Posted on 02/02/2005 4:08:33 AM PST by Clive
OTTAWA (CP) - The Liberal government is trying to quash internal resistance to its same-sex marriage bill by urging dissenters to "take a walk" on voting day, says one caucus rebel.
"There's great pressure being put on Liberal MPs by some of the party leadership," said London, Ont., MP Pat O'Brien, a vocal critic of the divisive legislation tabled Tuesday. "I've had a couple today tell me they've been encouraged to, as the phrase goes, 'take a walk' at the time of the vote," he said in an interview.
"On a matter of conscience like this, I'm disappointed that those pressure tactics are being used.
"What it tells me is that this vote's closer than people would like to think, and that the government's a little nervous."
Several Liberals, a few Bloc MPs and one NDPer say they can't support the bill. Most Conservatives have promised to fight it to the last. Many others are undecided.
The bill that would redefine marriage to include gays and lesbians also outlines Divorce Act changes that will be needed when same-sex couples break up. It will likely be voted on by June.
Pressure to support revolutionizing what it means to be married is coming from the office of Liberal whip Karen Redman, O'Brien suggested.
She denied the charge in an interview.
"We talk to members all the time about all kinds of stuff. Clearly the same-sex civil marriage issue is a huge one, but it's a free vote. It's members who will make up their mind how they're going to behave the day of the vote."
Liberal backbenchers can act as they choose, but cabinet ministers have been ordered to support Paul Martin's minority government.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler launched the bill on its rocky ride through the Commons, hailing it as the latest proof of Canada's evolving respect for minority rights.
"I would urge MPs and all Canadians to consider and to support this important legislation."
The Liberals didn't start out favouring gay weddings. They reaffirmed marriage as the exclusive domain of "one man and one woman" just six years ago.
That was before courts in seven provinces and the Yukon ruled that excluding gays from marriage violates equality rights. More than 3,000 gay weddings have since been performed across Canada.
Cotler played down lingering concerns that religious rights will be trumped by equality concerns when the two clash.
"Mutual accommodation and respect will be required," he said.
But Cotler stressed that religious officials, as the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in a related advisory opinion, can't be forced to oversee gay weddings against their beliefs.
The federal justice minister lacks the legal jurisdiction, however, to promise civic officials such as marriage commissioners that they won't face such a choice, said Conservative justice critic Vic Toews.
Such matters are up to the provinces.
Twelve marriage commissioners in Manitoba, where Toews is a former attorney general, have already resigned after receiving provincial instructions to perform same-sex unions, he said.
Similar conflicts have arisen in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, he added.
Toews also cited a list of recent court and human-rights tribunal judgments in which "equality rights are trumping religious rights."
Redefining marriage will have indirect consequences that are already being felt, he said. These will include challenges over refusals on religious grounds to rent community halls for gay weddings.
The bill is a "sham" that must be scrapped in a favour of legislation that allows gay civil unions but still preserves the traditional definition of marriage, Toews said.
Lower courts and a host of legal experts have said such a "back-of-the-bus" solution won't respect the charter.
Toews, backed by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, says they're wrong.
He says Parliament should pass such legislation - as yet untested by Canada's highest court - and let the legal chips fall where they may.
I was predicting that the whips would be out, but covertly.
Our noble prime minister sucks and blows in the same breath.
Martin ensures that a backbench revolt won't bring down the government by declaring that the legislation is not a vote of confidence,
Then he orders the Cabinet to vote for the legislation.
Then he huffs and puffs and strikes poses and declaims to a scrum that he is prepared to fight an election on the issue.
Then he backs down on and reconfirms that it is indeed still not a vote of confidence.
Then he sets the loyalists onto the back bench to persuade members to go awol on voting day.
Will the last Christian in Canada please lock the doors before they leave?
Seems Martins already turned off the lights, thanks.
We are a Banana Republic and it's time people started fighting back against things they don't like, even if it will make the Americans happy. I will happily lead them to the barricades, although I can only drag one at a time and it may be hard to make them stay there.
If we could get half the enthusiasm for this fight that we got to pressure the CBC to re-hire Don Cherry for "Coach's Corner", we could have a democracy here by next week.
the rules for marriage are THE SAME for EVERYONE, so there is no discrimination, 1 man can marry 1 woman, and this applies to all people except the ones who are already married of course, so how is there ANY discrimination in there? are the rules not the same for everyone? yes they are so there is no discrimination in there whatsoever.
now there ARE a few EXCEPTIONS, one cannot marry a minor, one cannot marry an animal, one cannot marry more than 1 other person and one cannot marry a person of the same sex, those are EXCEPTIONS, not DISCRIMINATORY measures because these measures/exceptions apply to ALL.
Until Canuckleheads stop caring what their civil servant neighbours think, there will be no improvement.
So long as Canuckleheads believe that their precious 'Canadian Values' are anything but a tedious crock of socialist sh*t, there will be no daylight north of the 49th parallel.
Just my opinion. ;^)
Instead of being typically Canadian by meekly submitting to the agenda of our political manipulators, we Canadians can effectively express our opposition to same-sex "marriage".
I have emailed the following letter of dissent to Paul Martin, our (not so) prime minister, along with copies to Irwin Cotler, our minister of (in)justice, Stephen Harper, Conservative leader of the opposition, and my local liberal representative.
I invite and encourage other Canadians who oppose this proposed legislation to direct correspondence to their local representatives and other politicians.
The email address for any member of Parliament is
(MP's surname).(first initial)@parl.gc.ca.
As an example, our (not so) prime minister can be reached at Martin.P@parl.gc.ca.
Hello:
In addressing this correspondence to you, I have refrained from using the salutation "Right Honourable" before your name. I believe that such a term of respect must be earned, and not merely conveyed due to political niceties! Maybe this is my litmus test for you.
As a Canadian citizen, I am appalled by the wanton decision of several Canadian appointed judges to attempt to rewrite history by granting "marriage" licenses to homosexual partners. By their blatant disregard for the law, not only do they consider themselves above the law, they have even deemed themselves to be the makers of the law. And the spineless politicians who have abdicated their responsibility to maintain accountability, are no less contemptible.
The collective motto of this band of incompetents, as demonstrated by their actions and inactions, appears to be - Let the Canadian public be held hostage! They will get used to it!
Most proponents of homosexual "marriage" condemn the established law governing the issuance of marriage licenses as discrimination based on gender or sexual preference.
These laws do discriminate, as they should, with regard to - the applicants’ gender, age (both must be adults), blood relationship (no first degree relatives), current marital status (currently not married to someone else), sanity, sobriety, consciousness, mutual freedom and willingness to marry, and type of relationship (currently monogamous).
If homosexual "marriage" is to be sanctioned, I’m sure that there soon will be other challenges to dispel these other discriminations. What will be next - pedophile or polygamous "marriages"?
This issue surely will be our country’s Pandora’s Box!
If Canadians allows rogue judicial and political mavericks to redefine a concept so integral to society as marriage in the pretext of eliminating discrimination, what is next?
In our society which is driven by feelings as opposed to ethical considerations, should the long established definitions of mother, father, son, daughter, male, female, and even black and white also be changed to avoid offence?
Should society really discriminate against any mother who would prefer to be called a "father"? Or how about a mother who really wanted to have a daughter, but instead gave birth to a son? Should she be encouraged to refer to him as she so wishes?
Likewise, should a male be free to declare himself/herself "female"?
If some people regard all discrimination with disdain, should all discrimination be eliminated?
Most importantly, what will be the long-term effect of legitimizing homosexual "marriage"? Will it reinforce the false belief that marriage and parenthood are unrelated?
In a heterosexual marriage, children are afforded exposure to the specific thoughts, behaviours, experiences, outlooks, and affections that usually differentiate male from female psyches. In a homosexual union, children probably will be exposed to and thereby assimilate only the views espoused by either their male or female "parents". Balance and diversity will be lacking. Do gays and lesbians truly value the concept of "diversity", or is it merely a useful tool to foist their lifestyle on a non-questioning, non-caring, passive, predominantly heterosexual society?
Some individuals have referred to the issue of redefining marriage as a "slippery slope". Maybe a precipice would be a truer analogy!
We, in Canada, have had much of our behaviour and many of our activities interpreted according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a real Pandora’s Box ensuring employment for any and all lawyers). That really changed our society, and I doubt that it was beneficial to us, as Canadians. We even lack a national identity now. Our only identifiable characteristic is our mandated complacency to accept everything as defined according to a "politically correct" manipulative agenda.
As elected representatives, you have a responsibility to be firstly a person of honour, and secondly to express and effect the collective interests of your constituents. Hopefully you will assume this task without looking for a convenient excuse to shirk your duty and to hide from accountability.
Since several provincial courts have rushed to honour same sex "marriages", you now have the authority and power to hold those rogue magistrates accountable for their usurped actions. You can ensure that the band of incompetents are held accountable for their personal agenda, and enable them to apologize to the Canadian populace.
merely a Canadian who continues to learn, and wonders "why and why not"!
Well, I'm Canadian, and I think that Canadians fully deserve this Liberal regime - they've voted for it time and time again, and do not want to face up to realities of any kind - political, economic, and moral.
Even those who criticize the Canadian state do not go so far as to condemn the profiteers of human misery who live off its proceeds!
Rather, they encourage their own kids to get government jobs.
I realize there are exceptions - hell, I'm an exception, but Canadians are too d*mned polite to their socialist/NDP/Liberal neighbours, and too often politely nod when the verities of Canucklehead pious TC Effing Douglas 'social responsibility' are publicly fondled and licked by even Conservatives.
Candians need a kick in the *ss with a frozen boot.
/blanket statements.
Fair enough ... and a frozen boot would definitely help. : )
I don't know about you, but I'm definitely cranky by February.
;^)
And the same logic the kangaroo court used to "legalize" homosexual marriage works equally well for all the other exceptions. If this crap passes, Canada has no reason whatsoever for prohibiting polyandrous, bestial or any other "marriages".
Woo hoo.......I can hardly wait for the next election. This issue will end a lot of political careers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.