Harper's Stance on Same-Sex Marriage

[Mangle]

Originally Posted by wellbelove's

I feel thats breaking the free out of a free country. It's not hurting anyone and is simply based on personal beleives. How can they when this country is so proud to have so many cultures unite as one, yet the first vote the public gets on the law in a long time is based on same sex marrage. WTF??? They could of at least started with a vote regardeing gun laws.

F*ckin' eh! I still think Canada is in better shape for a rebound than the US.

[Tayfoon]

lolz

You people are waaaay too sensitive

Most homos dont even care if their allowed to mary, you shouldnt either

[sidekick]

^it's a good thing we have you around to speak for all of us! i don't know what we'd do without you. thanks again spokesman pete!

[whited0ve]

why shouldnt they have the right to marry anyway (being they are couples etc)

theres obviously enough who care if theres so much media attention and rallies etc.

[Vitamin-X]

The media are a lot like "Fable".
If there is one supporter they multiply it by 10.
Their whole reason for being is to make news, even if there is none.

[Ree Fresh]

Whether or not you beleive its right or wrong... I still think that its a religouse point of veiw and breaks the human right of being able to choose who you marrie.

Animals or more than one spouce marrage might be a diffrent story, but I dont see the diffrence between a same sex couple and a couple who is unable to have kids.

[thebobman]

the real questions is who is/was a bigger tool, right-wing McGoosestep Harper or Payoff-McQuebec-serving Martin?

The Canadian population has agreed that marting was a bigger tool.

only problem is that in Quebec Dillusional McArt-Grant Ducepe basically OWNS Quebec now, and you can bet your ass he'll be bitching about how badly poor little over-funded Quebec has it at the hands of the Canadian iron fist.

[neoh]

with all due respect, but this isin't just a 100% Liberal website, so lets stop with the socialist bullshit. :D

[Infidel]

Its too early to bash the conservatives because they haven't had a chance to completely mess everything up yet. But lets face the facts, they are going to be making some changes to make things the way they want it, and the way people voted for. This change is going to piss a lot of poeple off and I hope it does because this will teach people to vote without knowing the issues. And for those that did know the issues before they voted, none of the upcoming changes should be a surprise.

With regards to the gay issue, the only thing that is in dispute is the words "marriage." If gay people just wants the rights that go with it, and to be recognized as a legal couple, then I say go with the term "civil union" and let them all suffer the same fate the hetero males have to face.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by neoh

with all due respect, but this isin't just a 100% Liberal website, so lets stop with the socialist bullshit. :D

same-sex marriage has nothing to do with being socialist.

[Asheai]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

same-sex marriage has nothing to do with being socialist.

plus on a public website, everyone is allowed to express their views... even conservative-loving people (though no one can promise that you won't be bashed... hopefully respectfully...lol).

[whited0ve]

who's the loser that gave me bad karma for making fun of alberta?

[decypher]

There's no way the issue will hold up against the Charter so i don't even see why parliament time should be wasted.

It was more like a political stunt by Harper to just gain more rural right votes while remaining slightly aloof with the whole "free vote" bit to appease the moderate and left of centre vote.

[Vitamin-X]

I'm not 100% on this but....


As I understand it, Parliament has the power to overide
the bill of rights if it so chooses to do so.
Of course. I'm fairly sure they need the senate to approve it.
The bill of rights isn't an actual constitution like they have in the U.S, the rights it provides are kept by tradition not law.

[Infidel]

Originally Posted by Vitamin-X

As I understand it, Parliament has the power to overide
the bill of rights if it so chooses to do so.
Of course. I'm fairly sure they need the senate to approve it.
The bill of rights isn't an actual constitution like they have in the U.S, the rights it provides are kept by tradition not law.

I don't know the details, but I think that has something to do with the notwhitstanding(sp?) clause Martin was talking about getting rid of.

[Ryan Ross]

^^^
Yeah it does, the only way you can reverse the courts decisions like that on the charter is through the not withstanding clause which Harper has said he wont use on this case. So there is basically no way that this will actually reverse unless he breaks his word on that. Even then, the not withstanding clause has never been used (to my knowledge) and they would walk into a political shit storm should they try to use it for same-sex marriage. So as I understand it, the free vote would just be a waste of time in terms of actually getting anything changed.

[sidekick]

^yeah, i highly doubt harper will use the notwithstanding clause. he has said that there are other ways to overturn same-sex marriage legally, however, he hasn't said what they are.

[Mangle]

Originally Posted by Vitamin-X

The media are a lot like "Fable".
If there is one supporter they multiply it by 10.
Their whole reason for being is to make news, even if there is none.

Except when it's something that shows the gov't in a bad light, in which case they divide by 5. How many people were at that G8 riot in Montreal, asks the knowing Jello Biafra?