Canadian Gay Marriage Thread

[Stunt]

As many of you may know, gay marriage is a touchy subject these days and a solution is needed as the population is heavily polarized.

Currently in canada most provinces have legalized the practice, but alberta, new brunswick, pei and territories have been against such legislation.

Now here is a background of the situation in Canada. The provinces have or have not allowed the legislation but...

"The status of gay marriages created in these provinces exist in somewhat of an interim legal capacity. According to the Constitution of Canada, the definition of marriage is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government?this interpretation was upheld by a December 9, 2004 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada."

Now for THE ARTICLE

During the most recent election the Prime Minister said he would allow a free vote in the house of commons to decide the fate of this proposed idea of Gay Marriage.

Here's some highlights:

Prime Minister Paul Martin says the issue of same-sex marriage is so important to him, he'd be willing to call an election -- if he has to.

Martin went on to say that, if elected, Harper's Conservatives "would strip away the rights of individuals" and minorities.

Back in Canada, Harper said all the tough talk is actually directed at Martin's own MPs, threatening an election so they'll vote for the marriage bill. But Harper said if Martin wants an election, he's ready.

Harper wants to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, while protecting the rights of same-sex couples by creating a new kind of civil union.

A non-confidence vote in the house of commons against the governing party will automatically cause a snap election. The latest federal government was elected in late June.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Maybe those whose support gay marriage, as I do, need to recognize that society as whole in most places around the world are simply not ready yet to accept gay unions concecrated by a government? If the relatively liberal Canada is not ready for it, what does that say about other places?

Face it folks. This tea needs some time to steep. It's weak right now. It's a slow process too, but one whose flavor has improved over time and will improve further. Eventually the acceptance will happen. We may even see it in our lifetimes.

But that time is not now.

Patience.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Knowing next to nothing about Canadian politics I would have expected much more leniency on the issue.

 

[Jassi]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Knowing next to nothing about Canadian politics I would have expected much more leniency on the issue.

Canada has its fair share of thick headed people too, on both sides unfortunately. I agree with TastesLikeChicken.

 

[Schrodinger]

Why not agree to Harper's proposition? Its a step in the right direction. Give them a government recognized union with benefits to the "spouse"

Say no and stomp your feet you will still be at the 50 yard line.

Take it and run with it for a few years until people get used to the idea. Then, if you feel there is such a need that you want hetero and homo marriages to have the same name on a piece of paper by the government--try and garner support for it.

I don't know why there is an outright rejection of Harper's proposal, though.

It just makes more sense to go this route....Harper supporters will ally with the idea and you are going in the right direction. Take the offer on the table. Or act like a 5 year old playing academic ideology and you will be stuck at the same place sucking on your thumb.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Why not agree to Harper's proposition? Its a step in the right direction. Give them a government recognized union with benefits to the "spouse"

Say no and stomp your feet you will still be at the 50 yard line.

Take it and run with it for a few years until people get used to the idea. Then, if you feel there is such a need that you want hetero and homo marriages to have the same name on a piece of paper by the government--try and garner support for it.

I don't know why there is an outright rejection of Harper's proposal, though.

It just makes more sense to go this route....Harper supporters will ally with the idea and you are going in the right direction. Act like a 5 year old playing academic ideology and you will be stuck at the same place sucking on your thumb.

I agree that Harper has a stronger position to respect people on both sides...until people can accept gay marriage...which i think is inevitable.

But...

Harper needs to get votes across party lines.
Currently:
LIB 135 (martin)
CON 99 (harper)
BQ 54
NDP 19
NA 1

Either side needs a majority of 155 votes.
an anti-gay marriage vote causes destruction of parliament, pro-gay marriage vote is what martin wants.

Polls

Twenty per cent of Canadians say their next federal vote could be swayed by their MP's stance on gay marriage.

Overall, the poll suggests, a slight majority of decided Canadians support gay marriage with 39 per cent in favour and 37 per cent opposed.

In Atlantic Canada, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, about half of respondents were against same-sex weddings and about 30 per cent in favour. The rest were undecided or unwilling to say.

Support for gay marriage is strongest in Quebec, B.C. and Ontario - a traditional bastion of Liberal support - with more than 40 per cent of decided respondents in favour of the idea. Those opposed hovered between 29 and 35 per cent.

 

[Colt45]

They both suck.

Also, I don't think the average canadian gives a crap about gay marriage, certainly not enough to sway a vote.

 

[desy]

Colt
People your age don't give a crap
Talk to your grandma or some older aunts and uncles, lots of the elderly do care and they happen to vote.
Harper has it right, the gov't should give a union with all the legalities that it implies and leave the term 'marriage' which is really what all the fighting is about, to churches and respect their right to 'marry' somebody or not.

 

[Stunt]

It's a difficult situation to overcome...the provinces have already made their decisions through the courts...but now the feds have to make the final choice as ruled by the supreme court.

I'd rather a referendum or a comprimise as Harper is suggesting for the time being.
Although refferendums are expensive.

Hopefully the MPs vote on constituents and not along party lines.

 

[Stunt]

**UPDATE**
I messaged the conservative party of canada tonight.
Here is the message i wrote. Please critique, hopefully they respond.

I am a fiscal conservative concerned with this party's stance on the same-sex marriage bill. I am an advocate of gay rights but an election over such small differences is ridiculous. I am urging the Conservative party to make a comprimise to satisfy both gays and religious beliefs. By implementing unions we again create an inequality and the bikkering continues. If the Conservative party would like to step up as a national party and shed its image of losing its progressive roots, i suggest the following solution. Take marriage completely out of government. Do not have an inequality and separate church and state (a fundamental conservative belief). Allow all couples to register as a union and reserve "marriage" as a religious ceremony not to be confused with the state recognized union. Thank you for reading. Don't turn your back on progressive conservatives and the youth with this bill.

 

[Stunt]

Update

A new internal Conservative Party national poll shows 42% of Canadians support Stephen Harper's position on preserving the traditional definition of marriage while allowing civil unions for gay couples, Sun Media has learned.

The poll also shows that 35% of Canadians back Prime Minister Paul Martin's position that the definition of marriage should include same-sex couples.

The poll also found the Liberals at 31% support nationally, with the Conservatives at 28%, the NDP with 18% and the Green Party at 4%.

 

[Stunt]

I subscribe to a polling service and these are the latest numbers:

Question - Some people think that same-sex couples should be allowed to be
legally married and be recognized like couples made up of a man and a
woman. Other people think that only marriages between a man and woman
should be legally recognized. Which of these two opinions, if either, best
reflects your views?
46% Marriage only a man and a woman
45% Allow same-sex couples to marry
5% Neither
4% Unsure

Question - If your local Member of Parliament had views different from your
own on the issue of same-sex marriages, would you vote against your federal
MP for that reason?
53% Would not vote against MP
42% Would vote against MP
5% Undecided

Question - Thinking of the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage should your
Member of Parliament vote based on??[ROTATE]
54% The views in his/her riding
22% His/her personal views
16% His/her official party position
8% Undecided

 

[Whaspe]

Liked your idea Stunt so I emailed my MP (a conservative) with a similar message.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Liked your idea Stunt so I emailed my MP (a conservative) with a similar message.

:thumbsup:

thx man...still no response, if you get one, feel free to post response here.

im afraid they will just give the standard: "this is our stance on gay marriage...blah blah"

 

[Whaspe]

If the removal of marraige from government responsibility was introduced do you have any stats of support for that? I would take a guess that you would get Conservatives and Bloc siding with such an issue, not to mention cross over from Liberals. In the end, while I support the idea of referendums I think there isn't interest enough in the political system for it to be taken seriously and besides what if it was overturned (allowing gay marraige) do you think the issue would go away?

 

[3chordcharlie]

I have some significant reservations with 'passing the buck' on marriage, as I don't accept that it is a 'religious' institution. I think such a solution invalidates thousands (and maybe millions) of marriages between people who very much enjoy being married, and are not religious.

The 'institution' of marriage has roots outside religion, and 'believers' who are not religious - why should it be left up to churches/mosques/temples/etc?

I don't support coercing these institutions to perform any marriage they don't agree with though; that would certainly be over the line.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
If the removal of marraige from government responsibility was introduced do you have any stats of support for that? I would take a guess that you would get Conservatives and Bloc siding with such an issue, not to mention cross over from Liberals. In the end, while I support the idea of referendums I think there isn't interest enough in the political system for it to be taken seriously and besides what if it was overturned (allowing gay marraige) do you think the issue would go away?

The thing is, the government aka governing party (liberals) is proposing the bill as is, it's been waiting in the wings for quite some time. There is no leeway at all in the bill. It is a full out approval of gay marriage in the government of canada.

If the bill gets voted down in the house, parliament is effectively over, a new election must be called. I don't know all the logistics involved in the situation but if this is voted down and i think it has a good chance of. The reason being is that all other provinces except pei, nb and alberta have allowed gay marriage until the bill is passed. Unfortunately marriage is a federal jurisdiction and the courts have left it to the house of commons. Therefore the vote isn't allowing marriage accross the country, but forcing it on alberta, pei and nb where there is vast amounts of support against such legislation. Even the rest of the country is heavily divided, look at the polls i've posted above. Could go either way.

I believe there will be an election over this in the next year. If harper hopes to make gains, he will have to publicly advocate gay rights. Not how sacred marriage is. If he can propose something that will appeal to the moderates, and there are a lot on this issue, he will do very well as the ndp and liberals will split the full out pro gay marriage vote.
Again, only 53% would actually vote against their MP...so this issue won't change the landscape too much, but an election is a serious possibilty.

And no the issue will never go away the way the gov't is handling it. You cannot pick sides on issues where the country is divided down the middle. They must comprimise, i think the conservatives have the opportunity to do so. They are the only ones respecting religious beliefs. It's just a matter of showing they care for gay rights. It is my gut instinct that they do care as they are advocating civil unions, so they just have to tweak their legislation to appeal to more than the religious right.

All comes down to politics...i hope this plays out well and doesnt get dirty.

 

[3chordcharlie]

53% who would change their vote based on one issue - and that issue isn't taxes? That's a pretty big deal if you ask me.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have some significant reservations with 'passing the buck' on marriage, as I don't accept that it is a 'religious' institution. I think such a solution invalidates thousands (and maybe millions) of marriages between people who very much enjoy being married, and are not religious.

The 'institution' of marriage has roots outside religion, and 'believers' who are not religious - why should it be left up to churches/mosques/temples/etc?

I don't support coercing these institutions to perform any marriage they don't agree with though; that would certainly be over the line.

Exactly, marriage in not religious anymore.
it can be done by judges etc etc. Divorce rates are through the roof. There is little sacred about marriage at this point. (in gov't that is)

But i do respect religion and i dont feel right taking a sacred ceremony and not allowing the church have a say in the matter.

 

[Whaspe]

The point is that the government only needs civil unions for tax purposes. They way in which anyone went about getting "married" would stay the same except that now it is called a union. Those wishing to get married can do so through whatever organization they see fit. This would apply to homosexuals also as there are currently churches and organizations that approve of gay marraige. And I'm sure a poll would show most people thinking marraige has religious ties/connotations.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
53% who would change their vote based on one issue - and that issue isn't taxes? That's a pretty big deal if you ask me.

53% would change their party affiliation, of course that goes both ways.
i know PC's that would go martin for gay marriage and i know liberals that would go conservative on the same issue.

I was merely pointing out that the political landscape will not change all that much.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have some significant reservations with 'passing the buck' on marriage, as I don't accept that it is a 'religious' institution. I think such a solution invalidates thousands (and maybe millions) of marriages between people who very much enjoy being married, and are not religious.

The 'institution' of marriage has roots outside religion, and 'believers' who are not religious - why should it be left up to churches/mosques/temples/etc?

I don't support coercing these institutions to perform any marriage they don't agree with though; that would certainly be over the line.

Exactly, marriage in not religious anymore.
it can be done by judges etc etc. Divorce rates are through the roof. There is little sacred about marriage at this point. (in gov't that is)

But i do respect religion and i dont feel right taking a sacred ceremony and not allowing the church have a say in the matter.

But I wouldn't feel right renaming marriage civil union, and preventing myself from being allowed to marry - marriage has never been exclusively religious, why should it be so now?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have some significant reservations with 'passing the buck' on marriage, as I don't accept that it is a 'religious' institution. I think such a solution invalidates thousands (and maybe millions) of marriages between people who very much enjoy being married, and are not religious.

The 'institution' of marriage has roots outside religion, and 'believers' who are not religious - why should it be left up to churches/mosques/temples/etc?

I don't support coercing these institutions to perform any marriage they don't agree with though; that would certainly be over the line.

Exactly, marriage in not religious anymore.
it can be done by judges etc etc. Divorce rates are through the roof. There is little sacred about marriage at this point. (in gov't that is)

But i do respect religion and i dont feel right taking a sacred ceremony and not allowing the church have a say in the matter.

But I wouldn't feel right renaming marriage civil union, and preventing myself from being allowed to marry - marriage has never been exclusively religious, why should it be so now?

You don't think it is religious?...interesting.
From the gov'ts point of view it is not...but on your own?

I mean you make vows to god, etc.
It is inherently religious and i think that is how most feel about it.

I couldn't care if the gov't calls me married or in a union, the difference is negligible.
Trying to uphold religious rights and gay rights in one shot

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt
You don't think it is religious?...interesting.
From the gov'ts point of view it is not...but on your own?

I mean you make vows to god, etc.
It is inherently religious and i think that is how most feel about it.

I couldn't care if the gov't calls me married or in a union, the difference is negligible.
Trying to uphold religious rights and gay rights in one shot

Religious wedding ceremonies and wedding ceremonies in general are not the same thing.

I agree - the rights of religions need to be respected; I would never support forcing a church to perform a gay marriage - or, for that matter, any other marriage they did not agree with.

My take on 'civil unions' is that it's rooted for most advocates in a strong desire to keep homosexuals away from marriage, no matter the cost.

I don't personally wish to be collateral damage in such a tactic though.

 

[Stunt]

See, i think of civil unions as a new way to show the church and gays that the word marriage has been misused in the government, and can be used as a term for the state to recognize all couples no matter the sexual orientation.

I do however agree that it is being used to keep gays away from marriage...but the other side of the coin is: it is being used to protect religious freedoms.

If you look at my above posts, i am a huge advocate of equal rights. I think the only way it can be done is taking marriage out of government entirely. Any other solution creates problems with both sides of the issue.
Once marriage is not included in state affairs, it would then revert back to the way it was intended, a religious union of two beings with the blessings of god and the church.