Today In The Gay

[c9]

• Today the Vatican released their new (and unsurprising) policy on allowing gay men to be priests. In short, no more flaming in the sachristy. Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which the Vatican calls disordered, disqualify one. "Transitory tendencies" would be OK if you've been celibate for three years.
  
  The editor of the Catholic New Times estimates that 30-50% of priests in the Catholic Church are gay. And stated on CBC that 50% of Catholic churches are currently without a priest. Hmmm, good plan Benedict!
  
  
• Today the Canadian election started, and Stephen Harper, almost before the writ had left Martin's hand, was already talking about repealing equal marriage for same-sex couples. For pete's sake, is he stupid? I mean, seriously.

Comments

[zedinbed.livejournal.com]

Actually, I like Stephen Harper's approach to it. He never said he plans on repealing the law. he plans on putting forth the idea of a referendum on the topic to the House of Coomons and if they approve of it (which they won't), then he will hold a national referendum on it. And if the polls are as right as they think they are, Canadians will say yes to same sex marriage. According to Harper, he will call the issue closed at that point.

What's so bad about any of this?

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

First, I don't think he said anything about a referendum. I think he said he'd first ask for a motion on whether MPs wanted to re-open the issue, and if he did, he'd introduce legislation. (That's pretty much a redundant process unless you believe there are anti-SSM MPs who will actually vote--not just think, but vote--that the question shouldn't be re-opened.)

Secondly, AAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!!! A referendum on this issue would be SO VERY VERY BAD. I have no confidence that the majority of Canadians would vote in favour of SSM in a referendum. I don't really think there are clear polls indicating that. And I don't think it's fair to have the majority decide on the rights of a minority. That's sort of why we have a Charter in the first place (not that Stephen Harper has read it.)

[zedinbed.livejournal.com]

Here's my source on my take on the subject:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051129.wgaymarriage1129/BNStory/specialDecision2006/?query=stephen+harper+same+sex+marriage

As for the whole polls thing, I don't get why supporters of SSM slam their wins in them in the faces of their opponents and then consider it too risque themselves to trust if and when a real natinal referendum on the topic does arise.

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

I agree to some extent with your comment on polls. In politics, I guess you make whatever arguments you think will help you win the day. But the focus on polls does somewhat contradict the message that SSM is the right solution under the Charter, regardless of what the majority thinks.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Good point, I shouldn't use polls and then say majority doesn't matter. So I restract my poll points. Human rights are NOT negotiable, and should NEVER be subject to a majority's whim.

[skeezix1000.livejournal.com]

Constitutional rights should never be subject to a show of hands.

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

I'll vote for that.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Several things.

1. Human rights should not be subject to a majority vote. If they were, blacks would still be slaves, and women would never have gotten the vote.

2. He spent years claiming that Parliament should decide this issue rather than judges. And in May, Parliament finally did. Now he says that doesn't count and he wants to ask again? How many times will he want to ask? I don't believe that the issue will be closed: he has changed his story on equal marriage several times already, and cannot be trusted on that point.

3. Over two-thirds of Canadians are sick of the issue, and consider it closed, and do not want to discuss it.

4. Well over half of Canadians support equal marriage, and therefore repealing the law would actually be ignoring majority interest anyway, in favour of the small but vocal anti-gay religious conservatives and conservative right.

5. Referenda cost megabucks, and we're already spending over $210 million on this election, plus $212 million on the last one just last year. Waste of money on an issue already dealt with.

6. There are children living and dying on the streets of Canadian cities and towns. Why the fuck is he not actually dealing with something that is an actual problem, instead of wandering around in anti-gay pointless land?

Bit of a rant there. :-)