December 5, 2006

Marriage Vote Should be a Free Vote

Why do we support equal marriage?

Because it is the coming together of two people who want to share their lives together. We support the right of any two people to choose to come together.

Would we favor a forced marriage?

If no...

then why would we favor a forced vote on marriage?

If you believe you are right, then fight for your position.

Stephane Dion, rather than whipping his caucus, should instead tell people why it is so important to protect the rights of minorities in this country.

He should take that message to the naysayers in his caucus. He should dare his own members to vote against a charter right. As the party that brought down the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we should be party that defends it.

Yes, we must unite the caucus, through debate and ideas, not through the party whip.

Unity is an empty message if it is forced.

Forcing Quebec to stay in Canada after a decided yes vote would not be “real” unity.

Unity means more to people when they choose to unite.

If we ever seek to really be a united party, we will understand that.

What unites us is our values (social justice, national unity, the environment) and our goals (defeat Harper and implement our values through legislation)

That is why you see me making all these cracks about "party unity." Do we rally behind our leader Stephane Dion...ABSOLUTELY!

Do we stop pushing for what we believe to be Liberal values even if it defies the view of our leader? I would certainly hope not.

So let up on the whip, show some leadership, and dare your members to vote against a Charter right. It will make you a stronger leader, and Canada a better country for it.

15 Commentaires:

Blogger Charlie Barnard a dit...

Your logic is twisted. We would force a vote for the precise reason you have mentioned: we support the right of any two people to choose to come together

12/05/2006 5:14 p.m.  
Blogger EX-NDIP a dit...

Where in the constitution does it address SSM???
I do know that my 12 year-old daughter cannot get married, neither can my 15 year-old son . . . and of course they can't marry each other, at any age.
So where do you suppose this is all going? How about 3 or 4 people getting married? Why not include the family pet, or farm animals?
The LPC will not allow a free vote, just like last time . . . the sheeple (not allowed to think for themselves) will tow the party line. Otherwise you get the Nuziato treatment.

12/05/2006 6:22 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

ex-ndip, the "slippery slope" argument is getting old, and tired. i'd go into refuting it, but i'm not going to give you that satisfaction. and the LPC is sheeple? remind me again which party not only whipped their cabinet, but their whole caucus as well on the "nation" vote?

12/05/2006 6:33 p.m.  
Blogger propatria a dit...

Seems dion may do just that: from ctv:

"Dion may free caucus on same-sex marriage vote"

Opening up the debate, if the vote actually passed which it wont, would hurt the conservatives more than the liberals anyways: ultimately dion would crack the whip and enough liberals would back SSM, while the conservatives would tangle with the issue with their evangelical wing in full view, always entertaining for the majority of this country.

12/05/2006 6:49 p.m.  
Blogger EX-NDIP a dit...

Why don't we do like the US???
Twenty odd states voted on the SS issue . . . even left-leaning California turned the concept down. Only one state voted for SSM.

The US is a real republic, a true democracy, unlike our 18th century system.

YG . . . as I said there are restrictions on marriage now . . . right! Where in the constitution is SSM addressed?

12/05/2006 6:52 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

The funniest and more brilliant approach:

Dion announces the Liberals will not be voting on it at all with the following statement: "It is insulting to marriage and rights to even debate whether these people can be married. It implies that they could have that right removed."

As such, now the Conservatives have a real problem. If they all vote for repealing SSM (which msot will), they actually will re-open the issue and be screwed. We justify the Liberal position by saying "it was a matter of principle, and the new harper law will be ruled unconstitutional." Suddenly, the Conservatives look like the socons they really are.

12/05/2006 6:54 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

uh, ex-ndip? marriage is a contract. 12 and 15 year olds are not allowed to contract. Neither are pets or farm animals.

and speaking for myself, I've lived in both the US and here in Canada. I much prefer Canada. The US may be a republic, but where minority rights are concerned, it is hardly a beacon to the world. Racial segregation was the law of the land until just a few years ago. And the country embraced slavery long after the institution was rejected in the rest of the world. To name just two examples. No thank you. I'll take Canada any day.

12/05/2006 7:08 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

ex-ndip, while same sex marriage itself is not mentioned in the constitution. However, section 91(26) of the Constitution Act of 1867 gives the federal government power over marriage and divorce. Section 91(12) gives the provinces power over the solemnization of marriage. So we've established that marriage is the federal government's jurisdiction as far as definition goes. In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 15(1), and (2) discusses equality. the text, and I quote is:

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

I suppose that it's all how you interpret it, but I believe that this whole SSM thing was based upon Section 15. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

12/05/2006 7:56 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Is the only thing stopping you from marrying 3 or 4 people that there is a law against it? Are you the first to marry a farm animal if it is legal? Of course not, let people do what they want. I fail to see the massive impact it has on you.
Secondly, you're right the US voted against same sex marriage. Canadians are in favor of it 58% to 38% (Globe). Seems a true democracy would let people decide in a direct vote and put it in the Constitution if it passes. A true liberal Democracy would not even have a vote as it's not the governments business in the first place.

12/05/2006 9:28 p.m.  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...

Antonio, will you marry me? If you're worried about the legality of it, it's perfectly legal in my gay liberal sanctuary!

12/05/2006 9:53 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Absolutely the Marriage Vote Should be a Free Vote in here is why.

When you desire to take a political stand on religious issues it is
very important to understand religion. Christianity nor any other
dominate religion supports a Gay life style. Supporting Gay Marriage
is seen not only as an endorsement of the Gay life style, it is also
seen to implicitly encourage a Gay life style.

There are many problems caused by mixing religion and politics. We
only need to look around the work today to see these problem. For
example, fighting non-believers so that believers can live according
to their understanding of the commands of God, is still fighting. This example is taken from Islam. There are many other examples today and throughout history of where religion has been manipulate and used as political tool. In fact this is not a new problem.

About 2000 years ago, many Jewish leaders at the time freely used
religion as a political tool. Christ clearly condemns them for doing
so. Christ reaches out to everyone, not asking them to follow simple
rules, but to search for the truth with help of the holy spirit.
People who use religion as a tool for political gains as is in the
case of gay marriage, stem cell research, etc, are the same people
that Christ spook against 2000 yrs ago. Remember the finally
temptation of Christ was to fall down before the devil and the devil
would give all kingdoms. Unfortunately everyone who uses religion as a political tool does exactly that.

More to the point, a good tree bares good fruit. Every ideology and
religion can be judged on this base. Neither the Bible nor any other
religious book is about science and if it claims to be, it is a lie.
Evolution vs. Creationism is strictly a political issue and not a
religious issue. In fact creations evolve to meet ever changing
challenges. Lesser things are simply manufactured. Abortion is barely
mentioned in the bible. In fact it is very clear that abortion does
not equal killing. Gay Marriage is definitely an issue that Christians
can not support. Which means Christians can't live a gay life style.

Instead of denouncing, I challenge.
Christians today have grown up from the seeds of Christ. By the fruit
of Christians today mankind judges Christianity to be the way of truth
or purely religious politics as many say.

As a Christian I can not support Gay Marriage. I can accept that there
are Gay people who wish to live together. It is natural to love and
God intended us to love one another. However for men who have the
desire for men in their flesh or women who have the desire for women
in their flesh, only when they live by the spirit of God and not the
flesh can they overcome the sinful desires of the flesh. Everyone who
wishes to follow Christ first needs to die to their sinful flesh and
be reborn into the spirit of God. As long as we are flesh there is the
desire for sin in us, but God over came the flesh. Because of God's
grace we are no longer bond by sin, but have been saved and can live
according to God's Holy Spirit now within us.

Honestly a gray area, because once you allow gay marriage. The thinking goes, what is there to prevent marrying my dog, even though she is a bitch. Dogs are man's best friend. Ha ha, though I love my dog, I have no intention of marrying her. Nor do I expect most other people. lol

The Liberal Party should not support or condemn Gay Marriage. Instead
should support the freedoms is entrenched into our Canadian
Constitution. Freedom of religion should extend to a free vote.

Best Regards
Tim Webster

12/05/2006 10:28 p.m.  
Blogger WestmountLiberal a dit...

"Christianity nor any other
dominate religion supports a Gay life style. Supporting Gay Marriage
is seen not only as an endorsement of the Gay life style, it is also
seen to implicitly encourage a Gay life style."

Tim -
Please define a "gay" lifestyle as opposed to a "straight" lifestyle.
I'm looking forward to your generalizations.

12/06/2006 9:42 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

12/06/2006 2:04 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

12/06/2006 2:04 p.m.  
Blogger dollard_liberal a dit...

Well folks, it was after all a free vote and the issue is closed.

Harper sure looks like a bigot to me.

12/07/2006 6:16 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home