Harper to move quickly on same-sex legislation

[sonicx]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Article&cid=1138315819123&call_pageid=968332188492

Stephen Harper says he wants to move quickly as leader of a fractious new Parliament to reopen the same-sex marriage debate.

The makeup of the new House of Commons suggests the prime minister-designate knows there's a good chance such a motion will be rejected.

It would not be a total loss, however. In fact, an honourable defeat on equal marriage would satisfy obligations to Harper's most right-wing supporters while defusing a politically explosive issue.

Winning a vote to wade back through that political quagmire would lead the Conservatives straight into a legal morass, most experts say.

[Canadian Socialist]

1. "A good chance"!!??!!

What the hell is wrong with these people. Human rights are NOT up for debate or a vote. The equal marriage law has passed all the tests wrt our constitution. I don't think I would want my rights up for a vote on "a good chance" it wouldn't pass. God, I hate the conservatives. Say, for argument's sake, the vote passes. Then what? The legal and constitutional nightmare that will evolve will cost years and many millions of dollars to resolve. And for what? So a handful of reactionary, homophobic bigots can gloat over their "morals". Well, I spit on their morals. /rant

[hopeisaplace]

5. Dito. What you said.

[CHIMO]

2. How Many

Of the remaining Liberals would vote with the Conservatives on SSM?

[Canadian Socialist]

3. Excellent discussion on babble.ca

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005205
They give a fairly comprehensive breakdown on how the votes should go.

[CHIMO]

4. Thanks

Just went over there and it looks like there would be thirty two Liberals to vote with the Conservatives.

It may just come about that Harper would win the vote. He would be crazy to bring it to a vote but if the right wants to push their agenda then he will have to do some fast dancing to loose.

Consider that the parties might have 5% of their members missing for whatever reason. Harper would be raked over the coals if his members were missing.

I don't think that the Liberals or the Bloc would feel too sorry if Harper had to bring in the notwithstanding provision. It would be a bad start to the next election foe Harper and he would not have the same pressure on the core right in the election.

[HuffleClaw]

6. a complete waste of time

the charter of rights and freedoms is paramount in this. and the supreme court has already spoken.

[iverglas]

8. sadly, the SCC hasn't really spoken

The Court ruled that the fed govt's initiative to clearly define marriage (which is under federal jurisdiction) as including same-sex marriage was not unconstitutional. It didn't say that excluding same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, easy as it might seem to read between the lines and apply the things the Court has said in various other cases about human dignity and equality. The fact that it is not unconstitutional to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is unconstitutional not to do it.

The Court never heard an appeal from the various provincial court decisions striking down provincial refusals to issue marriage licences (which are under provincial jurisdiction) to same-sex couples. None of the provinces appealed, and any fundie loons who tried to get standing to appeal were denied.

If a fed bill defining marriage as excluding same-sex marriage passed, the provinces would presumably be unable to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. Someone in that position would then have to start all over again, challenging the refusal, which the province would have to defend based on its lack of jurisdiction over marriage, and it would have to make its way to the SCC, presumably by the province appealing it. Wouldn't the provinces just be thrilled about that.

Of course, if the bill just invoked the notwithstanding clause in the first place, to pre-empt any challenges in the courts, that would settle it. Normally, a govt would wait to see what the courts say, and then invoke the clause if the legislation was struck down.

Gigantic waste of time and money, indeed.

[enigmatic]

7. He's dealing out the red meat to his far-right faction

Just like his new bud, W. He knows this will go nowhere, though; he has to do it to please the nuts in the CPC.

[arikara]

9. Infuriating that he is going to open this up again

A couple of my gay friends hurried and got married because they saw this coming. They said that its the only way to assure that their benefits etc. go to each other. Commonlaw doesn't apply to them or give next of kin rights like it does to heterosexual partners.

[ConcernedCanuk]

10. There is no "debate" on SSM in my opinion

.
.
.

I'm "straight" if'n ya wanna put it that way, but I have no problems with any others with different sexual preferences as long as it don't hurt no one.

I'm not shy to say that I believe that Harper's stance on this, while it may be his own personally, is more to ingratiate himself with the homophobic Administration of the USSA than anything else.

Anyone wants to research this, homosexual activity in nature is quite common - it is not "abnormal" -

There is no other species on the planet that persecute each other for their sexual habits/preferences

And we are just one of millions of species

Of course, we are also the only species that has the ability, and it appears - the will - to destroy all life on Earth . . .

(sigh)

[IntravenousDemilo]

11. I kind of liked The Globe's suggestion.

And I think it would be good for Harper to follow it:

"If Mr Harper truly wants to prove that he's evolved and possesses the kind of leadership qualities that may turn him into a majoritarian prime minister, he can transform the inherent negative of this vote into a personal positive. He can surprise everyone by casting his own vote in favour of same-sex marriage. Mr Harper has said in the past that he personally believes in the traditional definition of marriage. But imagine if he stood up in the Commons and said that despite his personal beliefs, he now holds the office of the prime minister of all Canadians and therefore feels the need to vote in favour of equal rights for all.

"He would obviously upset the part of his base committed to rolling back the law of the land on same-sex marriage. But he would impress both the major urban enclaves that remain suspicious of his core beliefs and the residents of Quebec, the country's most socially progressive province. The political benefits outweigh the risks.

"And of course, it's the right thing to do." (The Globe and Mail, editorial "His same-sex vote", Sat 28 Jan 2006)


Myself, I think it would be worth it just for the sake of pissing off his base, because assholes like that truly deserve to be bitterly disappointed -- their despair does my heart good (that may sound a little petty, but then, so what if it does?).

[IntravenousDemilo]

12. I like your term "USSA" for "USA" --

it sounds appropriately Soviet and totalitarian.