# Homophobia is so 2005, darling: Harper reopens same-sex marriage debate **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 4, 2006, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358 "2006-06-04T04:37:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/1 "2006-06-04T04:37:21Z")
On July 12, 2002, the Ontario Superior Court ruled in the case of _Halpern et al. v. Canada_ that the common law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the _Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms._ During the next ten months, similar rulings were brought down in _Hendricks v. Quebec_ and _Barbeau v. British Columbia_. In early 2003, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights decided that the issue was sufficiently serious to warrant travelling hearings all across Canada. It was my privilege to [testify](http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/37/2/just/meetings/evidence/justev39-e.htm#T1332) before one such hearing on April 29, 2003. On June 10, 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued a decision on an appeal made by the families in _Halpern_. They ruled that same-sex marriage ought to commence immediately. The Standing Committee advised Prime Minister Chrétien’s government not to appeal that appeal. Same-sex marriage became legal in Ontario. Over the next two years, eight more courts ruled likewise. After a while they gave up going through all the _Charter_ reasons and simply finding that the law _as it existed_ ought to apply equally in that province. At the same time, the government sent a reference to the Supreme Court. This took more than a year to decide, including the time to consider an additional question put by Prime Minister Martin. The answer, brought down on December 9, was that the government had the authority to pass a law amending the legal definition of marriage; it declined to rule on whether such a change was required, saying that had already been decided by the provincial courts. Then ensued several months of debate in the House. The _Civil Marriage Act_ was brought on February 1. It passed the House of Commons on June 28, the Senate on July 19, and Royal Assent on July 20. To recap, there have been twelve different court rulings requiring same-sex marriage. There has been three years of parliamentary deliberations, cross-country hearings, a Supreme Court reference, and enough reports, minutes, opinions, letters, Hansards, and coverage to wallpaper New Brunswick. [And apparently, it just _ **hasn’t been enough.** _](http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/02/harper-samesex.html) > [@](#): > > Members of Parliament will be asked this fall whether or not they wish to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday… > > A specific date has not been set. > > Although the motion will ask MPs to reopen discussion on same sex marriage, it will not directly challenge the exisiting legislation. It may, however, ask if parliamentarians wish to repeal the existing law or curtail it in some way. Now folks, you know I’m involved in politics. Hell, I’m with the NDP, the party where you innocently go into a meeting and stagger out three hours later, on six different committees with no idea how you got there. You know I regularly devote huge swaths of my time to arguing about policy in finicky detail, putting out press releases, organizing campaigns, getting signatures, building coalition. I do this for _fun_. In my _spare time._ So as you can imagine, I have quite a bit of patience for debating issues of all kinds. My patience just ran out. I cannot possibly express just how unfathomably _bored_ I am with my equality and rights still pretended to be an open question. It is so incredibly wearying to be a political football; every day literally defending _yourself_, every day being called into question, every day hearing someone on the news blithely talking about curtailing, excluding, repealing, reviling, with not a single inkling of doubt that that’s somehow a reasonable point of view in this country in the twenty-first goddamn century. I knew this was coming (and a big nyah! to all the apologists who were convinced he wouldn’t try it.) I’m not that worried, to be honest. I know it’s just a sop to his base and that he probably doesn’t expect even the motion to pass. Counting them out on my silly little fingers, I am fairly sure we have enough MPs to keep us safe for another year. But for Dorothy Parker’s sake you are working my very, very last nerve. _You lost. It really, really passed. It really, really is required by the Charter. The sky really, really didn’t fall in. **Will you please get some new goddamn material!** _ ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/2 "2006-06-04T04:55:18Z")
For the love of God, let it go THROUGH already. If two people are willing to promise to each other in a legally binding and “forever” sense, then who is the government to tell them no? I am a devout Catholic. I am not willing, in this thread, to make a defense of my beliefs with regard to homosexuality whether in regard to marriage or in any other context. But this is a governmental decision, about rights conferred by a nation on its citizens without consideration of whether my God (or anyone else’s) thinks it’s OK. If couples have rights (which they do) and if those rights are open to any couple that wishes to put their couplehood on record (which, in the face of lingering stigma and against spurious legal tradition, many brave and admirable couples are willing to do), then shut the hell up and enforce the rights you guaranteed to your entire populace. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/3 "2006-06-04T05:07:44Z")
What the fuck does Harper think he’s going to accomplish? Does he think that provincial courts all across the country are going to see another damned vote and say “whoops, I guess that changes our view of the constitution”? Or is this just going to be the “Shore up the Conservative Base Act of 2006”, much like George Bush is now selling the “Throw the Gays Under the Bus to Get Out the Fundie Bigot Vote Amendment”? ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/4 "2006-06-04T05:27:34Z")
Neither NDP or the Bloc will vote to revisit debate. The worst thing for Harper would be if enough Liberals broke ranks and joined his side. He wants to loose this vote, because then he can say he tried to reinstate “traditional marriage” but the damned opposition wouldn’t let him. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/5 "2006-06-04T05:53:00Z")
Actually it seems to me that Harper is well aware that this is a losing issue for him, and that he’s quite intentionally proceeding in a manner that is sure to fail. The vote isn’t going to be about the legal status of same-sex marriage, but about whether to revisit the question of the legal status of same-sex marriage. The Globe and Mail is reporting that some Tory MPs are likely to vote against re-opening the debate, and I’d expect that some of the anti Liberals will do likewise. I doubt the vote will even be close. Thing is, Harper has promised to hold this vote since forever, and so he pretty much has to hold it. He’ll be able to tell the social conservatives, “I tried,” without having to get on the bad side of the socially progressive Tory voters. Frankly, I’m quite glad he’s proceeding the way he is - the alternative, bringing in a new bill that would repeal C-38 and set up some sort of separate-and-not-equal status for same-sex couples that would have had some (rather small) chance of passing, would have guaranteed that the issue would have been dragged back before the courts and we’d have been debating for another 5 years. This way it should be pretty much put to rest for good this fall. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/6 "2006-06-04T06:14:42Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Actually it seems to me that Harper is well aware that this is a losing issue for him, and that he’s quite intentionally proceeding in a manner that is sure to fail. Oh, I know. But for me, the fact that the issue is being revisited at all is a giant PITA. And insulting to boot. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/7 "2006-06-04T06:27:28Z")
I have to cautiously agree with **Gorsnak**. When I saw the front page of the _Globe & Mail_ this morning, my initial reaction was one of “What what _what?!_” As I settled in with my coffee and stinky cigar, I began to read and had a horrible sinking feeling – until I got to page four, and began to feel somewhat better. It seems like Harper is making a token (and almost certainly futile) gesture for his social conservative base, in the way of a coming through on a half-assed election promise. It seems _calculated_ to fail. There’s less support for the Hets-Only definition amongst Conservatives than there even was the first time around, and they’re placing their thin hopes for success on a purge of the Conservative party which would get rid of those who don’t properly foam at the mouth and fall over backwards. The matter is settled, constitutionally, and Herr Harper has given us his word (!) that he’ll not bust out an override. Of course, it would be all _sorts_ of better if all these pricks would just shut the fuck up and leave well enough alone, because a slight risk is still a distant second to no risk when it comes to where people _live_. If there is a silver lining, though, I think it’s that this bullshit is liable to blow the smug bastard’s reelection chances right out of the water. Canada _has_ moved on, except for a few shrill hysterics. Pandering to them is _not_ the strategy of a bright boy. Sorry for the excessive use of _emphasis_. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/8 "2006-06-04T06:28:58Z")
I t y p e t o o s l o o o o o w… ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/9 "2006-06-04T07:16:49Z")
Well, here in Massachusetts, we’ll be revisiting the issue again at the Constitutional Convention on July 12th, and assuming it gets the assent of 25% of the legislature, we’ll get to actually vote on it in 2008. So, yeah, I guess it just isn’t going away soon enough. ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/10 "2006-06-04T08:13:12Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Oh, I know. But for me, the fact that the issue is being revisited at all is a giant PITA. And insulting to boot. It’s both, **Matt** , but maybe you can find comfort in the spectacle of an hatefilled opportunist thrashing his way into infamy. No matter his ‘reasons’, they don’t stand up now, much less over time. Stupidity is stubborn but it doesn’t always win. This is a last-gasp appeal to the worst. You, and the quietly relentless flow of Canadian civic–and _civil_–decency and common sense stand squarely on the other side. Even hateful political posing seems almost bearable when the worst poison is drawn. Those who laugh last, living well the best revenge and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/11 "2006-06-04T09:51:17Z")
A draft letter for you: My dear Miss Teskey: I am writing to express my sincere sympathy that the man you are living with considers that the question of marriages is something that should be “revisited.” I feel bad that you will have to break to your two small children the news of their illegitimacy. I would have expected that a man in his position would have considered exchanged vows as something to be honored and respected by others, and not sacrificed to political expediency. And if this letter’s cavalierness about the marriage which no doubt means a great deal to you has angered you, then I ask you to consider how I must feel. Sincerely, * * * ---
**Author:** ![Antigen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/848f3c/32.png) [@Antigen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antigen)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/12 "2006-06-05T01:39:26Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Oh, I know. But for me, the fact that the issue is being revisited at all is a giant PITA. And insulting to boot. It’s just not right. It’s done. It’s decided. The arguing and debating and protesting and everything has been done to death and there is no point in stirring everything back up again. I really don’t have the energy to protest Harper right now, but dammit, if he pushes too far… ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/13 "2006-06-05T02:14:10Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > What the fuck does Harper think he’s going to accomplish? Achieve the sop to right wing supporters he needs; he’ll call for a vote, it will fail, and then he can throw his hands up and say “I tried.” Not holding the vote breaks a promise and enrages the religious right. But he doesn’t want the vote to actually succeed in overturning gay marriage; indeed, having this progress any further would be a disaster for the Conservatives. A move against _anything_ widely perceived as a “Right” would be a sledgehammer the Liberals could use against him in the next election, turning away Ontario and Quebec voters in droves; it would absolutely, unquestionably result in the government, at best, losing the next election big time. A failed vote, however, isn’t an effective election weapon; it would sound pointless and petty in a TV debate in 2008. His job here is to successfully do nothing either way; hold a “Vote” and have it fail. It’s magnificent politics. Yes, it is insulting, though; nobody would hold a sure-to-fail vote on racial equality to play a poltical card. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/14 "2006-06-05T02:20:46Z")
> [@Antigen](#): > > It’s just not right. It’s done. It’s decided. The arguing and debating and protesting and everything has been done to death and there is no point in stirring everything back up again. While I’m 100% with you on this issue, the ability to bring up supposedly ‘dead’ issues is entirely necessary, and benefits the side of progress as often as it does the side of regress. While I sympathize and empathize with having to fight a rearguard action against gay marriage, and would just as soon see the matter settled, I would never suggest that there is an inherent wrongness in bringing the matter up again. And, really, by US standards, it seems quite the thing to do. I guess one of those things about being a progressive is a certain faith that eventually progress will go the way you expect. Basically, I suppose that what I’m saying is that we must extend to our political opponents every advantage we expect to enjoy, even if we’re right and they’re wrong. Still no reason to rejoice in this role, but, hey, fairness isn’t always rewarding in the short term. ---
**Author:** ![Antigen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/848f3c/32.png) [@Antigen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antigen)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/15 "2006-06-05T02:50:28Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > While I’m 100% with you on this issue, the ability to bring up supposedly ‘dead’ issues is entirely necessary, and benefits the side of progress as often as it does the side of regress. I agree that issues should be brought up again, but I’d like to think that the politicians should wait until there’s a need to. When public opinion in such that an issue should be revisited, then by all means, let’s have another look at it. But in this case, we’re ok with same-sex marriage. There’s no real need to drag this issue into the light again when public opinion says that the current stand on it is perfectly acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![baronsabato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@baronsabato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/baronsabato)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/16 "2006-06-05T03:06:04Z")
I don’t really know much about Canadian politics and attitudes, but I was under the impression the majority of Canadians support same-sex marriage. Is that just a misconception of mine? How likely would anything like this be supported by the Canadian people? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/17 "2006-06-05T03:31:51Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > While I’m 100% with you on this issue, the ability to bring up supposedly ‘dead’ issues is entirely necessary, and benefits the side of progress as often as it does the side of regress. While I sympathize and empathize with having to fight a rearguard action against gay marriage, and would just as soon see the matter settled, I would never suggest that there is an inherent wrongness in bringing the matter up again. And, really, by US standards, it seems quite the thing to do. I guess one of those things about being a progressive is a certain faith that eventually progress will go the way you expect. It’s not just that the issue is being resurrected that chaps me. 1. It’s my rights being called into question an additional time, to do nothing but score political points from people who hate me, as **RickJay** elucidated. 2. It’s so comically unnecessary to bring this up again a year after we just spent nearly _four years_ examining this entire issue in minute detail. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/18 "2006-06-05T04:52:30Z")
> [@baronsabato](#): > > I don’t really know much about Canadian politics and attitudes, but I was under the impression the majority of Canadians support same-sex marriage. Is that just a misconception of mine? How likely would anything like this be supported by the Canadian people? I haven’t seen many recent polls, but I believe a fairly small majority support the right to same-sex marriage. A somewhat larger majority would be opposed to using the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule the court decisions which made same-sex marriage a reality here (which is what would be required to turn back the clock). An even larger majority wants the debate to be over with and just move on. However, the support for same-sex marriage varies by region, and much of the Conservatives’ core constituency is opposed. That’s why the vote’s being held. The voting bloc needed to move the Conservatives into majority territory, on the other hand, mostly supports same-sex marriage, and that’s why the vote’s being held in such a way as to fail. It is, as **RickJay** said, magnificent politics. **matt** , if it makes you feel any better, I watched the vote on C-38 live, and when my MP stood up to vote against it I swore then and there that she would never get my vote. My (relatively) positive response to this news is because I’ve been dreading the possibility of the Tories wiggling a separate-but-unequal bill through Parliament followed by yet more years of legal challenges. Since I’ve never thought Harper would renege on his promise to hold a vote, this seems like it’s the least available evil. I’d be more inclined to pit Harper for making the campaign promise to revisit the issue than for following through on it in the way that he has. ---
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homophobia-is-so-2005-darling-harper-reopens-same-sex-marriage-debate/359358/19 "2006-06-05T05:28:44Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > **matt** , if it makes you feel any better, I watched the vote on C-38 live, and when my MP stood up to vote against it I swore then and there that she would never get my vote. Ditto! I voted NDP that next election… And magnificent politics though it may be, I still get a queasy feeling thinking about it. Even a slight risk feels like too much on such a politically divisive issue…