Canadian Same-sex Marriage Legislation Has Passed

[Bizud]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...esex050628.html

 

The Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through with a vote of 158 for and 133 against.

 

Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex unions.

 

But the passage of Bill C-38, once again, came with a political price tag for the government. Joe Comuzzi, resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the bill - an open rebuke of the government legislation.

 

Although he was the only cabinet minister to break ranks with Prime Minister Paul Martin over the controversial plan to legalize the marriage of gays and lesbians, it highlighted the divisions within Canada and the within the Liberal party, pitting supporters of equality rights against those who are defending religious freedoms.

 

For Comuzzi, the decision to resign meant putting principles ahead of the privileges of cabinet. "In 2004, during the election, I promised faithfully to the people of Thunder Bay-Superior North, that I would defend the definition of marriage," he said, explaining his move.

 

The prime minister said he regretted the decision of a man he called an "old friend," but accepts it because the government must speak with one voice on same-sex marriage.

 

The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."

 

The government has moved over the last few months to appease critics both within Liberal ranks and among Canadians at large. Amendments were introduced to ensure no religious group or charitable organization is forced to accept same-sex marriage. But in spite of those amendments some groups remain unconvinced.

 

Same-sex marriage remains one of the most difficult issues ever to confront Canadian politicians. In large part passage of the bill is the reason the parliamentary session was extended for the first time in 17 years.

 

But while Tuesday night's vote closes off the debate in the Commons, the Conservatives insist there is no closure for Canadians who believe marriage should continue to be defined as the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.

 

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says if his party forms the next government, the law will be revisited.

 

Harper made the promise one day after suggesting the adoption of the law lacked legitimacy because it relied on the support of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Harper said he believes Bloc MPs are the legitimate representatives of Quebec voters. But he argues most Canadians aren't buying it as a final decision since most federalist MPs are opposed to same-sex marriage.

 

Harper says a Conservative government would hold a free vote for all MPs on the matter, rather than forcing cabinet ministers to vote with the government.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Harper didn't seem to have a problem being in an alliance with the Bloc when trying to bring the Liberals down.

[supercanuk]

thats because in brokerage politics nobody stands for anything. You get small gains in things that shouldnt be so slow in implementing ( i.e. sam sex marriage) and then speedy action with things like war, things that are more black and white. God I love and Hate politics all at the same time.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Who needs daytime soap operas when you can watch C-PAC all day?

[juanpe]

congratulations to those who will finally have the same social rights as the rest of the people...

 

after many changes and amendments in the Spanish Senate, the same law, with the same social rights for same-sex marriages and adoption by gay couples will be finally pass in the spanish parliament tomorrow, june 30th

 

it will be a big step forward for those who think that everybody should be equal and enjoy the same social rights in a democratic country

[Moonlight_Graham]

I'm glad this passed. Despite Canada's reputation this is a very controversial topic here.

 

Despite this passing, all the polls i've seen say that the slight majority of Canadians actually are against gay-marriage. That makes things even more controversial.

 

Even though i'm for gay-marriage, for the sake of democracy maybe it would have been better for such a large and controversial issue to have gone to a public referendum vote instead of all this political deal-making. At least that way if it passed then everyone would shut up about it.

[juanpe]

in Spain things are a bit different because around an 80% of the population -in the polls- agree with gay marriages and adoption...

 

some conservative social and political groups -together with the Catholic Church- asked for a referendum... I'm totally in favor of all kinda referendums which affect a country's society... but in this case -as in many others- i have a doubt: if a political party has in their political program presented in some elections saying that if they win and become the government of the country, they will pass in the Parliament some laws -as the socialist party has done in Spain with this law about gay marriages and other social laws- ... would a referendum be necessary to carry out?

 

I mean, if this was in the political program of the socialist party in Spain and everybody knew that if they became the government they would pass this law in the Parliament, it is not necessary to ask population in a referendum because people who voted this political party agree with this law and people who didnt vote this political party wouldnt say yes anyway in a referendum...

 

I don't know, it is just a doubt I wanted to ask u (I know, a bit confusingly explained, sorry for that ;) )... probably the case of Spain is different in the sense that first there is an 80% of the population who agrees on this gay marriage law, and secondly because it was clearly stated in the political program of the party which is in the government right now...

[ecnarf]

I'm glad this passed. Despite Canada's reputation this is a very controversial topic here.

 

Despite this passing, all the polls i've seen say that the slight majority of Canadians actually are against gay-marriage. That makes things even more controversial.

 

Even though i'm for gay-marriage, for the sake of democracy maybe it would have been better for such a large and controversial issue to have gone to a public referendum vote instead of all this political deal-making. At least that way if it passed then everyone would shut up about it.

Sadly, people wouldn't shut up about it.

[Moonlight_Graham]

no of course they wouldn't shut up, but i mean they wouldn't be organizing movements to protest a referendum like they are now. As it is now, Harper is going to fight this and so will many catholic/religious groups etc. If it was a referendum it would pretty much final, and they could still bitch and complain but couldn't do anything about it.

[Bizud]

You can't have a referendum on equal rights, that just isn't on. If something's a human rights issue it's not subject to the democratic will. I realize then we have to get into what is and isn't a human rights issue, but if we have a referendum then that opens the possibility for referenda on any number of inalienable human rights, and that's unacceptable. I don't like this expression, but that's the tyranny of the majority.

 

Also, referendums are really no more final than a vote in parliament.

Edited June 29, 2005 by Bizud

[Seanathon]

...Klein proposed that the province might withdraw from sanctioning marriages and just recognize civil unions, leaving marriage to religious orders.

 

''We simply wouldn't be involved in the solemnization of marriage,'' he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...esex050629.html

 

As for me, I say its about time. Poor Mr. Harper just can't buy a win.

[ecnarf]

I don't find gay marriage to be a human rights issue, per se. Amnesty International has better things to do than petition governments to legalize same-sex marriage when they could be petitioning governments for the fair treatment of prisoners and investigations into allegations of torture.

 

Nonetheless, it is an issue of minority rights, and Paul Martin is right in saying that we can't cherry-pick rights.

[ToadMan]

I agree that this isn't a social issue. It's an issue of independent rights, and under the former definition of marriage groups where discriminated. I would say that if we were to consider it ok to discriminate against people for their sexual orientation, then why not repeal laws that discriminate against skin colour. We might as well make it illegal for certain ethnic groups to marry. And if that prospect strikes you as sick, then clearly the bill passing is a good thing. I must also say that I agree that religious groups are protected from being forced to preform same sex marriage. Although contra to my stance on the whole issue. We have to protect every bodies rights, which includes an individuals right to religious bigotry.

 

Peace

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

It should have gone a step further, and allowed polygamous marriages, also. Many people in this country share a love for each other that is not exclusive to just two people.

[ecnarf]

It should have gone a step further, and allowed polygamous marriages, also. Many people in this country share a love for each other that is not exclusive to just two people.

Try telling that to thirteen year old girls in Utah who are being forced to marry, have sex with and bear children for their uncles.

 

I have no problem with the practice of polygamy... if three or four people want to live together and have a mutual relationship, then it's their life and not mine. But the problem is that the majority of polygamy as we hear of it in the news is the Mormon kind of polygamy, where one man has a boatload of wives, all within one community, which more often than not leads to incest, and the resulting genetic diseases show up in children.

 

Although I don't think there should be polygamous marriages. People can just live together in a house and make out all they want without getting the state involved (imagine the possibility of, say, hundreds of people getting married). But I do think that people should be allowed to transfer the powers of spouse to any individual(s) of their choosing (that is, hospital visitation rights, the ability to choose to "pull the plug", etc).

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

It must be consensual, obviously, or it isn't a loving relationship, is it?

 

If couples (either same or different sex) can get government sanctioned marriages, surely it can be extended on the same principles of non-discrimination.

[Moonlight_Graham]

You can't have a referendum on equal rights, that just isn't on. If something's a human rights issue it's not subject to the democratic will. I realize then we have to get into what is and isn't a human rights issue, but if we have a referendum then that opens the possibility for referenda on any number of inalienable human rights, and that's unacceptable. I don't like this expression, but that's the tyranny of the majority.

 

Also, referendums are really no more final than a vote in parliament.

well, people argue that minority rights shouldn't be subject to a referendum. Thats makes some sense. But as long as its passed in parliment i'm not complaining about anything.