go away?

[Ramo]

So if Martin is so confident in the support of his party, why wait until after the election? Why does he continue to delay the right of the people to have a say on this issue?

Why do you want to take away the liberties of gay people so badly?

[cinch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


He's going to get hammered from both sides for this waffle. Why does he think a delay will just make the issue go away?

It's not that it'll go away... it's just that it will be less of an issue during election time if the gay marriage bill is still a 'future prospect' (of sorts) as opposed to legislation that is actually being passed at that very moment.

This way, Martin might even be able to say that he wanted to "gauge public approval" some more, or any other number of do-nothing buzzwords to appease the middlin's.

The point is: it'll be easier for him to appease the anti-gays this way, and once he does that and is re-elected, he can damn well do whatever he wants.

As for both sides nailing him for waffling: Sure, I fully expect the NDP to go after Pauly-boy, but Layton's on a tear in that department, so I don't think Martin has much to lose. Most Big-L Liberal folk will see this as the wise political move that it is, I think, rather than jump on Their Man for 'waffling'.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[korn469]

Why do you want to take away the liberties of gay people so badly?

cause he has a fetish about people being in a closet

now if only he realized it was a metaphor

[Ben Kenobi]

The point is: it'll be easier for him to appease the anti-gays this way,

Sure seems to be pacifying 'em. Yup. Seems very patronising. We know what's best for you better than you do.

Secondly, it's risky. The election outcome, even if the Liberals win, gambles on the support for the new conservative party.

Let the people vote, and show that your government is confident in supporting gay marriage. A waffle like this just indicates that they know they do not have the support in Parliament to pass the bill under the current regime.

[Asher]

I'm confused what the hell the thread title has to do with this thread.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure seems to be pacifying 'em. Yup. Seems very patronising. We know what's best for you better than you do.

That's absolutely correct, providing you're speaking about how the religious people are doing that by codifying their morality into law by trying to outlaw gay marriage, for example.

[JohnT]

I gotta agree with Kenobi on this one: Go with the voters and get it over with.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do you want to take away the liberties of gay people so badly?

Ramo:

I don't agree with the ruling by the Supreme court, and right now, these people have been disenfranchised. They will continue to be disenfranchised, so long as Parliament puts off the vote on the bill.

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnT
I gotta agree with Kenobi on this one: Go with the voters and get it over with.

The issue is judicial: it's one of those cases where the rights of the minority must be preserved even in the face of rule of majority.

We're waiting on the Supreme Court to rule if it meets constitutional requirements or not, what's the big deal? Why push it back? Lamers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ramo:

I don't agree with the ruling by the Supreme court, and right now, these people have been disenfranchised. They will continue to be disenfranchised, so long as Parliament puts off the vote on the bill.

Didn't answer the question, Ace.

Why do you care so much if two consenting people of the same gender marry?

You say it somehow devalues marriage, but the very notion is nonsensical and you've never defended it adequately. Which, to me, puts you in a very bad position.

Your argument basically boils down to forcing your religious beliefs on others, as you've never been able to prove otherwise.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's absolutely correct, providing you're speaking about how the religious people are doing that by codifying their morality into law by trying to outlaw gay marriage,

Asher:

Not the issue here. They have yet to ratify gay marriage in parliament, and until they do so, it can hardly be considered outlawing gay marriage.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher:

Not the issue here. They have yet to ratify gay marriage in parliament, and until they do so, it can hardly be considered outlawing gay marriage.

It was just a perfect description of the religious right's hypocrisy, you'll forgive me for isolating it for a good laugh at the stupidity of it all. It's even more funny when they're not bright enough to see their own hypocrisy. God bless you!