How can I vote conservative???

[FiveParadox]

Other countries' Supreme Courts have also not ruled as ours have. Besides that, even if the Conservatives repeal or amend the Civil Marriage Act, same-sex marriage would remain legal in eight Provinces and two Territories — unless the Tories invoke the notwithstanding clause, which would be highly controversial given their promise not to.

 

[Freethinker]

RE: How can I vote conser

While I consider having the governement get out of marriage altogether a reasonable compromise. Issueing only civil union certificates. Leave "Marriage" to the churches. But it does seem an unecessary one of semantics to appeal to small subset for whom this is really about nothing more than bigotry. Probably a lot more expensive and complicated to replace "marriage" everywhere in Canadian Law with "civil union" than it is to simply amend to include SSM.

Also this is not a solution Harper proposed, he suggested starting some kind of parallel system, which seems wasteful from someone who is a fiscal conservative. Also gets to maintain an air of discrimination. "Ohh same sex marriage, no such thing, you have to see tony on the 3rd floor for a civil union certificate, and don't go trying to use the word married, acceptable terms are hitched, joined..." Anyway, that was last time, this time he said nothing about any kind of system this time, merely ending SSM.

I also wonder how those hiding behind the cloak of what the majority wants, paid any attention to what they want now?

Polling during this election found that 60% of Canadians believe the Gay Marriage issues is decided and want it left alone.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: How can I vote conser

But it does seem an unecessary one of semantics to appeal to small subset for whom this is really about nothing more than bigotry.

The small subset of gay people are bigots? I certainly wouldn't go that far...uncompromising maybe, but bigots... that's way out there.

 

[sanch]

Re: RE: How can I vote conser

But it does seem an unecessary one of semantics to appeal to small subset for whom this is really about nothing more than bigotry.

The small subset of gay people are bigots? I certainly wouldn't go that far...uncompromising maybe, but bigots... that's way out there.

I would interpret that sentence differently. The small subset are those opposed to gay marriage recognition and the question is why engage with people who are bigots? I would say this goes deeper than simple bigotry and is about their special covenant with God being challenged. Somehow the issue that expanding the definition of marriage does not undermine the vows many of them took before God has to be conveyed to them. From this past election though we can see the power one dimensional imagery has on the thought process. As long as fire and brimstone religious leaders and politicians can reduce any motion, act or political presence to a force that threatens their very being it is difficult to engage in any kind of rational way.

 

[Jay]

Ya I know, I was employing sarcasm.

I'm not buying this argument. I have talked to non-religious people who believe the traditional definition should not be changed to incorporate another union too. I have heard gay people say it too, so I take it these gay folks are homophobic bigots?

It's a load of BS, and I know it, the liberals know it too. There are using this issue to divide and conquer.

Other countries including the UK have civil unions and marriage, but everyone knows their all just homophobic bigots...

It's the people who throw around these words that have the real issue.

 

[sanch]

I know gays as well who are for the distinction but many moved in this direction after the PR fiasco of the 2004 election.

What needs to be done is to open a dialog and throwing around words like bigot prevents that from occuring. The act should just be amended to say that a marriage or a civil union is a cosnsensual union between two adults. Then the government should get out of the bedroom when it involves consenting adults.

I have seen gays find acceptance in some very antigay and traditional communities. All the in your face stuff simply complicates and prolongs what will eventually be a reality.

 

[Andem]

This is an issue that the most of the provincial courts have put to rest and accepted as acceptable and a fundamental right. The supreme court of Canada also made similar rulings. The government took these decisions and upheld the Canadian Charter of Rights so same-sex couples had the same rights as their hetero counterparts.

The previous paragraph is all excluding personal opinion injection. Now, read it and ask yourself if you should take away one's rights because you believe the definition of the church is more important. Is it? Why would it be? The decision of rights is far and beyond what Stephen Harper has power over. He shouldn't even be able to open up the issue, especially when most Canadians consider it a closed-case.

If the government decides to go backwards on the issue of fundamental rights, I'd expect to see the issue over-ruled again by court-cases and public outcry. Sorry Harper, this is a one-way issue and to go backwards on it would just be a waste of your time and a waste of government resources.

Religion belongs outside of politics. Canadians are far less forgiving of this than Americans.

(IE, from Andem Florida-Files)