The Shotgun Blog
« They're Here, They're Queer, We're Finished | Main | Canada Day will never be the same »
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
It's a very gay day for Canada!
Finally, parliament has voted, and marriage for gays has passed. This is a very good day for Canada, and a good day for libertarians who realize that gay people deserve the full dignity other Canadians have.
I personally believe this is good for the Conservative Party. The issue has now been settled, and the Conservatives can now move on. I hope that Stephen Harper decides that there are far more important issues.
Should the Conservatives decide this should, once again, be an election issue, it will hurt them. Canadians do NOT want this issue to be re-debated. We've had two years of debate, and further debate is not going to clarify anything.
Keith, marriage for gays is a vote loser for the Conservatives. You can talk all you want to the muslims, they still won't vote for the Conservatives - they aren't a one issue community and, for them, there are other bigger issues. I would dare say issues that they don't trust the Conservatives on.
Let me recap:
1. Marriage for Gays has been fully debated.
2. Parliament voted to support it.
3. This issue should not become an albatross around the neck of the Conservatives.
4. Marriage has now been strengthened.
5. Religious Freedom will not be harmed
I challenge all Conservatives to move on.....but, for those of you who cannot...please write down your predictions of the harm this bill will cause. I would like to see it on the record.
Posted by gayandright on June 28, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8344b59bf53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's a very gay day for Canada!:
Comments
How has marriage been strengthened by this? You picked the wrong forum for your smugness, gayandright. I would suggest those at rabble.ca would love to meet you in the bath house for a celebration, but the rest of us will be working hard to protect what we still have, namely freedom of religion in Canada.
I have a lawyer friend in the US who works for a Christian law firm, whose purpose is to protect the rights of Christian institutions across North America. Her office has been inundated with calls over the past few days from Canadian churches - mostly Catholic - wanting to know how to protect their tax-exempt status, and how to defend themselves against complaints and lawsuits stemming from refusing to deal with gays & lesbians. She has also received calls from civil marriage commissioners who face dismissal over refusing to go against what they believe in.
And before you throw that old straw man about "Well, does that mean a doctor who is against birth control/abortion does not have to deal with a woman who needs this because her life depends on it?" That's bull. Marriage commissioners are not bound by the hypocratic oath.
And I am currently watching Bill Siskay saying how he looks forward to the day when mosques and synagogues will perform SSM!
Damn right we're going to keep trying to put a stop to this. It's not over.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-06-28 7:30:04 PM
RightGirl, Based on that response, perhaps you're the one more suited for rabble.ca. After all, demanding adherence to the party line is a far more quintessential aspect of a rabbler than support for equal rights is, don't you think?
Lastly, I'll thank you to refrain from speaking for "the rest of us" here. We can speak for ourselves.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-06-28 7:39:52 PM
"Rest of us" being those of a religious persuasion and other than the gay community. Probably upset that the "rest of us" arent going to roll over and play dead. And we wont. Your equal rights is as hollow as this legislation.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-06-28 7:46:00 PM
MikeP, I think you just implied that all religious people think the same and all gay people think the same. That's (a) insulting and (b) wrong.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-06-28 7:49:47 PM
Mark I didnt imply anything just trying to clarify for you what Right Girl was saying. I assume when she said Rest of us she meant those opposing same sex marriage who believe in religious freedom. Not sure why you didnt take it that way too.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-06-28 7:57:53 PM
Dear Gay and Right:
You claim that "Canadians" are on your side, the issue is "settled", and it's time to "move on". You don't think that sounds a bit smug, do you?
I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that opposition to gay marriage is somehow an "albatross" for the Tories, as the issue tends to divide Liberals far more than Conservatives. While I share your skepticism about ethnic voters joining the Conservatives in droves over gay marriage, at least it's the beginning of a dialogue that could bear fruit in the future. Assuming the Tories decide to give up on this issue, who exactly are they going to win over to their side? Trendy urbanites are going to continue to vote Liberal and NDP because the left will always promise the cities more dough for mass transit than the Tories can credibly claim.
If US conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians had decided in 1973 that Roe v. Wade had "settled" the abortion issue, it's doubtful that George W. Bush would be in the White House right now.
Posted by: Grumpy Young Crank | 2005-06-28 8:06:29 PM
Gayand Right: I think you may be confusing what seems good for your own narrow needs as what is good fdor the wider collective good of Canada.
It is never good for the country when deception and mirepresentation are used to make public policy and the will of the majority is held in contemp while dissent is stiffled with draconian bureaucratic tyranny.
Ya it's a gay day for Canada if you are part of the mechanism that desires to CONTROL us instead of respect our will.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie | 2005-06-28 8:10:04 PM
Dear Grumpy Young Crank:
It's not smug at all. It's just how I see it.
The conservatives need to build a base in Quebec...without which they will never win power. This should be their big priority.
As for issues, there are many - they could support Father's Rights, campaign on merit vs. quotas, sound fiscal policy, ending patronage, etc...
Posted by: Fred Litwin | 2005-06-28 8:14:59 PM
"just trying to clarify for you what Right Girl was saying"
Thank you Mike. I did mis-speak, er, type. The heat of a moment that makes one person come out and say "This is a very good day for Canada" is the same heat that may have made me unclear, or made me overstep.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-06-28 8:16:36 PM
"Canadians do NOT want this issue to be re-debated."
Bully-boy tactics like this are the domain of liberals, Liberals, and fascists (i.e. "Canadians don't want an election"). I don't like being told what I do and don't want.
Gay? Certainly. andRight? I don't see it.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2005-06-28 8:18:43 PM
Allowing "gay and right" to comment in the shotgun strikes me as "baiting" the loyal readership of the Western Standard. We get enough of that from the mainstream media. This is almost as bad as when a column by warren kinsella was published.
Posted by: Mallard | 2005-06-28 9:13:27 PM
So this is a good day for Libertarians, Gay and Right? Then go and post the good news at the website of a Libertarian political party.
It,s only a general observation, but post-religious societies usually don't last all that long.
Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-06-28 9:35:12 PM
Right on Mackenzie!
Gayandright: Are you serious?
The passage of the SSM legislation will have egregious effects on all Canadians and most sadly, the children of homosexuals. The nuclear family, which is characterized by the union between a man and woman, is "normal". It is one of the foundations of society and most important for the normal development of children. The nuclear family is also a keystone for societal stability.
I am an RN and have worked and lived alongside homosexuals in Vancouver's West End. My brother is gay. These people are incredibly volatile and emotionally labile. Their lives are often a crisis-laden and full of confusion. The antics of Svend Robinson should send shivers down your spine when you think of him being a Mother/Father role model! In my experience, Svend is typical.
From a biological perspective, homosexuality is an anomaly, and if one recalls Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, homosexuals would not be "naturally selected" as they cannot continue the human species. Why are the Liberals thinking they can be God and redefine biology and genetics through this disastrous legislation!
Having said that, I do believe gay unions need legal recognition; property rights, inheritance rights etc.
If the 2% of Canadian homosexuals want to delude themselves by cloaking their lives with an illusion of normalcy, then please do so within a civil union and leave our cultural, religious, and societal tenets alone.
As a Canadian, I am appalled that the wishes of a miniscule select group now subvert the wishes of a large majority. The method by which the SSM bill was passed is akin to Communism, and Canada is becoming a Gulag under Martin's Liberal dictatorship.
In the end, this is again Martin's typical attempt to hold power at all cost and ensure the Toronto Liberal vote.
Posted by: Old Mother | 2005-06-28 9:41:21 PM
John P. you are always very sober and clear minded and I thank you for your insight! Considering that you yourself are Gay makes it all the more meaningful!!!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2005-06-29 12:40:29 AM
What Old Mother said.
Fudge-packers rejoice! The family unit which you so loathe is now offically on life support, courtesy of Paul Martin and his gang of thieves.
We are now well on the road to the brave new world of the Benelux social engineers, trashing the basic institutions of civilization in order to appease a a minority of vociferous sexual perverts.
Posted by: reactionary | 2005-06-29 1:35:13 AM
Dear Gayandright:
I think you're seriously deluding yourself if you think giving up the gay marriage fight will help the Tories "build a base in Quebec." Dude, francophone Quebecers vote for the party that best represents Quebecois nationalism...in the days when the Tories represented Orange Order protestantism, that meant the Grits; today it means the Bloc. The Conservatives could be as gay-positive as the NDP and appoint Richard Simmons as leader, yet it wouldn't matters, as they'd still get creamed by the Bloc.
Former National Review Editor John O'Sullivan once argued that conservatives win election by appealing to fiscal conservatives, moral/social conservatives and nationalist conservatives. The Tories have largely cast the last group aside by refusing to talk critically about immigration and multiculturalism, and what you're proposing is to cast the so-cons aside, too. Those folks wouldn't just hold their noses and vote Tory - they could simply stay home on election day, or possibly help build the Christian Heritage party as a viable alternative.
Posted by: Grumpy Young Crank | 2005-06-29 7:01:20 AM
Dear Gayandright:
Excuse me, but did you seriously propose "merit vs. quotas" as a viable election issue for the Conservative Party?
Don't you realize that affirmative action programs and "quotas" - as you call them - are entrenched within the Constitution, and are merely a means of providing women and visible minorities the "full dignity other Canadians have?" Can't you understand that issue was "settled" a long time ago? Why do you dismiss efforts to alleviate institutionalized racism as "quotas"? Didn't Jesse Helms do that in North Carolina? Are you a Jesse Helms supporter? Why can't you "move on" from the issue?
Posted by: Grumpy Young Crank | 2005-06-29 7:10:17 AM
1. Marriage for Gays has been fully debated.
Not - if it was, why did they have to enforce closure on debate? And if you think it was just Parliament debating it, then you've got your head buried in the sand.
2. Parliament voted to support it. It wasn't a free vote for cabinet members and NDP MPs. Not saying it wouldn't have passed anyway may be a stretch, but your bald statement is also a bit of misdirection.
3. This issue should not become an albatross around the neck of the Conservatives. If anything, the Liberals are hoping we will move on so it doesn't become an albatross around THEIR necks.
4. Marriage has now been strengthened. Strengthened as in how? Strengthened by YOUR definition? What an inane statement! It means nothing. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians would unequivocably state that marriage has been disintegrated. Why would you make such an opinionated statement in such a factual manner?
5. Religious Freedom will not be harmed. Yeah, and the Pope's not Catholic. Do you even follow the news? Not even the CBC has been able to cover up the surmising from gay rights activists that the next obstacle is religious institutions. And, on another note, I shudder to think about the day when a "traditional" married couple is told that they can't adopt a child because government needs to meet their equalization quota of gay family adoptions.
And frankly what is up with coverage of SSM always involving gay couples' kissing? It's almost like the MSM has decided that SSM was actually about letting gay couple's kiss in public or something. The National had this whole thing on marriage, of the traditional variety, and I don't believe there was a single instance of heterosexual kissing. But one whisper of gay marriage or rights, and BAM! dudes kissing. They should just schedule it so we can tune in or tune out - headlines, weather, dudes kissing, sports, wrap-up (final shot of dudes kissing.) This is the new Canada, (g)eh?
Posted by: Ham | 2005-06-29 8:11:45 AM
G&R, if this is a good day for Canada, it only confirms MY sincere wish for Alberta to start the country she wants.
If the definition of marriage must, by law, embrace the faddish gay lawby instead of common sense, what else could be considered *sacred*? Really, nothing; and that's the point of this "hidden agenda" group that produces such social engineering catastrophes.
If a man-woman arrangement isn't fundamental to a marriage, going by the numbers is completely arbitrary. Why two? What's so special about the number two if a marriage between a man-woman is an arcane eye-roller?
Gay marriage is a human rights issue but ONLY coz it assaults the millennial "human rights" of the man-woman marriage social understanding within society by literally buggering it; and against the will of those who are married based on that understanding.
But for this and a myriad of other reasons, I work toward a good day for Alberta; leaving Canada to pay for itself.
I suppose we could always send foreign aid/with oily, oily strings attached.
Posted by: wharold | 2005-06-29 10:48:02 AM
very good, Ezra; pose as a defender of traditionalism, while giving a platform for its enemies, in increasing numbers.
if the Tories had really wanted to defeat gay marriage, they could have defeated the Grits on the budget (before Belinda bolted), and then campaigned on the gay marriage bill. But not only would that have taken cojones, which Tories lack, but would have required them to take a firm, principled, unequivocal stand against it, which they don't really want to do. Better to let the Grits send it through, and get the vote of those angry with it, without having to do anything to earn it, now or later.
fellow so/cons, wake up! you're just being used - how much longer before you realize, and stop being whores? no - whores actually get paid for their services; whereas sluts give it away for free. and that's what you so/cons who stick with the Tories are, all of you. Fools.
Posted by: anon | 2005-06-30 10:18:25 PM
anon: Have you been paying attention to politics this spring. The conservatives defeated the Grits 4 times before Belinda bolted, but the Lieberals refused to recognize these non-confidence votes. The Grits filibustered their own budget, they then bought off B.S., C.C. and the Dippers and had their own illegitimate non-confidence vote and have since won a byelection in Labrador.
Posted by: DJeffery | 2005-06-30 10:41:29 PM
Is anyone here actually gay?
Or even knows someone who is?
Here's the skinny on SSM and the next general election: not relevant to the outcome.
Here's the reason why: we're a secular nation, folks. Canadians just aren't going to march to the polling station to vote out the Liberals over something that most people are ambivalent about, at best.
All this talk about voter backlash is just wishful thinking on the part of wanna-be neo-cons who dream about Canada becoming the 51st state. Tell you what: take that poor-man's-David-Frum Ezra Levant with you, and have a fun time as the US gets increasingly out of the step with the rest of the western world.
Don't get me wrong. The Liberals *are* corrupt as stink. But a decade of sound fiscal governance and prosperity is hard for most Canadians to turn away from. Property values are sky high. The middle class is fat and wealthier than ever. Who wants to upset that? Sure, health care is broken, but unless you're really sick (and most people aren't) you wouldn't know. Canadians are asleep.
And who actually thinks the Conservatives know anything about governing anyway?
And all the talk about the conservative ethnic vote biting the Liberals in the ass? Altogether, there are fewer than 1 million people in the country who identified themselves in the '01 census as either Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. That's about 3 per cent of the population. That's it.
I'm aching for a legitimate, mainstream alternative to the Liberals. But the Conservatives aren't providing it. Stephen Harper will never be Prime Minister. After the next election has come and gone we'll almost certainly see the new leader come out of Ontario and the Conservatives embrace a more centrist platform. The mealy-mouthed, tee-hee-clever, "illegitimate union" cracks might play big to the party faithful in Red Deer, but to most Canadians they come across as spiteful and disrespectful at best, hateful and bigoted at worst.
Here's a number that should serve as a wake-up call to all Conservatives who think they can win the next election: fewer than 10 seats were won by the Conservatives in ridings within cities with populations of greater than 1 million.
And the country ain't getting any more rural...
I'm waiting for the emergence of a legitimate national political alternative.
How much longer am I going to have to wait?
Happy arguments, one and all.
Posted by: gosvendgo | 2005-07-01 12:08:31 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.