(no subject)

[c9]

Today the Canadian government announced that they are expanding their reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on same-sex marriage: adding one question, asking whether the opposite-sex restriction on civil marriage is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This will have no effect on the outcome: same-sex marriage will be legal in Canada, nationwide, eventually. But it boils down to another year waiting; there will likely be no judgement before 2005, at the earliest.

This rots my socks, because it's the government chickening out on an issue of basic human rights. Because the original hearings were to begin during the expected election campaign in April, Paul Martin decided to hide the issue and win an election before it actually comes into the press again. I feel that Martin made a cowardly choice.

This also makes me happy, because if it had come up during the election, the Reform-Alliance-tories would have made hay (and major votes) with their campaigning against the idea, including threats to use the notwithstanding clause and other such tools of discrimination. I also feel Martin did make a logical choice.

Argh! leapfish and I are getting married in Ottawa on May 23rd. It's awfully frustrating to have large portions of one's country really peeved by something that's none of their business.

Comments

[gueny.livejournal.com]

I agree that the Martin delay, was in the interest of putting the issue off until after an election.

In the long run, I think this will increase the chances of any new Bill passing to include same sex in the definition of marriage. On the current path, I think that any reasonable Bill would have been defeated, since even almost half of the Liberals would vote it down on a free vote.

If they truly feel they have the mandate, I think things will pick up speed again after the next election, when they are ensured to have a few years for any political scars to heal.

It's politics first, and then people second- and unfortunately this seems to be the common ideal across the political landscape in this country.

(Should I sign this as Walter :| ).

[kdborg.livejournal.com]

As you say, had the bill been debated in the Spring it would be a hot election issue that the Reform Party Alliance Conservative Party would use to get a lot of seats. Probably could win with that one issue.

Martin's deflection of the issue may lessen the issue during the campaign. That might be his strategy to push it off until after the election or possibly forever (I'm not sure where Martin stands on this issue). Either way, I think it's irrelevent.

The Conservative Party (whose name will no doubt confuse the electorate) will try their hardest to get and keep gay marriage issues as a huge issue in the election. It may be a big enough issue for them to get elected. (They need something more than: "We're not the Liberals")

I might be cynical enough to think that the Conservative Party strategists may have figured out a way to thwart the legal decisions that have been handed down. That is, something other than the notwithstanding clause.

[gueny.livejournal.com]

I think the best the "Conservatives" (perhaps that should be their new name, that is, keep the quotes) could hope for, is to reduce the majority of the Liberals. The reality of things, is that they have gained very little from their merger, and when Harper wins the leadership (as it looks like he will), it will demonstrate to the public, that the merger critics were right- it's just an Alliance take over.

I think that Martin could run on the platform that the world is flat, and still slide into a majority.

[kdborg.livejournal.com]

Good points. That could happen. (And I agree, it is an Alliance take over.)

I think they stand a chance, though. With the right spin and publicity on the gay issue, I can see them getting in power. What is it? Around 50% of the population doesn't want gay marriage?

You can't forget that vote splitting won't be happening in the election. That could attract more people to the Harpers, too.

[gueny.livejournal.com]

I agree that there won't be the vote splitting... a good portion of the half that went to the former PCs, will now go to the Liberals.

I'm not sure I really believe the '50%' statistic in terms of how it will effect an election result.

I don't think that the gay issue is near and dear to enough people, to make it an election decider- not that I don't think it will have any impact.

It is pretty much just the religious right and the gay community that cares enough to cast a vote solidly on that issue (probably not 50% of the population).

There has been alot of media spin, and alot of politics around the issue, but at the end of the day, people will likely cast their votes based on the things that they usually do. That is, paying no taxes, and getting endless amounts of services.

[joecdn.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmm....I know Belinda is all for gay marriage - you gotta remember that there are still a lot of progressive conservatives out there, not just the redneck assholes from the Alliance.

Anyways - YAY for you and Vinny getting married - I'll be rooting for ya from afar! :-D

Re:

[c9.livejournal.com]

Sadly, Belinda's opinion is: "I'm all for equal marriage, but let's make it a free vote in the House of Commons." Meaning that she thinks human rights should be subject to popular opinion. When women got the vote it was unpopular. When blacks got the vote it was unpopular. When biracial couples got to marry it was unpopular. Human rights are NOT popularity contests, somebody needs to tell her.

Yay wedding! SCARY expensive though! :-)

Re:

[joecdn.livejournal.com]

How many guests are attending?

Re:

[c9.livejournal.com]

Just over 100 friends and family were invited, which means 80ish will attend? Really not sure. The RSVP deadline is April 1st, so we'll know the deal around then.

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

It was dumb not to put the issue to the Supreme Court flat out to begin with.

The Liberals never pretended that they supported gay marriage as an independent political idea. They've only ever purported to support it as a reaction to the anticipated Supreme Court interpretation of the Charter.

But they didn't put the right question to the Supreme Court to get them there. They said "Hey, we're gonna do gay marriage--is that OK?" But that was never going to put them in the position of being "forced into it," which is the only way that it's going to be politically viable.

Now they're effectively asking, "Does the Charter force us into gay marriage?" If the Supreme Court answers that the way everyone thinks it will, the Liberals will be in the best position they could hope for--not voluntarily introducing gay marriage, but not resisting it either.

The risk for the supporters of gay marriage is that they won't be forced into it, that the SCC will take soe middle ground. Then, the political minefield is open again.

I really think that has more to do with it than election strategy. That might be a nice side effect, but anyone who thinks that gay marriage won't be a major issue in this election, either way, is delusional.