Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Avoiding The Issue

Free Vote, Voix libre, Free Vote, Voix libre. That is what the Tory spin is on their Same Sex Motion. Nothing about Same Sex Marriage, nor a bill to defend Straight Marriage. Nor a declaration that they will use the Not Withstanding Clause to defeat human rights. Nope just a convoluted motion that gets them out of their promise to social conservatives that they will defeat Same Sex Marriage when they are the government.

And the reason this motion came forward? It is apparently because parliament failed to have a free vote on the issue last time. So we are going to have a free vote this time. Huh?

The Conservatives had a free vote last time, and four of their MP's voted in favour of the Government motion. The BQ and NDP voted, with the latter having one dissenter, despite accusations of whipping. the Liberals whipped cabinet and lost one Minister. And despite allowing a free vote for backbenchers two left to sit as independents. So now the Liberals in opposition are giving Harper what he wants a Free Vote.

So what's with this Free Vote business. It would not have mattered if the Liberals had not whipped cabinet, close but it would have probably passed. So if this is the issue that had the Liberals not whipped their cabinet then it would not have passed, then this motion has nothing to do with that either.

It's just about the Free Vote that the Tories promised on the issue of Same Sex Marriage.Promise made promise kept.It's not about Same Sex or Straight marriage at all. Never was, its only their promise to hold a "Free Vote" on the matter, whatever that matter was. And they have limited debate on their own motion, showing that this is all a political feint.
Tories move to limit same-sex marriage debate

The issue of entrenching Straight Marriage Only in the Constitution is for some other time, perhaps when the Tories get an overwhelming majority.



Same Sex Marriage

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , ,,,,,


Chairm said...

So if this is the issue that had the Liberals not whipped their cabinet then it would not have passed, then this motion has nothing to do with that either.

C-38 would not have passed if the cabinet ministers were not forced to support it.

Likewise, the Parliamentary Secretaries were pressured. As would any of the MPs who had ambitions for some sort of leadership role within the Liberal regime; or whose ambitions extended to their own projects.

40% Ordinary Liberal MPs opposed C-38. If Liberal MPs had been free to vote according to their consceinces or according to the advic eof their constituents, the vote would have more closely resembled the 1999 vote in the House that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Liberals at that time vowed to defend that as constitutional but their actions went the other way as they failed to offer a strong defence and did not appeal the lower court decisions. They dithered and the opportunity to debate thoroughly was squandered.

When C-38 was passed, two-thirds of the electorate opposed treating SSM as if it was marriage.

The Liberals, the NDP, and SSMers in general have misrepresented the Charter, the Supreme Court advisory opinion, and the views of the people.

If this is how SSM gets entrenched, then, the harm will be to self-government and to marriage.

DazzlinDino said...

HEY !!!!! It LOADED !!!! congrats Eugene. I agree that the Conservative government doesn't expect the thing to pass the vote, but I also don't see it as a bad thing that a party at least tries to fullfill a campaign promise. More of this could lead to that dangerous all out democracy. I actually think there is another prize they are after, which they actually have a valid point over as I have stated at my place. I think, listening to Stock talk today, what they are after is simply the 'right" for a religious person to be allowed to abstain from performing a same sex marriage. When you think about it, there is a definite overlapping of rights happening in that area.

eugene plawiuk said...

Dazzling lets put religious rights into context. Like Churches have the right to deny marriage to interracial couples.
Hmm now it sounds a little bit more ridiculous. Or perhaps the point of marriage is to convert to ones spouses religion. In that case what do churches, synagouges,etc. have to fear. Nothing this is a red herring. I heard one evangelical tell CTV that the world started going downhill with the discovery of the pill, the allowing for common law relationships, the government recognizing no fault divorce, its all the slippery slope leading to SSM and of course what comes after, Polyamory.

eugene plawiuk said...

Gee that sounds like how the Quebec Motion passed except it was a triple whip and even the Conservative back bench had to vote with the government.
So What Happened to the Tories much vaunted election promise of no whipped votes except on financial matters?! I rest my point that this is not about C-38 but is a cynical deception that they listened. Just like Kleins bluster over SSM, which he knew would get him votes just as he knew whatever he said as a Premier was going nowhere, on a federal issue.
If I was a so con I would be outraged at the Conservatives betrayl and hypocrisy.
Heck I am outraged even though I am not a so con.

eugene plawiuk said...

"If Liberal MPs had been free to vote according to their consceinces or according to the advic eof their constituents" Luckily the Liberals remembered Trudeaus great libertarian admonition; The strength of the Majority is seen in how it treats the minority.

Like the belief in the flat earth the majority of constiuents can be wrong.