Canadian MPs have rejected a proposal by the governing Conservative party to overturn a law allowing gay marriage.
Twelve Conservative MPs, including several members of the cabinet, joined Liberals and Canada’s other opposition parties to defeat the motion 175-123.
During his successful election campaign earlier this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to bring the law back before parliament.
After a debate that began with few MPs in the chamber, Mr Harper conceded that the issue was unlikely to come back before the Canadian parliament.
“The vote was decisive and obviously we will accept the democratic resolve of the people’s representatives,” he said.
Golly gee. An English-speaking country where dividing the electorate along “moral” fault-lines isn’t considered a requirement for holding public office?
i support gay marriage because they deserve to suffer nagging spouses as much as we straight guys do.
and if you feel that letting some gay guy that you don’t even know get married somehow impacts the meaning of your own marriage, then your marriage must not be very strong.
having said all that, is it just me or is the gay marriage stuff all anybody in the news can talk about? i mean seriously — who cares?!?! it’s just not that interesting — is it?
The vote was decisive…
Interesting that he brought it up, because he promised he would bring it up, but maybe Conservatives – at least some of them – wanted it to be defeated…???
…the Conservatives were keen to “bury the issue”.
…the Conservatives put forward a motion seemingly custom-written to be defeated,”
“You bury the issue by having the thing defeated.”
Bury it for good, or just to get it “off the radar” while you build support for the next push?
Yes you are wrong. The government can only collapse on what is called a “non confidence” vote, and this wasn’t one. The vote was to reopen the debate on this issue. It just means that this immoral behavior will continue and the debate is closed.
@1: Ruling parties don’t always vote unanimously as was the case with this issue. It was an election promise made by the Conservative Party of Canada that this vote would be a “free vote”: all members were free to vote as they pleased.
Several Conservatives voted -against- re-opening the debate and several Liberals (the party that actually established gay marriage in Canada) voted in favor.
Yay Canada !
What a great week !
– Gay is cool
– Efficient Solar Cells
– Australia support for Stem cell research
– Hillary may run for Prez
– Physicts discover a particle smaller than Bush’s brain
– War’s with non-lethal Silly String
#4 – Governments should not legislate who can love whom and spend the rest of their lives with. Since I pay my tax dollars as you do, I want the same rights as you, period. If the government wants churches to do marriages and call everyone’s legal joining a ‘civil union’, fine. But until they do so, step aside and let me have my marriage.
On the news last night, a gay couple in Nova Scotia,Canada what prohibited as to getting communion at church ! Hello, were are supposed to be in 2006 people !
If you want to understand this event, you have to understand the underlying politics. This motion was only to reopen debate, not a piece of legislation, and therefore had little tangible significance. Furthermore, it was no secret to anyone that the House would defeat it. In horse racing terms you could call it a “sure thing.”
The Prime Minister is generally regarded as a staunch strategist, so ask yourself, why would the Conservatives do something they knew would get shot down? That’s simple; to appease elements of their base. It was voted at the Conservative policy convention a couple of years back to pursue this matter. So pushing a little bit was essentially required.
On the flip side, pushing too much would be politically bad. Not that they couldn’t do it. There is actually legal tools for the government to enforce it’s viewpoint if it wanted to. However using them is seen as being extreme, and they would not survive the next election.
So really from a political pragmatist’s perspective, this was a brilliant move. It made the conservative base happy that they were appearing to champion the cause, it made everyone else happy that nothing happened, and it made the government happy, because everyone else is happy which will, one would expect, translate into votes next time around.
If that striped suit had long pants, I’d wear it.
I won’t wear it in its current “short pants” version, because, you know, THAT makes it look gay š
Seriously… if anyone wonders why conservatives look like baffoonish cartoon caracatures and not like reasonable people… It’s the social issues. The right has a legit point of view worthy of consideration on fiscal and foriegn policy issues… But once they start on gay marraige (or most other “social: issues) its like the moron switch is flipped and suddenly your talking to an idiot.
Christ on a freaking pony… let gay people get married you [edited]!
#10 You can look at the picture above and still say that, “…conservatives look like baffoonish cartoon caracatures and not like reasonable people…”
Pictures like the above are what makes it so easy for conservatives to be against gay marriage. It makes it look like guys are making a joke of the institution.
Ethical mono-maniacs who can’t look at a “God-given” institution like marriage — with a little easygoing humor — deserve to be in an institution.
For the hidebound and ignorant.
Keep wearing that tie to work, dude! Some 19th-Century etiquette royalist might complain about you.
#4 “It just means that this immoral behavior will continue and the debate is closed.”
I assume by immoral behavior you mean government. :).
David
#11 Unlike say Britney Spears 24 hour wedding? Or the others that get married, divorced, married, etc. ad nauseum? Oh yes, straight people have been taking marriage SERIOUSLY for some time.
I don’t understand what the big deal is with gay marriage. The church is against this but then again, the church doesn’t even recongnize hetero couples being married by a justice of the peace. What’s the problem? They just don’t have to recongnise gay marriage either and move on. At the end of the day what’s really changed….nothing. I think there are bigger problems in the world to worry about than 2 gays getting hitched!
It’s sad how religious “moral” conservatism has become intertwined with fiscal conservatism. It weakens the group the same way the Algore, Michael Moore moonbat liberals weaken the overall group of liberals.
The folks in the pictures are wingnuts but so are those get all worked up over it. Who cares? Two guys having sex is disgusting, but if I don’t have to watch it I really don’t care. I have more important things to worry about, like making sure my beer is at exactly the right temperature.
#10 – it’s not the pants that the problem with that suit. The stripes are in the wrong order! š
#11,
Are you offended by the couple in that picture?
When I was at my wife’s grandmother’s funeral about five yrs ago, most of the people there were in jeans and shirts. The visiting pastor, who gave quite the hell fire brimstone sermon, even wore a casual jacket and work pants. I was in the minority wearing a suit and tie.
My wife’s father, by the way, was the pastor at that church before he passed away himself. Half the males in the family went casual. Even the women were correspondingly dressed.
So tell me. What effen difference does it make about what you wear to the event.
#11 #10 You can look at the picture above and still say that, āā¦conservatives look like baffoonish cartoon caracatures and not like reasonable peopleā¦ā
Pictures like the above are what makes it so easy for conservatives to be against gay marriage. It makes it look like guys are making a joke of the institution.
Comment by Gig ā 12/8/2006 @ 9:52 am
I can look at that picture and still say that because I’m not a slack jawed yokel who can’t wrap my head around the idea that conformity is not a virtue.
[edited: comments guide]
I do not need their permission or validation to be who I am and gay people don’t need it either.
Further, government has zero compelling interest, real or imagined, in “protecting” marriage… which may have a certain meaning to you… but not everyone is you.
#14 #11 Unlike say Britney Spears 24 hour wedding? Or the others that get married, divorced, married, etc. ad nauseum? Oh yes, straight people have been taking marriage SERIOUSLY for some time.
Comment by Todd ā 12/8/2006 @ 10:17 am
Testify brother… and while the right likes to point out “Hollyweird” as the source of all this, in reality you will find people of all walks, nations, religions, etc., who enter into marriages that seem bizarre, mismatched, temporary, whatever….
Marriage is a religious construct, and as such, entirely optional and hardly critical to the success or failure of a modern society. The government aspect is a contract… and something that the government should get out of completely.
#17 – itās not the pants that the problem with that suit. The stripes are in the wrong order! š
Comment by Mucous ā 12/8/2006 @ 12:31 pm
Mucous – You are a disagreeable fellow who is horribly wrong more often than you are right… and yet, I’d happily buy you a beer. (what you do with the beer is entirely up to you) š
it’s funny how religious people get all in a lather about two loving people getting the same rights as the rest of us, but the religious folks have no problem with us going over to a foreign and starting an unprovoked war that results in thousands of innocents killed.
20, please do not group all religious people together. As a Christian Minister, I fall into the “religious people” yet disagree with all your stereotypes. As I am not for armed conflict, except in extreme circumstances, if all else fails and without that action greater evil than the conflict, will happen. I am for allowing any two people regardless if they are the same gender or not getting married and having that marriage recognized as valid by the governments of the world. And letting those religious traditions who wish to recognizedthem as sacred and preform such weddings to so and allow those who do not also do so.
However, I know it will be some time before this happens as there are a lot of crazy people in this nation who for one reason or another feel they have the right to discriminate and some who either are just crazy or do not realize that just because the government recognizes the marriages does not mean that their spefic church, mosque… has to recognize or perform such weddings, but by their insisting the government does not recognize them they are preventing some faith traditions from being able to fully embrace them, since then they would be embracing something that is illegal which they may or may not be willing to do depending on the tradtion
OFTLO: I’ll buy the first round… We’ll drink it. š
I don’t care one bit if someone is gay/lesbian as long as their ideals aren’t pushed upon me. I personally believe politics and governments should take care of other matters of business that affect people as a whole.
I live in an area of Massachusetts which has always been a haven for the gay/lesbian scene. Gay marriage is legal in this state, though in my town same sex marriages has been happening for a long time.
Our current Mayor is a Lesbian, second Lesbian Mayor so far we’ve had. Some public officials, police and many business’s are involved are either gay or lesbian. Doesn’t bother me one bit.
Marriage is a religious construct, and as such, entirely optional and hardly critical to the success or failure of a modern society. The government aspect is a contractā¦ and something that the government should get out of completely.
I’m not so sure that government doesn’t have an interest. A stable environment is still the best home life for a child to be brought up in. While I think we both agree that the sex of the parents matters little, two parents are usually better then one parent. The Government has a deep interest in providing and/or regulating what is best for society.
As for the religious aspect, it didn’t seem to bother Kings Saul or David, two early Jewish leaders, about the number of wives or the fidelity of the man. To me, the whole religious part of it is just a holdover from an era when the Church filled part of the government’s purpose.
The sanctity of marriage was patented by God. Gays canāt get married because God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve. Itās in the Bible, look it up. If we let the Gays get married, it would be like telling all the little children that being Gay is OK. Can you imagine what all the PE classes across the country will turn into? Think about it. All those sweaty little naked bodies rubbing up against each other in the showers. Shiny rivers of water gently cascading down over their hairless bodies, while they tenderly caress. If you search the internet, you can find pictures of what Iām talking about. Itās all sick I say, sick and perverted, and nasty and bad, and God doesnāt like it when you think that way.
We shouldnāt stop with the Gays. God doesnāt want fat ugly people to get married either, if you donāt believe me, just check out the Sistine Chappell. You can clearly tell from his pictured forearm and hand, that God is a slender white man. Fat people have thicker fingers between the first and second knuckle, itās obvious that he isnāt portly or deformed.
Speaking of deformities, midgets, dwarfs, and elves, shouldnāt be able to get married either, because they are, you know, short. Whatās with those pointy ears anyway? I donāt get it. God was at least 5ā 8ā, and probably five nine, or five ten and he most assuredly didnāt have ears like Spock. Moses was an observant guy, he would have noticed something like that.
Then we have the darkies, I wonāt even go there. Letās just say that as long as they stick with their own color, and donāt try to hypnotize any of our white women with their marijuana, and long ebony penises, then Iād let them get married. After all, I have seen Nativity Scenes in which one of the Three Wise Men, had more than just a sun tan, if you catch my drift. If Mary and Joseph let one of them stand that close to baby Jesus, then they must be OK.
Iāve heard the detractors who say that I am wrong about this. They try to tell me that Jesus himself was a Gay. They point out the fact that he wondered the land in search of twelve men to commune with. How he was impotent the only time he lay with a woman, or that by nature he was rather demure and soft spoken, as well as a big sissy-boy when it came to fighting. Plus, theyāre always quick to point out how much Jesus enjoyed cross-dressing. To this, I say hey, wait just a minute! That wasnāt a dress, it was a robe. Itās just the way carpenters dressed back then, especially if they had a long way to walk. Do you really think that any self respecting Gay man would be caught dead in public wearing a robe with that style of neck line? Please! Iām pretty sure it was all a Jewish thing. Everyone knows that Jews like to cross dress. Why do you think Jon Stewart never comes out from behind his desk? Itās because he wears womenās shoes and satin garters. Bill OāRielly said so, and heās always fair and balanced. Donāt knock Bill just because he has a fetish for vibrators and luffa-sponges. Heās probably not gay. He may have experimented a little while in college, but he didnāt inhale, so technically heās not gay.
Lastly, you nay sayers point to the picture of Jesus that graces the wall of every church. Heās got long flowing auburn hair, and a meticulously manicured goatee. OK you got me, that picture does look pretty Gay. At least he never got married. š
Iām not a bigot, I love the sinner, I just hate the sin.