SSM, now everywhere in Canada!
As many of you may have heard, it will soon be legal for same sex couples to wed in all provinces of Canada with the passing of Bill C-38. It has been over 2 years in the works and after countless (sometimes nasty) debates, the bill will become law as determined by the people of the country and not by the courts. I fully support the equality of same-sex couples and I congratulate them for their victory in bringing their minority rights up to par with those of heterosexual couples. This has been a very divisive issue as the country is split down the middle on the issue, as well as the political parties.
I want to start off by applauding the Conservative members who voted for gay marriage, as well as the three dozen Liberal MPs, Bloc and NDP members who voted against gay marriage. It is refreshing to see members going against the party line, especially in a democracy where the Courts ruled a free vote to define the term. The actions by the Liberals and NDP were quite sad, while I support equal rights for all people, I do not feel our democracy needs to be underminded by strongarming MPs to vote a certain way in a "free" vote. Layton and Martin both strongarmed their members into voting for the bill causing liberal backbenchers, one cabinet minister, and an NDP member to either leave the party or demote themselves due to this "free" vote.
The big winner in this equation in my opinion is Alberta where after they heard the ruling decided to consider getting out of the business of issuing marriage lisences to all people. This is the solution i've been looking for all along, it is a libertarian ideal and will be the ONLY way to keep the two sides happy. It's too bad no political party proposed this as an option. Congrats to Albertans for maintaining equality and getting the state out of our bedrooms. I cannot say the same for any of our political parties in Ottawa.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, June 29 at 2:30 p.m..
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Posted by
"getting the state out of our bedrooms"
Kind of a bastardization of Trudeau philosophy, in my opinion.
And the Albertans reaction seems more hate-filled than fair and balanced, really, if you consider the spirit with which they're undertaking those measures.
Posted by
I don't care if Trudeau pointed that out originally, it's common sense and I have no problem advocating it.
While Albertans may have the wrong motivation in doing this, they have held equality paramount, and I've encouraged all of Canada on many occasions to adopt this sort of model. You have to admit, the alternatives Klien was thinking of were far worse than this.
Canada is more or less ok with same-sex marriage, I more of less propose this solution for the US where equality will be a long fought battle. Hopefully politicians are taking note of the Alberta move.
Also, Alberta's reaction is not hate-filled but have a different view of what marriage is. This whole process was to define a term, that is all.
Posted by
They will not be issuing marriage certificates to anybody; not to same sex couples, not to heterosexual couples. The state will issue civil unions to all citizens and will be recognized by the state for property rights and all the other aspects marriage rights represent.
The vote in the commons was not so much a rights issue, but to define the term "marriage". If there was a significant rights issue, the Supreme Court of Canada would have ruled it as such and would not have left it to a popular vote. (rights are never determined by popular vote)
Basically civil unions for everybody and marriage to be a religious unity of two people administered by the church.
Posted by
My Gay Marriage proposal if you guys don't remember it from last year:
As an avid political observer I am particularly distraught with recent events regarding the two federal elections north and south of the 49th. These elections have been skewed by morally divisive issues rather than government’s fiscal and foreign relations obligations. With 56/42 of Canadians and 32/59 of Americans for/against homosexuals wedding, the issue is refractory and not going to be solved anytime soon. The underlying reasoning for and against gay marriage is based on principles, morals, and values. I do not intend to argue anyone’s beliefs and lifestyles but regardless of the laws created, both sides will fight until the bitter end.
Special interest groups have currently been pushing for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in the US and laws allowing the practice in Canada, both with similar results: enraging a very large minority of the population. This issue will not solve itself; practical solutions need to be created to ensure all beliefs and rights are upheld.
In today's world, it is of utmost importance that church and state be separated. Not that the church is wrong and doesn't preach good ideals, but with the diverse beliefs inherent of a free society, it is vital the government serve all constituents.
I therefore propose this solution to the dispute which would help all parties move on and protect the freedom of expression and freedom of belief. Remove the term marriage from government entirely. The government’s role would be to recognize and enforce all long term relationships and use the label “unions”. It would then be a decision by the couple to have a union ceremony or a wedding ceremony where the term “wedding” would revert to its intended form: a religious unity of two people.
The results of this solution would be: the term “marriage” belongs to the church, the issue would not interfere with government agenda, homosexuals would experience inclusiveness by their government, and equality would again be preserved.
Posted by
"I don't care if Trudeau pointed that out originally, it's common sense and I have no problem advocating it."
I wasn't making a snotty comment about how it was a liberal who said it, I was pointing out that if you're going to quote the man, you should at least have fair understanding of the context and meaning of the words. To do otherwise would be similar to punching up some essay with words from a thesaurus, the correct use of which perhaps you might not grasp.
What's with this Alberta thing? Can you explain it more?
In some people's view, the actions of the Albertans can be translated as, "We'd rather stop everyone from getting married before we sanction The Gays getting married." (Tomato, tomahto.)
Posted by
I wasn't quoting Trudeau, I was making the statement biased on my own beliefs to separate the church and state. I'm sure Trudeau himself borrowed the line from many other progressive advocates in the past as well.
I think you are completely out of line making a snotty comment about having to look up "getting the state out of our bedrooms" in the thesaurus. It is a simple phase, with simple vocabulary and your accusation of my intelligence (or lack of) makes you look like a complete bitch. Are you so bored and pathetic that you actually need to assume a university grandaunt does not know the meaning of "state" or "bedroom". Pfff. Thanks for the "enlightened" conversation.
As for the Alberta situation, the motivation of the Albertan government was due to our federal government forcing legislation many do not agree with. The result was equality for all citizens; marriage becomes a religious bond in the presence of God declared by the church (as it should have been to start). I applaud Alberta for its fair and progressive proposal satisfying all parties involved, save your pessimistic views for another day where rights and equality are actually at issue.
Posted by
You were quoting Trudeau. Trudeau was the man who introduced the phrase "... there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" into political lexicon when he decriminalized homosexual acts. You claim that the extension of this philosophy would be the secession of solemnizing any marriages (which has a vague validity) but an alternative and more accurate interpretation of this philosophy - considering that the spirit of the movement was centred on removing state prejudice towards homosexuals - would be to allow homosexuals to get married.
» Post a CommentAnd I wasn't necessarily trying to be snitty with the thesaurus comment, though it may have come across that way - I was simply making an allegory about the risk of using terms you don't fully understand in your arguments.
As for the Alberta question: you can take the role of apologist for the seedier side of your party all you like, but can you argue definitively that Albertan Conservatives would be making this move if C-38 hadn't been passed? As in, if the spectre of legalized same-sex marriage wasn't knocking at their door, would they be saying to themselves, "Wow, you know, we really shouldn't be endorsing marriage. That's a bad thing. Government shouldn't recognize an institution like marriage like that."
Doubtful.
They have had no issue with recognizing heterosexual marriages heretofore; they are only making this move because they don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.
"Fair and progressive" are hardly the adjectives deserved to describe the attitudes behind these new measures, no matter how you try to spin it.