Sorry to say it, but Canada isn't going to legalize gay marriage.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

It's a matter of mathematics, I'm afraid. The Liberals hold 171 seats in a parliament of 301. There's about 50-60 Liberal MP's who are wary of, or opposed to Gay Marriage. There are 64 Canadian Alliance MP's who will all vote against it. Of the rest, 14 NDP MP's will vote for (with a couple of grumblers), plus maybe 15-20 of the PC's and Bloc. However I juggle it, I can't see there being a majority. The country itself can be divided into thirds. One third are for extending marriage to gays, another third accept civil unions, the other third are opposed. Under these conditions, Martin is not going to put the motion to the house. For him it would be greatly damaging.
We are going to see a typically Canadian compromise, with Civil Unions being the accepted choice. I would bet on this outcome.
So the question to gay DU'ers is can you accept being second-class citizens on this issue? Personally I want equal rights for all Canadians. I'm absolutely for marriage rights being extended to same-sex couples, but I think we're going to have to wait a decade.

What do you think?

[La_Serpiente]

1. *Sigh*

Just lowered my hopes. But something is better than nothing.

[Darth_Kitten]

2. The Liberals are in power.....

and allegedly the NDP (left wing party) are second in the latest polls. (sorry no link)
No need to worry. :hug: ;)

[La_Serpiente]

3. Thank you

:-)

[Minstrel Boy]

10. The Liberals have been in power

much of my life, and I've seen enough. They promise enough to draw votes from the left, then fail to deliver to pander to the right. Martin is not motivated to establish Chretien's legacy. This, the decriminalization of marijuana, keeping Bush at arm's length and more, it's all vapourizing.

[MrPrax]

18. Right said...

you forgot Kyoto as well...

That is all the liberals ever have done...rem Trudeau??!

The rulling class aristocrat they dressed up as a flower power hippy...then two years after office he put tanks in the streets.

Trudeau would rail against the Big Elephant--the US--and then quietly his FIRA would approved virtually anything that passed through it's Board...
They're phonies...

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Kick - This just jumped back an hour for strange technical reasons.

[Maple]

5. Yeah we will

It's not a law to be passed.

It's in the constitution, and the Supreme court will do it, not Parliament.

The court insists politicians obey the law, no matter what short-term or vote-getting efforts they make.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. Does the court specifically state marriage?

if not, Martin will go with civil unions. I'm no expert on the supreme court, though.

[Maple]

7. Ontario and BC

already have marriage.

The question to the Supreme court involves making it standard across Canada.

Parliament will no doubt try civil unions as a compromise, but the constitution states 'equality'...and the court will enforce that.

[Demis]

8. gay marriage

I'm opposed to gay marriage but i'm not convinced that it will not passed.
There is nothing above the government, it's not to the judge to decide.

[Maple]

9. The judges enforce

the basic law of the land...which is the constitution. And the govt has to follow the constitution.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

11. On what grounds do you oppose gay marriage?

Not a burn, just curiosity. Welcome to DU, Demis.

[Spazito]

12. When the Chretien govt sent the questions to the Supreme Court of

Canada, it really took the question out of the realm of politics and into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms interpretation in the area of equal rights without discrimination. It was a brilliant move on their part, imo.

[Demis]

13. A gay marriage is not the same thing than a hetero marriage.

Marriages between Gay and between hetero are differents and not equivalents.

The government has been in the domain for protecting the weakest: Children and women, and encourage having children for the well of the nation. But now we cannot say that women are weaks, legaly speaking, and children are protected as well by others laws. We cannot say either that a law on the marriage will encourage people to have children.

Then, what the governement do in this domains ? Trying to do the circulations in the love's affairs ? The legislators could let the whole thing to the churchs.

Demis

P.S.
-I read that up to 35 députy Bloc will vote for
-Excuse my english

[Maple]

14. Reproduction

is not the highest value in life.

And no, we don't leave anything important up to the churches.

Tried that once.

It was called the Dark Ages.

[davidinalameda]

20. marriage has nothing to do with reproduction

it's a civil contract between two people

[iverglas]

22. I think some have misinterpreted Demis

I believe that what he was really getting at is that "marriage" is an archaic institution designed (at least in part) to protect women and children, because they did not have access to other protections, or the means to protect themselves, in society at large.

He is saying that marriage is no longer needed for those purposes. (In the case of women, I would somewhat disagree, since women are still economically disadvantaged as a group and, in large numbers of cases, as individuals.) He is saying that same-sex marriage is/would be different from traditional marriage, because it is not based on those factors, as the actual existing institution of marriage is.

And he is saying that no government can say that maintaining the discrimination, "protecting" traditional marriage, serves one public purpose that government might assert: encouraging people to have children.

So he then says: what purpose does the government have legislating about marriage at all? It is simply interfering in people's personal lives. People who want to engage in it for religious reasons should simply be left to have religious marriages (and, obviously, there should be no state regulation, and no official effects, of those marriages).

I fail to see what might be "Dark Ages" about that. It's the same as a lot of other people say, it was just said by someone speaking English as a second language with a little difficulty.

Demis is in Quebec. People in Quebec are among the most tolerant in Canada when it comes to alternative relationships to marriage. "De facto" relationships -- what are sometimes called "common-law" marriages -- are widespread and the numbers are rising, and are in fact very common between partners who have children. Quebec has also already enacted legislation providing for the formal registration of civil unions, both opposite-sex and same-sex, as an alternative to marriage.

At the same time, people in Quebec overwhelmingly self-reported as Roman Catholic in the 2001 census. It's an interesting example (there are others) of how a lack of separation between church and state actually leads to a highly secularized society.

I think Demis was simply expressing that secular, modern view of the matter. "Marriage" is unnecessary for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and the state should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation. ;)

.

[iverglas]

21. no choice

"it really took the question out of the realm of politics and into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms interpretation in the area of equal rights without discrimination. It was a brilliant move on their part, imo."

The question IS one of equal rights without discrimination, and not one of politics, whether they like it or not -- and it will be a matter to be decided under the Charter, by the judiciary, unless the Supreme Court decides to defer to the legislative branch on the question, saying it is one of public policy.

On that, the Supreme Court has said (in the case in which it struck down the prohibition on inmates voting in federal elections):
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2002/vol3/html/2002scr3_0519.html

The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the rule of law and cannot be lightly set aside. Limits on it require not deference, but careful examination. This is not a matter of substituting the Court's philosophical preference for that of the legislature, but of ensuring that the legislature's proffered justification is supported by logic and common sense.

The Court is sufficiently sophisticated about the nature and purpose of equality rights, i.e. their extreme importance, that I expect it would (will) take an analogous approach to discriminatory definitions of marriage.

The matter simply will not be decided by Parliament -- not, in the event that Parliament rejects same-sex marriage, until the Supreme Court has had its say. I see no reason to anticipate that the Supreme Court would uphold the existing discrimination.

.

[pink_poodle]

15. I think this sucks and the more this goes on, the more................

we remain in the dark ages as a civilization. Honestly. What the heck does it matter to me, comfy in my home, if two men next door are married. They would probably irk me more by having a more showy garden than mine, than by their living arrangments. I wish people would just get over this and mind their own businesses about other people's life styles. I'm not gay, by the way. Hey! That rhymes!!

[Silverhair]

16. Large societies make great changes slowly.

There is such a think as social inertia. Push too fast and it will backlash.

[w4rma]

17. If it's civil unions, it'll be civil unions. There'll be time for further

debate on gay marriage down the road if that's what folks then think should be done.

[canuckagainstBush]

19. It'll go through.

The vote in the house won't be until after the election, we don't know what the seat totals for each party will be. Even if it doesn't pass the house, the courts will force it. I can't see the Liberals using the notwithstanding clause to get around the Charter.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

23. I would wait till after the election. If it can go through parliament

that's a much better solution than having it court-enforced. A court-enforced position will create huge animosity towards gay people, the courts and the government. That raises the question of whether courts have primacy over parliament, which is exactly the sort of wedge issue the new Conservative Party would love to have.

[beyurslf]

24. I would support either.

If Civil Unions grant the same rights and responsibilties as "marriages" do, then what's the difference? Aren't we just arguing semantics that point? The right (and many who call themselves moderate) see marriage as a religious institution. Let them have it; stop arguing definitions and create a new word. Civil unions sound like a great idea/compromise. (BTW: I am gay too.)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

25. It is a semantic argument. The right know what impact the word marriage

has, which is why this is the Gay Marriage debate, not the Civil Rights for All debate.

[David__77]

27. Not merely semantics...

When rightists say "no sex before marriage," they are saying they oppose homosexuality. If same-sex marriage is established, they can no longer even say such a thing without tacitly endorsing homosexual relations. I will definitely enjoy that day...

[David__77]

26. What if the high court mandates it?

My understanding is that the ultimately it can expected that same-sex marriage is to be mandated according to the constitution that guarantees equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. I don't care if that's what it takes. We'll see...