Gay Marriage, Forced Votes & Party Discipline

[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.

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Gay Marriage, Forced Votes & Party Discipline

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

I think its an issue of the government looking united on the issue, but mostly, this isn't just "a bill" - it's upholding the Charter and ensuring the equality of minorities are protected...so if some Cabinet-forcing is necessary to pass the bill then so be it. I think in light of the SCC ruling/opinion, this vote should pass by an overwhelming majority - but apparently a lot of MPs don't understand the Charter and that will not be the case.

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.

The problem is, why are they running with that party if they are so dead set on a key issue? Also, how can you expect any leader, though in this case Martin, to exercise his mandate (since he was elected on a pro gay marriage platform) if his own MPs will not support him?

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Gay Marriage, Forced Votes & Party Discipline

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

I think its an issue of the government looking united on the issue, but mostly, this isn't just "a bill" - it's upholding the Charter and ensuring the equality of minorities are protected...so if some Cabinet-forcing is necessary to pass the bill then so be it. I think in light of the SCC ruling/opinion, this vote should pass by an overwhelming majority - but apparently a lot of MPs don't understand the Charter and that will not be the case.

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.

The problem is, why are they running with that party if they are so dead set on a key issue? Also, how can you expect any leader, though in this case Martin, to exercise his mandate (since he was elected on a pro gay marriage platform) if his own MPs will not support him?

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Gay Marriage, Forced Votes & Party Discipline

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

I think its an issue of the government looking united on the issue, but mostly, this isn't just "a bill" - it's upholding the Charter and ensuring the equality of minorities are protected...so if some Cabinet-forcing is necessary to pass the bill then so be it. I think in light of the SCC ruling/opinion, this vote should pass by an overwhelming majority - but apparently a lot of MPs don't understand the Charter and that will not be the case.

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.

The problem is, why are they running with that party if they are so dead set on a key issue? Also, how can you expect any leader, though in this case Martin, to exercise his mandate (since he was elected on a pro gay marriage platform) if his own MPs will not support him?

 

[tibear]

SK,

Your telling me that the Liberals won the last election because of SSM. Please, we're both smarter than that. Was it an issue, yes, a key issue, not even close.

Same question to you as RB. Capital punishment was a free vote in the House yet SSM isn't. Surely right to life is as basic a human right as you can get. If human rights isssues have party block voting why was capital punishment a free vote?? Why the difference in voting procedure between capital punishment and SSM??

 

[tibear]

SK,

Your telling me that the Liberals won the last election because of SSM. Please, we're both smarter than that. Was it an issue, yes, a key issue, not even close.

Same question to you as RB. Capital punishment was a free vote in the House yet SSM isn't. Surely right to life is as basic a human right as you can get. If human rights isssues have party block voting why was capital punishment a free vote?? Why the difference in voting procedure between capital punishment and SSM??

 

[tibear]

SK,

Your telling me that the Liberals won the last election because of SSM. Please, we're both smarter than that. Was it an issue, yes, a key issue, not even close.

Same question to you as RB. Capital punishment was a free vote in the House yet SSM isn't. Surely right to life is as basic a human right as you can get. If human rights isssues have party block voting why was capital punishment a free vote?? Why the difference in voting procedure between capital punishment and SSM??

 

[SirKevin]

SK,

Your telling me that the Liberals won the last election because of SSM. Please, we're both smarter than that. Was it an issue, yes, a key issue, not even close.

I'm not telling you they won because of SSM. But they were elected on a platform that encompassed that and thus should exercise that mandate...they can be dealt with accordingly at the next election.

 

[SirKevin]

SK,

Your telling me that the Liberals won the last election because of SSM. Please, we're both smarter than that. Was it an issue, yes, a key issue, not even close.

I'm not telling you they won because of SSM. But they were elected on a platform that encompassed that and thus should exercise that mandate...they can be dealt with accordingly at the next election.

 

[SirKevin]

SK,

Your telling me that the Liberals won the last election because of SSM. Please, we're both smarter than that. Was it an issue, yes, a key issue, not even close.

I'm not telling you they won because of SSM. But they were elected on a platform that encompassed that and thus should exercise that mandate...they can be dealt with accordingly at the next election.

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

I would like to think that as "fair-minded" Canadians stand up Gay People ....

That these Gay People will be the first in line protesting the fact that the Charter Of Rights does not apply to people being held on "Security" warrants.

That people get just as upset when knowing that we have Canadian citizens being imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
That we have Canadian citizens being held without trial and without access to the courts right here within our own country.

Where is their Charter Of Rights And Freedoms?

I think this argument about Gay Rights being a Charter issue is a facade!

Because ..... so long as we have people being imprisoned within Canada without access to the courts .... We, as a People have no rights.

Calm

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

I would like to think that as "fair-minded" Canadians stand up Gay People ....

That these Gay People will be the first in line protesting the fact that the Charter Of Rights does not apply to people being held on "Security" warrants.

That people get just as upset when knowing that we have Canadian citizens being imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
That we have Canadian citizens being held without trial and without access to the courts right here within our own country.

Where is their Charter Of Rights And Freedoms?

I think this argument about Gay Rights being a Charter issue is a facade!

Because ..... so long as we have people being imprisoned within Canada without access to the courts .... We, as a People have no rights.

Calm

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

I would like to think that as "fair-minded" Canadians stand up Gay People ....

That these Gay People will be the first in line protesting the fact that the Charter Of Rights does not apply to people being held on "Security" warrants.

That people get just as upset when knowing that we have Canadian citizens being imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
That we have Canadian citizens being held without trial and without access to the courts right here within our own country.

Where is their Charter Of Rights And Freedoms?

I think this argument about Gay Rights being a Charter issue is a facade!

Because ..... so long as we have people being imprisoned within Canada without access to the courts .... We, as a People have no rights.

Calm

 

[Reverend Blair]

Same question to you as RB. Capital punishment was a free vote in the House yet SSM isn't.

Why do you keep trying to drag this off-topic, tibear? It is a human rights issue, but it's a separate human rights issue fought in different times with different leaders and a different political dynamic. Even then I never agreed with it being a free vote, and have said as much many times, but that was the way it was handled.

I'm not telling you they won because of SSM. But they were elected on a platform that encompassed that and thus should exercise that mandate...they can be dealt with accordingly at the next election.

Martin is counting on that too. The issue isn't whether boys marry boys and girls marry girls, it's whether a minority has the same rights as the rest of us. Martin has hinted that they do, but has never really taken a strong stand. Harper, on the other hand, has painted himself as a bigot who would impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us.

Even my gay-bashing, red-necked brother won't vote for Harper again. He's afraid that the next step will be evangelism being taught to his Catholic children in public schools. Of course he still supports the Saskatchewan Party, but that didn't keep me from putting an NDP sticker on his new car. :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

Same question to you as RB. Capital punishment was a free vote in the House yet SSM isn't.

Why do you keep trying to drag this off-topic, tibear? It is a human rights issue, but it's a separate human rights issue fought in different times with different leaders and a different political dynamic. Even then I never agreed with it being a free vote, and have said as much many times, but that was the way it was handled.

I'm not telling you they won because of SSM. But they were elected on a platform that encompassed that and thus should exercise that mandate...they can be dealt with accordingly at the next election.

Martin is counting on that too. The issue isn't whether boys marry boys and girls marry girls, it's whether a minority has the same rights as the rest of us. Martin has hinted that they do, but has never really taken a strong stand. Harper, on the other hand, has painted himself as a bigot who would impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us.

Even my gay-bashing, red-necked brother won't vote for Harper again. He's afraid that the next step will be evangelism being taught to his Catholic children in public schools. Of course he still supports the Saskatchewan Party, but that didn't keep me from putting an NDP sticker on his new car. :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

Same question to you as RB. Capital punishment was a free vote in the House yet SSM isn't.

Why do you keep trying to drag this off-topic, tibear? It is a human rights issue, but it's a separate human rights issue fought in different times with different leaders and a different political dynamic. Even then I never agreed with it being a free vote, and have said as much many times, but that was the way it was handled.

I'm not telling you they won because of SSM. But they were elected on a platform that encompassed that and thus should exercise that mandate...they can be dealt with accordingly at the next election.

Martin is counting on that too. The issue isn't whether boys marry boys and girls marry girls, it's whether a minority has the same rights as the rest of us. Martin has hinted that they do, but has never really taken a strong stand. Harper, on the other hand, has painted himself as a bigot who would impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us.

Even my gay-bashing, red-necked brother won't vote for Harper again. He's afraid that the next step will be evangelism being taught to his Catholic children in public schools. Of course he still supports the Saskatchewan Party, but that didn't keep me from putting an NDP sticker on his new car. :lol:

 

[tibear]

RB,

If you listen to Harper and Toews you will see that they don't want to take away any of the benefits of marriage from SS couples. They simply want to preserve the marriage for heterosexual couples because the relationships are different.

They simply want another name for SS unions and preserve the word marriage for what Canada has come to understand it as for the first 138 years of its existence.

 

[tibear]

RB,

If you listen to Harper and Toews you will see that they don't want to take away any of the benefits of marriage from SS couples. They simply want to preserve the marriage for heterosexual couples because the relationships are different.

They simply want another name for SS unions and preserve the word marriage for what Canada has come to understand it as for the first 138 years of its existence.

 

[tibear]

RB,

If you listen to Harper and Toews you will see that they don't want to take away any of the benefits of marriage from SS couples. They simply want to preserve the marriage for heterosexual couples because the relationships are different.

They simply want another name for SS unions and preserve the word marriage for what Canada has come to understand it as for the first 138 years of its existence.

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Gay Marriage, Forced Votes & Party Discipline

RB,

If you listen to Harper and Toews you will see that they don't want to take away any of the benefits of marriage from SS couples. They simply want to preserve the marriage for heterosexual couples because the relationships are different.

They simply want another name for SS unions and preserve the word marriage for what Canada has come to understand it as for the first 138 years of its existence.

And if you look at human history you will see that that is an idiotic and downright discirminative stance.

Remember before the black rights movement came full circle? The white supremists said one day, "Okay, fine...we'll give these blacks most of the rights that whites have...but we'll do it differently. Sure, they can appear in public spaces and go to school and whatnot, but they'll have to do it off on their own...because they're different."

In the initial stages of Nazism, Jews were treated "differently" and put in their own ghettos together, where they could be different together. Not to imply that I think that not allowing gay marriage will lead to the genocide of gays, but the principle is there.

What have we learned from the bigotry and hatred of the past if we STILL insist on treating minority groupd "differently" and not allowing them full participation in society?