Same-sex Marriage Debate is Officially Over in Canada

[Asher]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Do they get marriage with the marriage word? or the same with another name? (civil union?)

It's gay marriage, as in, marriage.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian
Incidently, Harper does not appear to have said "debate over for good." He said he has no plans to revisit the issue.

-Arrian

I am not sure what distinction you are making here. Harper does not have the power to prevent other people debating the issue either in public or bringing it before Parliament. Free speech and all that y'know. I don't think anyone can say "debate over for good". It'll probably be something like abortion in the States as an issue that gets raised from time to time

But as you point out, he said

I don't see reopening this question in the future," he told reporters who asked whether same-sex marriage would return to the table if the Conservatives won a majority government.

I don't really know what else can be expected. We know his views and even though they differ form mine, I can respect that he has held on to the less popular position.

[Arrian]

don't think anyone can say "debate over for good".

You got me, I was stating the obvious. The distinction I was drawing was merely between reality and how reporters often present it.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian


You got me, I was stating the obvious. The distinction I was drawing was merely between reality and how reporters often present it.

-Arrian

Ahh -- ok then. I never assume reporters get anything right. MY first up close taste was assisting in the defence at a sexual assault trial that made the news. The reporter was in and out of the courtroom so often and the report bore little resemblance to what happened (missing the bulk of the cross of the complainant will do that)

[Ben Kenobi]

That's the same thing, seeing as he's the leader of the only party who opposed it and that each time of the six times this was brought up in the house, the support for gay marriage got bigger.

6 times?

By my count this is only the third time. There has only been one binding motion that has ever seen the light of day in the House of Commons.

This wasn't even a binding motion all it called is for the government to 'revisit' SSM sometime in the future.

I'm surprised you haven't posted the content of the bill Asher. Is it because the motion really wasn't going to ban gay marriage.

[Asher]

The motion was to revisit it, which is clearly in the OP.

Since the only party to oppose it is not going to revisit it, it's a dead issue. Get over it.

From the OP article:

The vote yesterday, which fulfilled a Conservative election promise, marked the sixth time since 2003 that the House of Commons has decided in favour of same-sex marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

don't think anyone can say "debate over for good".

As in any free country, Canada will continue to debate and discuss contentious issues. Members of Parliament ought to be free to discuss the issues of the day, and that includes SSM.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As in any free country, Canada will continue to debate and discuss contentious issues. Members of Parliament ought to be free to discuss the issues of the day, and that includes SSM.

It's no longer an issue.

Canadians have spoken, the Canadian parliament have spoken, the Canadian supreme court has spoken...it's done.

You can talk about it all you want, but parliament is moving forward to real issues, not religious vitriol.

[Ben Kenobi]

The vote yesterday, which fulfilled a Conservative election promise, marked the sixth time since 2003 that the House of Commons has decided in favour of same-sex marriage.

Reporters make mistakes all the time Asher.

There have only been two bills that I can recall that have been put up since 2003, in the Federal House of Commons. Martin's bill, and now Harper's bill. Harper's bill failed and Martin's bill passed.

Since the only party to oppose it is not going to revisit it, it's a dead issue. Get over it.

Right. You won so everyone who lost has to stop talking about it.

Why didn't that happen in 1999 Asher? Is it because any contentious issue here in Canada is never really settled?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Right. You won so everyone who lost has to stop talking about it.

Never said that. In fact, I said:

You can talk about it all you want

We should clearly be focusing on education instead, as some of us need more help than others.

Why didn't that happen in 1999 Asher? Is it because any contentious issue here in Canada is never really settled?

Because people are becoming more liberal socially. It's an undeniable trend.

It's a right protected by the constitution in our constitutional monarchy. You can argue against it just like people can argue in favor of slavery or banning churches, if you want, but nothing will happen.

[Ben Kenobi]

Canadians have spoken, the Canadian parliament have spoken, the Canadian supreme court has spoken...it's done.

You can talk about it all you want, but parliament is moving forward to real issues, not religious vitriol.

So the only folks who are opposed to SSM are religious bigots?

Wow, glad to know that Asher.

Again, this is a free country. Just as those who favoured SSM were perfectly able to keep pushing for SSM until it passed, so are those who oppose SSM are entitled to challenge the bill.

It's a free country. Harper may not want the issue to be on the table, but it is so long as there are folks who do not want SSM here in Canada. That's the reality of the issue. It is contentious, irrespective of this deeply flawed bill.

There were some who were against SSM who abstained because of how flawed this bill was.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So the only folks who are opposed to SSM are religious bigots?

They're either religious bigots or homophobic latent homosexuals. Take your pick. Or, be both like lots of republicans are.

It's a free country. Harper may not want the issue to be on the table, but it is so long as there are folks who do not want SSM here in Canada. That's the reality of the issue. It is contentious, irrespective of this deeply flawed bill.

There were some who were against SSM who abstained because of how flawed this bill was.

How is the bill flawed? Because it preserves rights guaranteed by the constitution and that religious bigots don't agree with it?

Get over yourselves. Hardcore Christians are a diminishing minority. You are fading into irrelevance, and soon to be a persecuted minority as more and more people get fed up with your social totalitarianism.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because people are becoming more liberal socially. It's an undeniable trend.

Does this mean, that if in fact young people were more likely to be opposed to SSM, that we ought to overturn the bill?

I think you need to come up with some better arguments why this is a settled issue and why a free nation like Canada should not have more bills in the house of Canada in the future on this issue.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Does this mean, that if in fact young people were more likely to be opposed to SSM, that we ought to overturn the bill?

What?

There are several problems you do not comprehend:
1) This is a legal issue -- it's a rights issue, being granted to all people, gay or straight. Even if parliament banned gay marriage it'd be overturned in the supreme court as unconstitutional.
2) Even if it wasn't a legal issue, gay marriage is happening and people are becoming more cool with it. Parliament and Canadians as a whole are warming to it as they see the rhetoric from the religious right is nonsense.

I think you need to come up with some better arguments why this is a settled issue and why a free nation like Canada should not have more bills in the house of Canada in the future on this issue.

That's not my argument at all. You can continue to make the bills, but they'll never get anywhere and it'll further hurt the party who does such things because Canada wants none of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

They're either religious bigots or homophobic latent homosexuals. Take your pick. Or, be both like lots of republicans are.

Thank you Asher.

How is the bill flawed? Because it preserves rights guaranteed by the constitution and that religious bigots don't agree with it?

Where does the constitution speak of Marriage as a fundamental right to individuals? I don't even see it anywhere in the Charter let alone the constitution.

Marriage is not an individual right, like life, liberty and security of the person because it requires the consent of another person. Free speech and the like are all individual rights, marriage is not.

The bill is flawed because those who are against SSM chose to abstain as they felt that the bill forced them to support SSM whether they voted for or against the bill.

Get over yourselves. Hardcore Christians are a diminishing minority. You are fading into irrelevance, and soon to be a persecuted minority as more and more people get fed up with your social totalitarianism.

Thank you again Asher.

Jews, Muslims, and Christians of all stripes whether they be Catholics, mainline or evangelicals all are opposed to SSM.

So I don't see why this is Christian tolitarianism.

There are also many who don't mind giving gay people the rights to common law, but want it called something other then marriage, who are against this bill.