More thoughts on Stephen Harper and Same-Sex Marriage
I watched the boring debate last night and fortunately, I didn't have to wait long for a section on same-sex marriage. Here are some of my thoughts on Stephen Harper and SSM.
1. Have a look at Stephen Harper's language on same-sex relationships:
Our party position is to support the traditional definition while supporting similar rights and benefits for all other equivalent relationships.What exactly does similar mean? Exactly the same? Somewhat different? I would certainly like to have this clarified. Even before SSM passed in the House of Commons, gay people had all the sames rights and benefits as straght people except for one: Timing. All of the court cases on SSM were based on timing - the fact that straght people derive the benefits of marriage immediately after marrying. Gays had to wait. So, the court cases were fought over timing, more than anything else. So, Stephen Harper's statement is somewhat curious.
I would also like to ask Stephen Harper whether similar rights and benefits extends to having gay couples adopt children.
2. I firmly believe that there is no way for SSM to be overturned except via the notwithstanding clause. The reason is simple: Sexual orientation is a protected class under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This means that gay people, under the Charter, CANNOT be deprived of any of the same rights as straight people. I actually beieve that Parliament, and not the Courts, must make law. However, we must recognize that if Parliament votes to take away SSM, it clashes with the Charter, and the Courts will overrule Parliament.
3. I don't understand the Conservative insistence that we have a free vote on SSM. The plain fact of the matter is that they CANNOT force the other parties to vote freely on this issue. So, if the Conservatives win the election, and there is yet another vote on SSM, it seems likely that Jack Layton will tell his MPs to support SSM, and Paul Martin will probably have his front bench support SSM as well. Are we to have a continuing series of votes on SSM because the vote wasn't 100% totally free???
4. Stephen Harper has said that if SSM is overturned, he would still recognize existing Same-Sex couples. This would mean we would have three clases of people - straight married couples, gay married couples grandfathered from the first passage of SSM, and gay civil unions. Does anybody really believe the Courts would support the existence of three different classes of 'marriage'???
5. Lastly, I doubt that the Conservatives will get a majority. That being the case, it is highly unlikely that the votes are there to overturn SSM.
posted by GayandRight @ 12:23 PM
5 Comments:
From what I understand, even if Harper won every single seat in the country, he probably wouldn't be able to revoke SSM. Support therefor is very much divided on Urban/rural, young/old lines. Were we to add most of Harper's Ontario candidates, especially those in the Ottawa and Toronto areas, we'd find a lot of libertarian-types. Were we to include Quebec... well, there'd be no chance of SSM failing.
(Incidentally, working on some boards out here in BC, why is it that most all the people in favour of SSM are from the Canadian Alliance wing of the party? All the former PC members couldn't stand the idea!)
What complicates this issue is that in fact it is not simply the Alliance that supports more discussion. Close to 40 of Martin's own MP's voted against the motion regarding same sex marriage. Martin didn't allow his Cabinet to vote against the motion, so we don't know how many more. Also 1 NDP MP voted against as did 5 Bloc MPs.
I don't know why this is a political hot button, but it does go through all of the Parties, not just the Conservatives.
Maybe if Martin hadn't cut short the debate and he'd followed proper process, the outcome would have been the same, but more people would accept it as a result of democracy rather than an unresolved issue?
Whether you agree or disagree with the traditional definition of marriage, it should be important that proper democratic process is followed for any issue in Parliament. I found this morning's poll in the Toronto Sun interesting..readership mostly urban/Toronto...so far, results demonstrate a desire for democracy (regardless of the outcome): Should there be a free vote in the House on the same-sex marriage issue?
torontosun.com
Yes 78%
No 22%
Total Votes for this Question: 1379
Now doesn't this seem hypoGritical? Or is it simply arrogant, and Mr. Martin is letting his MP's know that they really don't count...In today's National Post, Mr. Martin now says: "Liberal candidates are entitled to run in this election even if they want to deny Charter rights to gays and lesbians seeking same-sex marriage." "The issue is not 'What does an individual MP say?' An individual MP is entitled to his or her vision."
I think Harper will try and put in a civil marriage plan is in Britain where they are EXACTLY the same things, the only difference being man-woman is called marriage, and man-man, woman-woman is called something else, like "Civil partnership". This being seen to be enough to please social conservatives, but if all rights are the same except for the name it may please the Courts.
Failing that, there is always the option of doing what they do in France and saying government has no authority to deem what is marraige, it has always been a private and or religous definition, and the government can only recognize civil marriages for tax, will, estates, etc purposes. So everyone gets a civil marriage. In which case all is equal again.
See law professor F. DeCoste from the University of Alberta for more on the latter topic of government having no legal right to define marriage whatsoever.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home