Gay Marriage, Forced Votes & Party Discipline

[SirKevin]

M'kay, so with the vote on gay marriage coming up, and Martin making no sense with his position on gay marriage (comme toujours), Layton pointing out these logical fallacies, Harper looking like a vampire, and idiots wanting a referendum, we have a few things to discuss.

-Should gay marriage be a forced vote for the cabinet? The Liberal backbench? The NDP caucus? The BQ caucus?

A few thoughts quickly. For the Cabinet, absolutely...on major issues it's expected that the Cabinet take the position of the government, is it not?

Liberal caucus? Hmm. I'm inclined to think yes, it should be. Paul Martin was elected Prime Minister on a pro gay marriage platform...how is he supposed to exercise his mandate if his own MPs will not support him?

I could live with gay marriage being a free vote for the Liberal caucus if Martin's position on gay marriage reflected that of an issue that merited a free vote. Basically, he is saying that the issue is important enough to go to election over, but not important enough to be a forced vote. He's saying that it's a basic, cornerstone issue of equality and defence of the Charter, yet should be a free vote. 0_o...to me, that just doesn't make sense...I don't think you can have it both ways like that.

NDP caucus? Of course. They have always been staunchly in favour of gay marriage, to have one of their own MPs vote anything but in favour of would be a flip flop, and frankly a broken promise to their voters.

BQ? Bah...I think it's pretty much the same here as with the NDP...I haven't really watched the BQ that closely though, so I can't say too much on them.

Hmm, what else is there to talk about? Oh yeah - referendum. To me, it is pathetically obvious that gay marriage should not go to referendum...would anyone like to disagree?

So, thoughts on any or all of that?

 

[SirKevin]

M'kay, so with the vote on gay marriage coming up, and Martin making no sense with his position on gay marriage (comme toujours), Layton pointing out these logical fallacies, Harper looking like a vampire, and idiots wanting a referendum, we have a few things to discuss.

-Should gay marriage be a forced vote for the cabinet? The Liberal backbench? The NDP caucus? The BQ caucus?

A few thoughts quickly. For the Cabinet, absolutely...on major issues it's expected that the Cabinet take the position of the government, is it not?

Liberal caucus? Hmm. I'm inclined to think yes, it should be. Paul Martin was elected Prime Minister on a pro gay marriage platform...how is he supposed to exercise his mandate if his own MPs will not support him?

I could live with gay marriage being a free vote for the Liberal caucus if Martin's position on gay marriage reflected that of an issue that merited a free vote. Basically, he is saying that the issue is important enough to go to election over, but not important enough to be a forced vote. He's saying that it's a basic, cornerstone issue of equality and defence of the Charter, yet should be a free vote. 0_o...to me, that just doesn't make sense...I don't think you can have it both ways like that.

NDP caucus? Of course. They have always been staunchly in favour of gay marriage, to have one of their own MPs vote anything but in favour of would be a flip flop, and frankly a broken promise to their voters.

BQ? Bah...I think it's pretty much the same here as with the NDP...I haven't really watched the BQ that closely though, so I can't say too much on them.

Hmm, what else is there to talk about? Oh yeah - referendum. To me, it is pathetically obvious that gay marriage should not go to referendum...would anyone like to disagree?

So, thoughts on any or all of that?

 

[SirKevin]

M'kay, so with the vote on gay marriage coming up, and Martin making no sense with his position on gay marriage (comme toujours), Layton pointing out these logical fallacies, Harper looking like a vampire, and idiots wanting a referendum, we have a few things to discuss.

-Should gay marriage be a forced vote for the cabinet? The Liberal backbench? The NDP caucus? The BQ caucus?

A few thoughts quickly. For the Cabinet, absolutely...on major issues it's expected that the Cabinet take the position of the government, is it not?

Liberal caucus? Hmm. I'm inclined to think yes, it should be. Paul Martin was elected Prime Minister on a pro gay marriage platform...how is he supposed to exercise his mandate if his own MPs will not support him?

I could live with gay marriage being a free vote for the Liberal caucus if Martin's position on gay marriage reflected that of an issue that merited a free vote. Basically, he is saying that the issue is important enough to go to election over, but not important enough to be a forced vote. He's saying that it's a basic, cornerstone issue of equality and defence of the Charter, yet should be a free vote. 0_o...to me, that just doesn't make sense...I don't think you can have it both ways like that.

NDP caucus? Of course. They have always been staunchly in favour of gay marriage, to have one of their own MPs vote anything but in favour of would be a flip flop, and frankly a broken promise to their voters.

BQ? Bah...I think it's pretty much the same here as with the NDP...I haven't really watched the BQ that closely though, so I can't say too much on them.

Hmm, what else is there to talk about? Oh yeah - referendum. To me, it is pathetically obvious that gay marriage should not go to referendum...would anyone like to disagree?

So, thoughts on any or all of that?

 

[Reverend Blair]

It's a human rights issue so the liberals should be forced to either vote for it or abstain. That Martin is unwilling to take that stance shows how divided his party is. I think he's using the free vote on this so he can try to whip the vote BMD.

BMD isn't a human rights issue though, so that should be a free vote.

That's according to things that Martin has said since he started his open run (as opposed to the ten years of back-room shenanigans) for the Liberals leadership.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NDP position on this is clear. If you can't vote for it, then abstain or call in sick that day. Gay rights have been a part of the NDP platform for a very long time and everybody knows that. Allowing members who cannot vote for something because of personal belief to abstain has also been a longstanding tradition in the NDP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harper has gotten himself into a world of hurt on this one. He can't be seen to be whipping the vote because he keeps trying to claim that he runs the party democratically. Nevermind that this is a man who still hasn't held a policy convention and went through the last election without asking his party what they wanted to do. It's been 8 months since that election and the progressives are getting restless.

His biggest in-party problem is that he very much represents the religious right portion of the party. Without them Stevie is just another policy wonk locked in the university basement in Calgary.

He can't win an election without the progressives though. If left to his own devices and the devices of the redneck faction of the conservatives who support him, he can't win seats in Ontario.

The result is that he's trying to pressure his MPs and others within the party without being seen to pressure his MPs and others within the party. People don't like being pressured though, so they are starting to walk in front of TV cameras and complain that they are being pressured. Some are saying that it's either Harper or them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is absolutely no way that a referendum should ever be held on a human rights issue. That's not even on the table.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The funniest thing about all of this? Martin doesn't give a rat's ass about SSM. It's a problem that was solving itself in the courts anyway. It was a leftover from when Chretien finally found his soul and decided that he wanted a legacy beyond choking protestors.

Martin just used it to let Harper hang himself with. He kept it out there just enough that Harper was bound to say something stupid, then Martin beat him with it. Harper will go down in Canadian history as a rednecked hillbilly with a six dollar haircut and a deep religious intolerance. It was a beautiful bit of politics.

 

[Reverend Blair]

It's a human rights issue so the liberals should be forced to either vote for it or abstain. That Martin is unwilling to take that stance shows how divided his party is. I think he's using the free vote on this so he can try to whip the vote BMD.

BMD isn't a human rights issue though, so that should be a free vote.

That's according to things that Martin has said since he started his open run (as opposed to the ten years of back-room shenanigans) for the Liberals leadership.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NDP position on this is clear. If you can't vote for it, then abstain or call in sick that day. Gay rights have been a part of the NDP platform for a very long time and everybody knows that. Allowing members who cannot vote for something because of personal belief to abstain has also been a longstanding tradition in the NDP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harper has gotten himself into a world of hurt on this one. He can't be seen to be whipping the vote because he keeps trying to claim that he runs the party democratically. Nevermind that this is a man who still hasn't held a policy convention and went through the last election without asking his party what they wanted to do. It's been 8 months since that election and the progressives are getting restless.

His biggest in-party problem is that he very much represents the religious right portion of the party. Without them Stevie is just another policy wonk locked in the university basement in Calgary.

He can't win an election without the progressives though. If left to his own devices and the devices of the redneck faction of the conservatives who support him, he can't win seats in Ontario.

The result is that he's trying to pressure his MPs and others within the party without being seen to pressure his MPs and others within the party. People don't like being pressured though, so they are starting to walk in front of TV cameras and complain that they are being pressured. Some are saying that it's either Harper or them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is absolutely no way that a referendum should ever be held on a human rights issue. That's not even on the table.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The funniest thing about all of this? Martin doesn't give a rat's ass about SSM. It's a problem that was solving itself in the courts anyway. It was a leftover from when Chretien finally found his soul and decided that he wanted a legacy beyond choking protestors.

Martin just used it to let Harper hang himself with. He kept it out there just enough that Harper was bound to say something stupid, then Martin beat him with it. Harper will go down in Canadian history as a rednecked hillbilly with a six dollar haircut and a deep religious intolerance. It was a beautiful bit of politics.

 

[Reverend Blair]

It's a human rights issue so the liberals should be forced to either vote for it or abstain. That Martin is unwilling to take that stance shows how divided his party is. I think he's using the free vote on this so he can try to whip the vote BMD.

BMD isn't a human rights issue though, so that should be a free vote.

That's according to things that Martin has said since he started his open run (as opposed to the ten years of back-room shenanigans) for the Liberals leadership.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NDP position on this is clear. If you can't vote for it, then abstain or call in sick that day. Gay rights have been a part of the NDP platform for a very long time and everybody knows that. Allowing members who cannot vote for something because of personal belief to abstain has also been a longstanding tradition in the NDP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harper has gotten himself into a world of hurt on this one. He can't be seen to be whipping the vote because he keeps trying to claim that he runs the party democratically. Nevermind that this is a man who still hasn't held a policy convention and went through the last election without asking his party what they wanted to do. It's been 8 months since that election and the progressives are getting restless.

His biggest in-party problem is that he very much represents the religious right portion of the party. Without them Stevie is just another policy wonk locked in the university basement in Calgary.

He can't win an election without the progressives though. If left to his own devices and the devices of the redneck faction of the conservatives who support him, he can't win seats in Ontario.

The result is that he's trying to pressure his MPs and others within the party without being seen to pressure his MPs and others within the party. People don't like being pressured though, so they are starting to walk in front of TV cameras and complain that they are being pressured. Some are saying that it's either Harper or them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is absolutely no way that a referendum should ever be held on a human rights issue. That's not even on the table.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The funniest thing about all of this? Martin doesn't give a rat's ass about SSM. It's a problem that was solving itself in the courts anyway. It was a leftover from when Chretien finally found his soul and decided that he wanted a legacy beyond choking protestors.

Martin just used it to let Harper hang himself with. He kept it out there just enough that Harper was bound to say something stupid, then Martin beat him with it. Harper will go down in Canadian history as a rednecked hillbilly with a six dollar haircut and a deep religious intolerance. It was a beautiful bit of politics.

 

[tibear]

The basic problem is that some people see this as a human rights issue and "the majority"(depends on what side your on) don't. They see it as a moral question.

So, we can all agree a large segment of population and House of Commons, see this as a moral issue and as such is in the same light as the death penalty issue, which was a free vote.

The last election was NOT about SSM and so cannot use that as a guide. In fact, very few if any election is won or lost on one issue and any party that claims they won an election based on one issue is clouding the picture.

I remember a couple of years ago the Liberals were very clear that if there was ever a vote on SSM that it would be a free vote, however times change and so do PM's so their positions change.

As for the NDP, I know of at least one MP who has openly said she will vote against the bill.

 

[tibear]

The basic problem is that some people see this as a human rights issue and "the majority"(depends on what side your on) don't. They see it as a moral question.

So, we can all agree a large segment of population and House of Commons, see this as a moral issue and as such is in the same light as the death penalty issue, which was a free vote.

The last election was NOT about SSM and so cannot use that as a guide. In fact, very few if any election is won or lost on one issue and any party that claims they won an election based on one issue is clouding the picture.

I remember a couple of years ago the Liberals were very clear that if there was ever a vote on SSM that it would be a free vote, however times change and so do PM's so their positions change.

As for the NDP, I know of at least one MP who has openly said she will vote against the bill.

 

[tibear]

The basic problem is that some people see this as a human rights issue and "the majority"(depends on what side your on) don't. They see it as a moral question.

So, we can all agree a large segment of population and House of Commons, see this as a moral issue and as such is in the same light as the death penalty issue, which was a free vote.

The last election was NOT about SSM and so cannot use that as a guide. In fact, very few if any election is won or lost on one issue and any party that claims they won an election based on one issue is clouding the picture.

I remember a couple of years ago the Liberals were very clear that if there was ever a vote on SSM that it would be a free vote, however times change and so do PM's so their positions change.

As for the NDP, I know of at least one MP who has openly said she will vote against the bill.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The basic problem is that some people see this as a human rights issue and "the majority"(depends on what side your on) don't. They see it as a moral question.

It fits the definition of a human rights issue both from the Canadian standpoint and the UN definition.

So, we can all agree a large segment of population and House of Commons, see this as a moral issue and as such is in the same light as the death penalty issue, which was a free vote.

No, we can't agree. If they do see it that way, they are wrong to do so.

The last election was NOT about SSM and so cannot use that as a guide. In fact, very few if any election is won or lost on one issue and any party that claims they won an election based on one issue is clouding the picture.

Everybody even peripherally involved in politics knew this was going to be one of the contentious pieces of legislation during the last election.

I remember a couple of years ago the Liberals were very clear that if there was ever a vote on SSM that it would be a free vote, however times change and so do PM's so their positions change.

Different leader, different circumstances. Paul Martin is not Jean Chretien, they play politics very differently.

As for the NDP, I know of at least one MP who has openly said she will vote against the bill.

And Bev Desjarlais will be asked to abstain or call in sick the day of the vote. If she doesn't she will face party discipline. Unless she actually endangers the bill passing, any punishment will be light. I doubt she'll actually vote though. That all fits the traditions of the party, by the way.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The basic problem is that some people see this as a human rights issue and "the majority"(depends on what side your on) don't. They see it as a moral question.

It fits the definition of a human rights issue both from the Canadian standpoint and the UN definition.

So, we can all agree a large segment of population and House of Commons, see this as a moral issue and as such is in the same light as the death penalty issue, which was a free vote.

No, we can't agree. If they do see it that way, they are wrong to do so.

The last election was NOT about SSM and so cannot use that as a guide. In fact, very few if any election is won or lost on one issue and any party that claims they won an election based on one issue is clouding the picture.

Everybody even peripherally involved in politics knew this was going to be one of the contentious pieces of legislation during the last election.

I remember a couple of years ago the Liberals were very clear that if there was ever a vote on SSM that it would be a free vote, however times change and so do PM's so their positions change.

Different leader, different circumstances. Paul Martin is not Jean Chretien, they play politics very differently.

As for the NDP, I know of at least one MP who has openly said she will vote against the bill.

And Bev Desjarlais will be asked to abstain or call in sick the day of the vote. If she doesn't she will face party discipline. Unless she actually endangers the bill passing, any punishment will be light. I doubt she'll actually vote though. That all fits the traditions of the party, by the way.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The basic problem is that some people see this as a human rights issue and "the majority"(depends on what side your on) don't. They see it as a moral question.

It fits the definition of a human rights issue both from the Canadian standpoint and the UN definition.

So, we can all agree a large segment of population and House of Commons, see this as a moral issue and as such is in the same light as the death penalty issue, which was a free vote.

No, we can't agree. If they do see it that way, they are wrong to do so.

The last election was NOT about SSM and so cannot use that as a guide. In fact, very few if any election is won or lost on one issue and any party that claims they won an election based on one issue is clouding the picture.

Everybody even peripherally involved in politics knew this was going to be one of the contentious pieces of legislation during the last election.

I remember a couple of years ago the Liberals were very clear that if there was ever a vote on SSM that it would be a free vote, however times change and so do PM's so their positions change.

Different leader, different circumstances. Paul Martin is not Jean Chretien, they play politics very differently.

As for the NDP, I know of at least one MP who has openly said she will vote against the bill.

And Bev Desjarlais will be asked to abstain or call in sick the day of the vote. If she doesn't she will face party discipline. Unless she actually endangers the bill passing, any punishment will be light. I doubt she'll actually vote though. That all fits the traditions of the party, by the way.

 

[tibear]

Ms Desjarlais, has been asked about abstaining and her position, at least for today, is that she will in the house and standing to defeat the bill when the vote is called.

Your right people knew that the government was thinking about passing a SSM bill. However, the people thought that it would be a free and open vote for all members, which is completely different than the circumstances that Martin has put on vote now.

Your telling me that capital punishment isn't a human rights issue?? What can be more basic than right to life??? How can capital punishment not be a human right but SSM is?? If capital punishment was a free vote than SSM should also be.

 

[tibear]

Ms Desjarlais, has been asked about abstaining and her position, at least for today, is that she will in the house and standing to defeat the bill when the vote is called.

Your right people knew that the government was thinking about passing a SSM bill. However, the people thought that it would be a free and open vote for all members, which is completely different than the circumstances that Martin has put on vote now.

Your telling me that capital punishment isn't a human rights issue?? What can be more basic than right to life??? How can capital punishment not be a human right but SSM is?? If capital punishment was a free vote than SSM should also be.

 

[tibear]

Ms Desjarlais, has been asked about abstaining and her position, at least for today, is that she will in the house and standing to defeat the bill when the vote is called.

Your right people knew that the government was thinking about passing a SSM bill. However, the people thought that it would be a free and open vote for all members, which is completely different than the circumstances that Martin has put on vote now.

Your telling me that capital punishment isn't a human rights issue?? What can be more basic than right to life??? How can capital punishment not be a human right but SSM is?? If capital punishment was a free vote than SSM should also be.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Ms Desjarlais, has been asked about abstaining and her position, at least for today, is that she will in the house and standing to defeat the bill when the vote is called.

We'll see if she actually does that. Like I said, she faces party discipline if she does. She knew the deal going in. She knows how things work. I think she'll back down before the vote. She's made her point and can now say that she had no choice.

Your right people knew that the government was thinking about passing a SSM bill. However, the people thought that it would be a free and open vote for all members, which is completely different than the circumstances that Martin has put on vote now.

Members of the NDP certainly didn't think that. Many Liberals seem surprised that the entire caucaus isn't being whipped on a human rights issue.

The only one who really guaranteed a free vote was Stephen Harper and now he and his radical right faction of the Conservative party are being accused of using pressure tactics, including trying to exclude moderates from the next convention.

Your telling me that capital punishment isn't a human rights issue?

Where did I say that? I didn't. What has it got to do with this thread? Nothing. See how that works?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Ms Desjarlais, has been asked about abstaining and her position, at least for today, is that she will in the house and standing to defeat the bill when the vote is called.

We'll see if she actually does that. Like I said, she faces party discipline if she does. She knew the deal going in. She knows how things work. I think she'll back down before the vote. She's made her point and can now say that she had no choice.

Your right people knew that the government was thinking about passing a SSM bill. However, the people thought that it would be a free and open vote for all members, which is completely different than the circumstances that Martin has put on vote now.

Members of the NDP certainly didn't think that. Many Liberals seem surprised that the entire caucaus isn't being whipped on a human rights issue.

The only one who really guaranteed a free vote was Stephen Harper and now he and his radical right faction of the Conservative party are being accused of using pressure tactics, including trying to exclude moderates from the next convention.

Your telling me that capital punishment isn't a human rights issue?

Where did I say that? I didn't. What has it got to do with this thread? Nothing. See how that works?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Ms Desjarlais, has been asked about abstaining and her position, at least for today, is that she will in the house and standing to defeat the bill when the vote is called.

We'll see if she actually does that. Like I said, she faces party discipline if she does. She knew the deal going in. She knows how things work. I think she'll back down before the vote. She's made her point and can now say that she had no choice.

Your right people knew that the government was thinking about passing a SSM bill. However, the people thought that it would be a free and open vote for all members, which is completely different than the circumstances that Martin has put on vote now.

Members of the NDP certainly didn't think that. Many Liberals seem surprised that the entire caucaus isn't being whipped on a human rights issue.

The only one who really guaranteed a free vote was Stephen Harper and now he and his radical right faction of the Conservative party are being accused of using pressure tactics, including trying to exclude moderates from the next convention.

Your telling me that capital punishment isn't a human rights issue?

Where did I say that? I didn't. What has it got to do with this thread? Nothing. See how that works?

 

[tibear]

RB,

By bringing in capital punishment, it shows a precedence that simply saying a matter is a human rights issue doesn't prevent a free vote from taking place.

Martin is scared that his bill would lose if he didn't force his cabinet to vote for the bill.

I've always hated party politics but understand the need for them. This highlights the problem when the leader can force its individual members to vote for something they are dead set against because they would lose power if they don't two the line.

 

[tibear]

RB,

By bringing in capital punishment, it shows a precedence that simply saying a matter is a human rights issue doesn't prevent a free vote from taking place.

Martin is scared that his bill would lose if he didn't force his cabinet to vote for the bill.

I've always hated party politics but understand the need for them. This highlights the problem when the leader can force its individual members to vote for something they are dead set against because they would lose power if they don't two the line.