Thread: Opp. MPs grill gov't on same-sex marriage

170 MPs set to vote down same-sex motion

GLORIA GALLOWAY

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — More than 170 MPs of all stripes, including six Conservative cabinet ministers, appear ready Thursday to vote against a motion to revisit the controversial issue of same-sex marriage.

The numbers, drawn from surveys by advocates of homosexual unions and supported by interviews with individual MPs, are well above the 154 votes needed to defeat the Conservative motion asking the government to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

The result would be an even more definitive statement in favour of same-sex marriage than the June, 2005, vote that expanded the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Eleven Conservatives are expected to vote against Thursday's motion and another six appear to be on the fence.

The New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois have told their MPs they must vote against the motion and, unlike last time, neither party expects dissension.

Seven Liberal MPs said they will vote for the motion and another 14 were keeping their cards close to their chests. But insiders said the final number of Liberals who will endorse the motion will be in the single digits. Last year, 32 Liberal MPs voted against the same-sex marriage law.

Stéphane Dion, the newly elected Liberal Leader, considered ordering his MPs to vote against the motion but decided at a meeting with them yesterday that they will be permitted a free vote according to their conscience.

“We do not want to see this kind of vote in the House any more and the best way to ensure it never happens again is through a free vote, to prove the vast majority of Liberal MPs are against what the Prime Minister wants to do,” Mr. Dion said.

He said he was helped in his decision by the fact that the motion is procedural, asking only whether the government should act to end gay and lesbian marriage.

If it had gone to directly striking down same-sex marriage, Mr. Dion said he would have whipped the caucus because the unions are protected by the Charter of Rights. The motion “is a tactical vote on his part,” he said of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, “and we will use a tactic to counter it.”

Groups opposed to same-sex marriage have argued that last year's vote was unfair because members of the Liberal cabinet that introduced the law were not allowed to vote against their government.

Thursday's vote is unlikely to put the issue to rest.

“Oh no, absolutely not,” Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, replied when asked whether his group will abandon the fight if the motion is defeated.

“We are going to continue to lobby members of Parliament, to raise up grassroots and to engage in the democratic process.”

Mr. McVety agreed that the numbers don't look good for his side. He's particularly angry with MPs who have opposed same-sex marriage in the past but will vote against the motion.

“I just learned that [Foreign Affairs Minister] Peter MacKay is going to vote against marriage, and with defections like that, there's not much hope of this motion succeeding,” he said.

A spokesman for Mr. MacKay said his boss has not indicated how he intends to vote.

Mr. McVety said the defection of people who have opposed same-sex marriage in the past will not send a good message about the Conservative Party or democracy.

“People feel they have no option, they have five anti-marriage parties and no reason to vote. They get disenchanted and they stay home,” he said.

The other cabinet ministers who are expected to vote against the motion include Treasury Board President John Baird, Trade Minister David Emerson, Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice and International Co-operation Minister Josée Verner. Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon would not confirm his intention but he is also expected to vote against.

A number of Liberal MPs remain strong opponents of same-sex marriage but will still reject the motion. Some argue that the only way the traditional definition of marriage could be restored is if the Prime Minister were willing to use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, which allows Parliament to override the Charter of Rights. Mr. Harper has said he would not do that.

Joe Comuzzi, who gave up his Liberal cabinet seat last year because he felt he could not support same-sex marriage, said he would have to read the motion before he could say how he would vote. But he praised Mr. Dion for allowing a free vote.

“I wish it was a free vote the last time,” he said.

But there are Liberal MPs who say they will not fall in line behind Mr. Dion.

“Marriage is a bridging institution,” said John McKay, an MP for Scarborough, Ont.

“It bridges the genders, it bridges back to previous generations, it bridges to future generations, and that in and of itself is a core of marriage. And same-gender marriages are, by definition, sterile relationships.”

By David Ljunggren and Randall Palmer 2 hours, 1 minute ago

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's Parliament upheld a 2005 law allowing same-sex marriage on Thursday when it threw out a bid by the minority Conservative government to revisit the contentious issue.
ADVERTISEMENT

Prime Minister Stephen Harper put forward the motion after promising his socially conservative backers that he would do so, but most observers had expected it to fail.

The Conservatives are set to fight an election next year and had legislators backed the idea of revisiting the law it would have become a campaign issue.

"We made a promise to hold a free vote and we kept that promise. The result was decisive and we'll accept the democratic result," Harper told reporters.

Legislators voted 175 to 123 to reject a motion by the right-leaning Conservatives to re-examine the law, which some religious groups and critics say undermines society.

The law was passed by the previous Liberal government after a number of courts ruled that banning gay marriage contravened Canada's charter of rights.

Some Liberal legislators shouted "Shame!" as the Conservatives voted.

Harper seemed to reject the idea of looking again at gay marriage, even if he won a majority government.

"I don't see (us) reopening this question ... It's not our plan," he told reporters. Six of his cabinet voted against the motion on Thursday.

Canada was the fourth country, after the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, to legalize homosexual marriage.

Last year's vote was 158-133 in favor of the new law, but the Conservatives said it had not truly reflected the will of Parliament because the Liberals had forced cabinet ministers to vote in favor. Both parties allowed their members to vote according to their consciences on Thursday.

The signs were clear from the beginning that the motion was likely to fail. Even some parliamentarians who voted against the law last year said the matter had been settled and did not need to be reopened.

Asked whether the issue was now resolved once and for all, Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion replied: "It will be, especially if we win the next election ... This prime minister tried and he failed."

Groups opposed to the law vowed to continue the fight and warned Harper that the affair would cost him votes.

The Canada Family Action Coalition said the Conservatives who voted against the motion "have just set a tone that could result in a Conservative loss in the next election. When a party abandons the values of its core base, it loses support."

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who backed the idea of reopening the debate, said that when he was attorney general of the province of Ontario he had fought for the civil rights of all Canadians, including same-sex partners.

"I did that proudly. I think it was the right thing to do. But marriage is something different," he told reporters.

The motion called on the government "to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages."

(With additional reporting by Louise Egan in Ottawa)

------------------------------------------------

Good, now maybe we can focus on things that aren't completely irrelevant. I know Harper promised to do this and I don't blame him for keeping that promise, but he should have just let this be.

I disagree, in fact I think we the people should have had a say on this rather than the government again telling us what morals we should uphold.

I disagree with that as I believe this to be a Charter/court issue, meaning the majority should not be able to vote to take away some people's rights. As long as ministers/priests/rabbis/imams, etc aren't forced to perform same-sex marriages, why does it matter to you if they get married?

So your saying we should allow a minority to engage in imoral behaviour simply because they are a minority? Lets let child molesters get a green light for their behavior, afterall if sex isn't an issue with marrage why should age be an issue with sex?

IMO Gays are not a race, they make a choice, one personally I could care less about, but to dictate to me what defines marrage and not be allowed to have a say is discriminatory towards me.

I agree that Preists, Imam's ect shouldn't be forced to perform marrages against their beliefs but this still opens the door wide open for just such a thing to happen.

So your saying we should allow a minority to engage in imoral behaviour simply because they are a minority?

It has nothing to do with their being a minority and everything to do with the fact that I don't consider it to be immoral behaviour.

Lets let child molesters get a green light for their behavior, afterall if sex isn't an issue with marrage why should age be an issue with sex?

Why do you equate consensual behaviour between two adults to raping children?

IMO Gays are not a race, they make a choice

Well I guess they can't really be a race since left to their own devices they can't really have children . But I don't agree that it is a choice. I don't think anyone would choose to be a part of one of the most hated minority groups in the world for absolutely no reason. There is no Gay God telling them they should be gay. What possible reason could they have to choose to want to have sex with the same gender?

but to dictate to me what defines marrage and not be allowed to have a say is discriminatory towards me.

I don't see how that is possible when the definition of discriminatory is: "making or showing an unfair prejudicial distinction different categories of people or things"

That sounds more like not allowing gay marriage than having Parliament and the Supreme Court make a decision without consulting you. This is a representative constitutional democracy, not a direct democracy. Do you feel discriminated against whenever a law is passed (or the constitution is interpreted) without a referendum (which is like 100% of the time)?

I agree that Preists, Imam's ect shouldn't be forced to perform marrages against their beliefs but this still opens the door wide open for just such a thing to happen.

Yeah, I can maybe see some trouble coming up there, but the Charter also protects religion, so it shouldn't be hard to make it so a person with conflicting beliefs wouldn't have to do it.