Thursday, December 07, 2006

There Goes the Neighbourhood

In 175 to 122 vote, the House has voted against re-opening the debate on same sex marriage. Among the notables who opposed the motion:

Peter MacKay
Lawrence Cannon (who no doubt will go into a 15 minute monologue on who exactly is a same sex couple if asked afterwards)
Jim Prentice
David Emerson
Josee Verner
John Baird
Michael Chong
Joe Comuzzi

However, some people just can't seem to get the idea of man on man monogamy out of their heads:

But opponents of gay and lesbian marriage said on Wednesday that rejection of the motion would not end their bid to have the legislation overturned.

“Oh no, absolutely not,” Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, told the Globe when asked whether his group will abandon the fight if the motion was defeated.

“We are going to continue to lobby members of Parliament, to raise up grassroots and to engage in the democratic process.”

So, expect McVety to begin lobbying Parliament to re-open the debate on re-opening the debate on same sex marriage.


  • He can lobby all he wants, but Rob Nicholson mentioned on Mike Duffy that no one is going to be listening. ;)

    He said issue is settled, no "Defence of Religion" act.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 5:36 PM  

  • It's McVety's right to lobby whomever he wishes.

    I agree though, no one will be listening much anymore.

    Defence of Religion is already enshrined in the charter.

    By Blogger Joe_Canada, at 5:42 PM  

  • Laws in Canada, laws in Canada's constitution, have not been followed since 1901 when Queen Victoria died, so why start now with laws in Canada concerning the definition of marriage?

    Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901.

    The next day, on January 23, 1901, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867, still stated: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen".

    On January 23, 1901, Section 17 still stated: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons".

    On January 23, 1901, Section 91 still stated: "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...".

    What was the name of Canada’s constitutional Queen regnant who had executive government and authority of and over Canada after the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of Queen Elizabeth II?

    By Blogger David Wozney, at 6:54 PM  

  • ...who is the crazy guy?

    Anyway, glad to see parliament re-affirm same sex marriage rights and hopefully this issue is done.

    By Blogger Shawn, at 6:58 PM  

  • re: David Wozney.


    By Blogger KC, at 7:00 PM  

  • He's been spreading his "theories" on Usenet for about the last 10 years. He's very funny.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 7:13 PM  

  • What is the societal purpose of treating the one-sexed relationship as if it was marriage?

    No me-too--ism, please. Just make the new thing stand on its own two feet instead of piggybacking on the conjual union of man and woman.

    No false equivalency claims, either, that magically transform into false equality claims.

    Since Canadians have so thoroughly discussed this issue, perhaps there is a ready answer to that question?

    By Blogger Chairm, at 7:14 PM  

  • What is the societal purpose of treating the one-sexed relationship as if it was marriage?

    We have a charter of rights and freedoms that we are proud of. In Canada we choose not to treat minority groups with less respect than we treat anybody else. It's part of our "society."

    By Blogger Charlie Barnard, at 7:23 PM  

  • Chairm, this is not about the same sexed getting married, it is about the government treating any two Canadian citizens equally when it comes to conferring a governmental benefit. So long as the government wishes to remain in the marriage biz - and there is no reason

    By Blogger jaycurrie, at 7:47 PM  

  • There is no answer to you chairm, because you reject the basis of the argument - that gay and lesbian relationships are legally, morally and socially equal to those of straight people.

    Quite apart from that, there is no possible legal mechanism for the full recognition of these relationships in Canada other than marriage. The federal government has no jurisdiction to create civil unions.

    So you can ask "why can't it be something other than marriage" all you want, but that option is a non-starter in Canada, even if it were morally and ethically acceptable and not a blatant violation of the Charter.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 7:52 PM  

  • I've never seen John Baird recieve so many cheers for sitting down before...

    By Blogger andrewridgeley, at 9:19 PM  

  • OMG!

    There is no law in Canada.

    The internet wacko has opened by eyes!

    By Blogger Manitoba Liberal, at 9:26 PM  

  • "it is about the government treating any two Canadian citizens equally when it comes to conferring a governmental benefit."

    Then why don't I get my GST rebate check anymore! ;)

    My Domestic Amalgamation will continue along just fine regardless of what it is called or who else wants to share the name =)

    By Blogger Technetium, at 2:36 AM  

  • Random young Conservative, it's because of your name! ;)

    Once you commit to a party they have no reason to ever be nice to you again. Just ask Charles McVety or any Albertan who voted for Harper.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 9:16 AM  

  • The silly notion that Canada expired on the death of Queen Victoria comes up every so often.

    The answer is pretty simple. The old BNA Act, 1867 (now Constitution Act, 1867) is a British Statute. As such, British laws regarding its interpretation apply.

    A second point is that the British were not quite so stupid that they would allow countries like Canada to expire because of a simple error.

    In 1889, they passed the Interpretation Act, 1889. Section 30 was enacted as

    References to the Crown.

    30. In this Act and in every other Act, whether passed before or after the
    commencement of this Act, references to the Sovereign reigning at the time
    of the passing of the Act or to the Crown shall, unless the contrary
    intention appears, be construed as references to the Sovereign for the time
    being, and this Act shall be binding on the Crown.

    Pretty bright of them, eh? Anticipating silly objections made 117 years

    By Blogger yyclaw, at 10:27 AM  

  • Dion deserves some credit here. By allowing the Libs a free vote (which he knew would not jeopardize the result), he did take the wind out of the sails of the right wing die-hards who used the argument that the previous vote was invalid due to Martin whipping his cabinet and parliamentary secretaries.

    Did anyone hear a CBC interview with Roy Cullen prior to the vote. He said that he wasn't a constitutional expert but "if a Minister of the Crown" (hey Roy! it's only Vic Toews) says that the Supremes left open a window by which only hetero marriage could yet be made the law of the land, well who was he to disagree. I always thought that Cullen was a fairly thoughtful type but he sure sounded like a fool on this issue.

    By Blogger Abrawang, at 11:07 AM  

  • I don't know, yyclaw, I think he may be on to something. Just to be on the safe side, I think when the time comes we should have Charles crowned as Queen.

    Some guys might object, but considering Chuckie wanted to be a tampon, any way you cut it Queen is a step up.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 11:12 AM  

  • Chairm, the societal reason is that it is good for society when all couples have access to hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, spousal benefits, etc. It promotes and strenghtens coupling and increases the tax base.

    By Blogger LeoPetr, at 1:23 PM  

  • The quoted Section 30 of the Interpretation Act, 1889 does not use the word "Queen".

    By Blogger David Wozney, at 1:40 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home