Canada's Marriage Issue.

[blueb]

Hello all, today Jan.31/05 Canada's Parliment MP's will start debating whether to keep as is or change the definition of the traditional male/female marriage institution. Only the Conservatives are allowing free full votes for their MP's. Unfairly the Federal NDP and Quebec leaders have ordered their MP's they must vote to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals. The Liberals, PM-Paul Martin too has ordered his cabinet MP's they must vote changing the marriage institution definition. Although his backbenchers MP's are allowed free votes. This is not democratic for sure. Canada's Supreme Court did not state it's a right to change the definition of marriage but rather the government has a right to do so. Not that the government must only if it chooses too. Some facts on the marriage institution. Marriage was conceived and intented as a male and female exclusive union. The western world form of marriage in fact came from Judeo-Christianity. Western world governments had incorporated marriage from Judeo-Christianity. Marriage is for uniting the two human genders together, which is the full range of the human race. Marriage compliments the two human genders together. Secondly for natural procreation and a mom and a dad for and with kids. Even the greatest Spiritual leader and universal King also a real historical fact Jesus Christ informed marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Although He loves homosexual people too. Before some homosexual activists knocked marriage down. Simply homosexuals can have civil unions or start a official new name union of their own with benefits. But the marriage title is exclusively a male/female union. History, naturalism, Spirituality and tradition all confirm marriage truely is meant as a male/female union. Those of yous who want to support the traditional female/male union contact Canada's MP's and Senators and let them know. A interesting Web site in which supports the traditional male/female marriage institution and gives good information on this issue in Canada is-defendmarriage.ca

 

[Jonathan David]

Can you tell me why it is unfair to invoke party discipline in this case? Or, more specifically, what is undemocratic about it? I have no problem with people being opposed to same-sex marriage, but I do not think that party-discipline is undemocratic.... unless it is always undemocratic... which it might be, I guess. But what makes this case different than others?

 

[Breetai]

Unfairly the Federal NDP and Quebec leaders have ordered their MP's they must vote to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals. The Liberals, PM-Paul Martin too has ordered his cabinet MP's they must vote changing the marriage institution definition.

Ya, that is a total load of BS.

Can you tell me why it is unfair to invoke party discipline in this case? Or, more specifically, what is undemocratic about it?

Umm....¿sabes inglés? Is that a rhetorical question that you just asked? Do you even know what democracy is?

 

[Jonathan David]

Umm....¿sabes inglés? Is that a rhetorical question that you just asked? Do you even know what democracy is?

Okay, let me try it this way. Say I want for my Liberal MP to vote against the next budget. Why will they have to vote with the party on that? Is that democratic by your standards?

 

[Jonathan David]

Let me try one other way.... are we launching a full scale attack against party discipline?.... or is it just in terms of this issue that it offends?

Democracy is a very vague term. A referendum is democratic. The American system is (arguably) democratic. Our system is democratic. Cleary, having referenda on every issue would be the most "democratic" way of doing things. Relaxing or eradicating party discipline would be more democratic than what we have. But, we choose not to have referenda on everything due to the time, energy and money that it would take. In a similar way, we choose to have party discipline so that the government can be more effective. That's a decision that can be revisited.

BUT, to pull it out now.... to make it this top priority NOW makes me think that this is really just people not liking a bill and has very little to do with an investment in making our system more democratic.... just my opinion mind you.

 

[Breetai]

Let me try one other way.... are we launching a full scale attack against party discipline?.... or is it just in terms of this issue that it offends?

Democracy is a very vague term. A referendum is democratic. The American system is (arguably) democratic. Our system is democratic. Cleary, having referenda on every issue would be the most "democratic" way of doing things. Relaxing or eradicating party discipline would be more democratic than what we have. But, we choose not to have referenda on everything due to the time, energy and money that it would take. In a similar way, we choose to have party discipline so that the government can be more effective. That's a decision that can be revisited.

BUT, to pull it out now.... to make it this top priority NOW makes me think that this is really just people not liking a bill and has very little to do with an investment in making our system more democratic.... just my opinion mind you.

That was a better explaination. Thanks!

I think that on such a public issue as gay marriage(civil unions, whatever), party's should NEVER force their MPs to vote a certain way. Actually, they shouldn't ever for anything. To force a vote is dictatorship. Why elect an MP if they're not going to voice our opinion and vote for it?

 

[draper]

I think that on such a public issue as gay marriage(civil unions, whatever), party's should NEVER force their MPs to vote a certain way. Actually, they shouldn't ever for anything. To force a vote is dictatorship. Why elect an MP if they're not going to voice our opinion and vote for it?

Public issue? The only person in the country who thinks gay marriage is a public issue is Ralph Klein. The opinion of the general public is pretty irrelevant here, because only a very small portion of the general public [gays] are affected by this ruling.

Which, of course - makes Harper look like the flip flopper that he is because he says the public opinion shouldn't matter (no referendum, according to him) but his MPs should vote their concience and he's willing to run a campaign based on the traditional defintion of marriage, but wait - the public opinion on gay marriage doesn't matter...blah, I hate Harper's logic.

And, yes - forcing MPs to toe the party lnie is perfectly acceptable. New Democrats run on a pro gay marriage platform and to do anything but uphold that in the House of Commons would be a flip flop - if I were Layton I wouldn't want to have to have to answer to accusations of my MPs did not uphold the platform they were elected on during the next election campaign.

The NDP is so socially left wing, it is mind boggling to me that someone who opposes gay marriage could run as one.

As for the anti gay marriage Liberals - well, blah. The main party platform supported gay marriage so again I'd think that on such a key issue you'd better make sure you're in line with it, especially given that it was widely thought gay marriage legislation would be tabled sometime during this government.

Really the only thing that should matter here is the opinion of homosexuals, and how that opinion relates to the Chartter. Unless, of course, you can build a case for homosexual marriage affecting heterosexuals, in which case I'd love to hear it.

 

[Jonathan David]

That was a better explaination. Thanks!

I think that on such a public issue as gay marriage(civil unions, whatever), party's should NEVER force their MPs to vote a certain way. Actually, they shouldn't ever for anything. To force a vote is dictatorship. Why elect an MP if they're not going to voice our opinion and vote for it?

Well, theoretically it is a question of efficiency. People sign onto platforms when they run for a party. For a government to be able to activate its agenda (which presumably is why people voted for them), they have to be able to count on their party members to support it. This is however very theoretical and leads to serious issues around representation of rural interests and other such matters that can be swallowed up by the system.

I believe that the notion of a "public issue" is a red herring. Everything that the government does is a "public issue" in the sense that it impacts people/society/whatever.... or can you clarify that concept for me. I may be misinterpreting it. My above example of wanting a referendum on a budget is reflective of that. I can't think of any issue that is more of a "public issue" than the budget. Given how every budget will impact society, it seems to me to be fundamentally public in nature.

However, you have gone further and said that this isn't just about this issue. It is a general displeasure with party discipline. I think that I agree with you but I don't know what the alternative is. What is the point of a political party if it doesn't operate as a unit? Is the suggestion that we should do away with parties... I don't think that I would be totally opposed to that. Nunavut has a very interesting system but I am not sure that it would transplant well to a much bigger government (provincial or federal). I am sure that political scientists like Graham White have looked at that but I do not know what they have said. In short, I don't know enough to speak intelligently about this issue. I can see problems with discipline but I don't know how it is resolved... though I do have a thing for mandatory minority governments as a means of addressing the "democratic deficit".

So, where are we then? Like I say, I think that the public issue is a red herring. Rather, I think that this is a question of minority rights and I believe that the concerns about the "tyranny of the majority" are well founded (even though a small majority of Canadians do support same-sex marriage at the time of the last poll). So, I am less worried about a democratic deficit in this case because I do not think that democracy should have much to do with this decision. The charter is clear enough on this issue (hence the 8 provincial/territorial decisions) and my sense is that when it comes to minority rights, what people think is secondary to equality.

Having said that, given that there is a majority who support same-sex marriage, I ask how we decide how much to democratize the system. Some are saying that party-discipline should not be invoked even though it is invoked in almost every case. If we are going to change the rules, why change them that way? If we are worried about democracy, then shouldn't it be relevant that most Canadians support the legislation?

 

[draper]

Why elect an MP if they're not going to voice our opinion and vote for it?

Because - bluntly - there are times when your [and my] opinion does not matter, and this is one of them.

As Jon said to an extent, the "tyranny of the majority" is very applicable here. Where the majority's will conflicts with rights of the minority on an issue that only affects the minority (as it does here) then I think history shows us quite clearly that equality has to prevail.

Your question - why elect an MP - does touch on some broader things, I think, and partially goes into the flaws of our electoral system.

Why elect an MP? Well, firstly - because it will have a direct impact on who the Prime Minister is, what the governing party is - who will be in the Cabinet [and subsequently who will design our budgets, who will be our face to the world...etc]. You could have a great MP running, but if hte Party leader would make a brutal PM in your opinion then what do you do? Reform the system? On a broader scale, maybe.

I think you do need to pick an MP to represent you (where party leader is not a big issue...and ususually it is, anyways) and listen to you...where it's appropriate. Ultimately, there will be cases where the "tyranny of the majority" has to be considered (eg gay marriage, women's rights when it was an issue, coloured people's rights when those were still issues) and you need an MP that you think will uphold the Charter (something gay marriage opponents are not doing)...I cannot even begin to emphasize the imporance of upholding the Charter.

Why we elect MPs is a broad subject. Yes, they have to listen to you - in situations where your opinion is applicable.

 

[Alexander Nissi]

Can you tell me why it is unfair to invoke party discipline in this case? Or, more specifically, what is undemocratic about it? I have no problem with people being opposed to same-sex marriage, but I do not think that party-discipline is undemocratic.... unless it is always undemocratic... which it might be, I guess. But what makes this case different than others?

Paul martin has called for a free vote on this issue and because it is a free vote the mp's are supposed to vote the way their constituency wants them to even if it is against the party policy. If the party is allowed to tell MP's how to vote on a free vote,are the MP's really voting the way their constituents want? It wouldn't be allowing the people of the country to have their say on major issues. It would be allowing the constituents their say only if their MP was not a ndp,bloc or government cabinet minister.~Alec

 

[draper]

Paul martin has called for a free vote on this issue and because it is a free vote the mp's are supposed to vote the way their constituency wants them to even if it is against the party policy.

He has called for a free vote for backbench MPs...cabinet ministers will be expected to take the stance of the government.

If the party is allowed to tell MP's how to vote on a free vote,are the MP's really voting the way their constituents want?

Tell the MPs how to vote? He is telling backbench MPs to vote their conscience and/or constituents wishes, though he highly reccomends they vote with the government in the name of upholding the Charter.

And, as I and JD have outlined in detail, gay marriage is not an issue where constituents opinions matter.

It wouldn't be allowing the people of the country to have their say on major issues.

If Martin (or anyone else in Ottawa) believed the people deserved a say on gay marriage it would go to referendum because of the importance of the matter. BUT, because the majority do not get a say on issues pertaining to the rights of the minority...constituents feelings are rather irrelevant.

It would be allowing the constituents their say only if their MP was not a ndp,bloc or government cabinet minister.~Alec

The constituents will get their say next election. If they do not like gay marriage they'll elect Stephen Harper and he will allow a free vote for all MPs on gay marriage. For now, Paul Martin was elected on a pro gay marriage platform and it is only fair that he expect the support of at least his cabinet to exercise his mandate.

Annnnnnnd, for the millionth time constituents opinions don't matter here because the majority of all constituents are heterosexual.

 

[Alexander Nissi]

And, as I and JD have outlined in detail, gay marriage is not an issue where constituents opinions matter.

The constituents will get their say next election. If they do not like gay marriage they'll elect Stephen Harper and he will allow a free vote for all MPs on gay marriage. For now, Paul Martin was elected on a pro gay marriage platform and it is only fair that he expect the support of at least his cabinet to exercise his mandate.

Annnnnnnd, for the millionth time constituents opinions don't matter here because the majority of all constituents are heterosexual.

just because the majority of the constituents are not homosexual is irrelevant as well. It affects the rights of every person to have a say in the affairs that can directly affect them. what about preists and opastors that disagree with gay marriage,do you expect them to do them just because the Government says it's ok? Paul Martin was not elected on a pro gay marriage stance he refused to say what his stance was on the issue during the election. The only reason people think of him as being pro gay marriage is that he attacked harper during the election for his overly christian views. ~Alec

 

[Jonathan David]

just because the majority of the constituents are not homosexual is irrelevant as well. It affects the rights of every person to have a say in the affairs that can directly affect them. what about preists and opastors that disagree with gay marriage,do you expect them to do them just because the Government says it's ok? Paul Martin was not elected on a pro gay marriage stance he refused to say what his stance was on the issue during the election. The only reason people think of him as being pro gay marriage is that he attacked harper during the election for his overly christian views. ~Alec

The concept of the Tyranny of the majority was imagined by Alexis De Tocqueville in "Democracy in America." While I do not understand everything that De Tozqueville said, he warned of civil rights abuses being perpetrated my the majority as the democratic system would not be able to stop them in a simple "majority rules" situation. We have seen such abuses in Nazi Germany and, while there is an ENORMOUS difference between mass-extermination and a prohibition on same-sex marriage, the process is the same in that it is a case of the numerical majority deciding the fate of the numerical minority. For this reason, it has been suggested that minority rights can never be determined by the majority. Rather, they must be protected by an untouchable (or virtually untouchable) set of rights that we understand to be fundamental to the human experience. One of these rights is to be treated equally by any action that the government takes. The current marriage law is discriminatory and while some may not like to see it change, it is sort of like saying "well, yes I stole the chocolate bar but the law about theft should not apply to me in this case." Is it that clear? Maybe not... maybe there are arguments to be made (God knows there always are) but the courts have been consistent on this one and, whether we like it or not, as far as I can tell, this is a done deal. Either it will be legislated here or a new law that does not include same-sex marriage will be appealed to the SCC where it will lose.

I believe that the argument here is that same sex marriage does not and will not affect anyone else's rights. Do you think that people will be forced to perform gay marriages? I guess that time will tell on that one.

BUT, let us review the facts:

- Over 50% of the Canadian population supports same-sex marriage

- In each jurisdiction where this question has come before the court (7 provinces and 1 territory), the legal definition has been overturned as being unconstitutional and same-sex marriage is currently legal. (If this bill fails, same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in those 8 jurisdictions.

- If strict party-discipline was invoked, this bill would breeze through the House of Commons... (under a slightly relaxed party-discipline, it will likely still pass)

HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO JUSTIFY OUR RESISTANCE TO IT? The Courts have spoken, the people have spoken and now the parliament will speak... do we live in a society or not?

 

[draper]

just because the majority of the constituents are not homosexual is irrelevant as well.

To this specific issue - yeah, it's pretty relevant. It's like saying men should be able to decide whether or not women can work.

It affects the rights of every person to have a say in the affairs that can directly affect them.

Absolutely, every person has the right to have a say in matters directly affecting them. But, gay marriage does not affect heterosexuals...therefore their [our] opinion is irrelevant on the matter.

what about preists and opastors that disagree with gay marriage,do you expect them to do them just because the Government says it's ok?

The bill presented has two very specifical clauses protecting religious groups who choose not to perform gay marriages. No one will be forced to.

Paul Martin was not elected on a pro gay marriage stance he refused to say what his stance was on the issue during the election. The only reason people think of him as being pro gay marriage is that he attacked harper during the election for his overly christian views. ~Alec

He was subtle about it and pulled punches wherever possible, but the main Liberal Party has always [always recently] supported gay marriage. You're right that he tried to dodge the issue where he could, but it was definitely something he supported.

 

[Svt4Him]

Over 50% of the Canadian population supports same-sex marriage

cite please.

 

[Jonathan David]

cite please.

Are you going to agree with me if I do?

 

[Jonathan David]

Chronologically.....

JUNE 13th, 2003 http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=1844

This Ipsos-Reid/CTV/Globe and Mail survey asked Canadians in the days that followed whether they “support or oppose same-sex couples being allowed to marry and register their marriage with their provincial government,” finding that a slim majority (54%) of Canadians say they support same-sex marriages, while 44% say they are opposed to the proposition.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3115434.stm

Polls show a slight majority of Canadians support same-sex marriage although some regions of the country are fiercely opposed to the move.

JANUARY 13, 2005 http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=570

By a small majority, Canadians support a new federal law that would change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, according to a recent survey by the Environics Research Group, conducted December 14, 2004 to January 5, 2005.

FEBRUARY 1, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4227615.stm

Opinion polls show that a small majority of Canadians support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Having said all of that, I have also found polls that suggest that the number is closer to 44% in favour, a similar number opposed and 12-14 % undecided.....when the option is same-sex unions, it is a clear majority.... but that is not what is being fought for.

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

They do have the same right as everybody else - they have the right to marry a female if they are male, and they have the right to marry a male if they are a female.

They are not having their "rights" withheld.

 

[Illuminatus]

Firstly, there are NDP and Bloc MPs voting against the legislation. Secondly, Cabinet ministers and Parlimentary secretaries almost always have to vote with the government. It's part of the job. If they felt that strongly about it, they'd resign their cabinet post. IIRC, a few months ago, the Minister of Natural Resources and one other one resigned over something they were being whipped on.

 

[draper]

Firstly, there are NDP and Bloc MPs voting against the legislation. Secondly, Cabinet ministers and Parlimentary secretaries almost always have to vote with the government. It's part of the job. If they felt that strongly about it, they'd resign their cabinet post. IIRC, a few months ago, the Minister of Natural Resources and one other one resigned over something they were being whipped on.

Exactly - joining the Cabinet means you're consenting to have to toe the party line...you can answer to that to the voters next election. It's like complaining that baseball is boring when you chose to go to a baseball game.

And Layton has said that any NDP MPs who vote against the bill will be punished, and in spite of that one - Bev Desjarlais [sp?] still plans on doing so.