# Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition compares Same Sex Marriage to Fleeing Jews? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 17, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538 "2005-02-17T14:58:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/41 "2005-02-17T22:32:26Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > It would be rather odd to cite the nature of BC’s provincial anti-discrimination law as a reason to oppose federal same-sex marriage legislation, since the two have bugger all to do with each other. That’s something closer to the post I should have originally made in this thread. Harper is saying the Civil Marriage Act doesn’t protect religious groups from suits like Chymyshyn’s and Smith’s. Which is true. But the Civil Marriage Act doesn’t protect religious groups from junk mail, phishing, or real estate fraud either, because the Civil Marriage Act isn’t about junk mail, phishing, or real estate fraud. It’s about providing access to the institution of marriage to gay and lesbian couples in Canada, and _that’s it_. Anything else is a red herring. (Is it just me, or is “Chymyshyn” an inordinately cool name?) ---
**Author:** ![Balduran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cc9497/32.png) [@Balduran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balduran)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/42 "2005-02-17T23:54:29Z")
> [@Rebekkah](#): > > I moved to Alberta and landed smack in the middle of the conservative heartland. Now, I rarely meet people who are pro ssm. > > I find myself completely befuddled by this, but they take Harper’s rhetoric as though it were the word of God himself. They are constantly sucking his dick on talk radio, and people quote his reasons for being anti ssm as gospel. You aint kidding. My mother emailed me in a panic a few weeks ago because she was convinced that Harper had unlocked the Liberal’s hidden agenda of first SSM, then legalisation of polygamy and then child marriages. She then said it was all starting to make sense because of how Harper, the defender of children, was stopped by those depraved Easterners (Easterners/Liberals – same diff to her) on the child porn bill. I said to her: “you can’t be serious, it’s not like the East is full of pedophiles”. Her response: “I wouldn’t be suprised.” I’m exagerating, but it seems like any Albertan who’s old enough to remember the NEP is just looking for an excuse to hate the East some more. Harper is taking the easy road and pandering to those feelings. A big mistake since it is supposed to be a national party. The Eastern conservatives will pretty soon get tired of it. If he’s not careful, he’s going to get turfed like Stockwell Day in the next leadership convention. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/43 "2005-02-18T01:27:46Z")
I always knew that Stephen Harper was a social-conservative-in-fiscal-conservative’s clothing. What I wasn’t expecting was that even he would use a tactic he’s been using lately – playing the queers-vs-ethnic minorities card. I suspect bringing up the Liberal’s spotty past is an attempt to make the modern Liberals look racist, because (in Harper’s mind) ethnic minorities are automatically homophobic, and they can twist marriage equality into some sort Eurocentric thing. And that’s the only way I can make any sense of what he’s saying here. As for Harper setting himself up as the paragon of multiculturalism, I think it’s insulting to the intelligence of Canadians. It’s obnoxious for Harper to suggest that anyone whose skin is darker than his own or who has a different accent is incapable of having an open-mind (why doesn’t anyone call him on his racism?). I can only imagine how insulting it must be for queers of colour, queers of ethnic minorities, or people of colour and ethnic minorities who support same-sex marriage. I worry though, what the fallout will be? There are going to be some people – a minority to be sure, but some – who take this inflammatory rhetoric seriously. What kinds of wounds are going to be left over in our society, when this debate is finished? How many Canadians of ethnic minorities out there are going to think that Martin made a choice, and chose against them? How many queers are going to go the Pim Fortuyn route and think that their self-respect requires xenophobia? Stephen Harper is vile. Why does this man still have voters? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/44 "2005-02-18T01:29:26Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > That’s something closer to the post I should have originally made in this thread. Harper is saying the Civil Marriage Act doesn’t protect religious groups from suits like Chymyshyn’s and Smith’s. Which is true. But the Civil Marriage Act doesn’t protect religious groups from junk mail, phishing, or real estate fraud either, because the Civil Marriage Act isn’t about junk mail, phishing, or real estate fraud. It’s about providing access to the institution of marriage to gay and lesbian couples in Canada, and _that’s it_. Anything else is a red herring. > > (Is it just me, or is “Chymyshyn” an inordinately cool name?) Very cool. The federal level is able to define who can get married but not who can perform marriage. I think. That opens up challenges at the provincial level to get various religious groups to perform the ceremony. Again, I think (someone chime in if I’ve got it wrong). Now given the nature of people and lawyers I would lay money on someone trying to sue a religious institution within 2 years of the passage of C-38. That then turns it into a religious freedom vs. individual freedom debate. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/45 "2005-02-18T02:48:21Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > That opens up challenges at the provincial level to get various religious groups to perform the ceremony. Nope. [Government Bill (House of Commons) C-38 (38-1) - Royal Assent - Civil Marriage Act - Parliament of Canada](http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38_cover-E.html) > [@Bill C-38 Civil Marriage Act](#): > > 1. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. ---
**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:** [February 18, 2005, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/46 "2005-02-18T02:53:15Z")
> [@Priam](#): > > _snogs **matt\_mcl** _ _There_ we go. _resnog_ ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/47 "2005-02-18T02:53:43Z")
But isn’t that a statement outside of federal powers to determine who can _perform_ marriage? Provinces have that role don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/48 "2005-02-18T02:55:09Z")
Addressed to **Muffin** of course. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/49 "2005-02-18T02:55:41Z")
**matt** is discriminating on the basis of sex! :mad: I’m just jealous because he won’t snog **me**. On account of the boobies, you see. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/50 "2005-02-18T02:59:32Z")
> [@kung fu lola](#): > > **matt** is discriminating on the basis of sex! :mad: > > I’m just jealous because he won’t snog **me**. On account of the boobies, you see. I thought you were more interested in snogging other people-with-boobies, anyway… :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Balduran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cc9497/32.png) [@Balduran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balduran)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/51 "2005-02-18T02:59:38Z")
> [@Hamish](#): > > Stephen Harper is vile. Why does this man still have voters? I take it from this that you’ve never lived out west. Western alienation runs so deep for some that they’d vote for anybody as long as they were a westerner. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/52 "2005-02-18T03:00:04Z")
> [@Balduran](#): > > My mother emailed me in a panic a few weeks ago because she was convinced that Harper had unlocked the Liberal’s hidden agenda of first SSM, then legalisation of polygamy and then child marriages. We’re way ahead of her. > [@Ontario Family Law Act R.S.O. 1990](#): > > Polygamous marriages > > ``` > (2) In the definition of “spouse”, a reference to marriage includes a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 1 (2). > > ``` > [@Ontario Marriage Act R.S.O. 1990](#): > > Idem > > ``` > (2) No person shall issue a licence to a minor, or solemnize the marriage of a minor under the authority of the publication of banns, except where the minor is of the age of sixteen years or more and has the consent in writing of both parents in the form prescribed by the regulations. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.3, s. 5 (2). > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/53 "2005-02-18T03:04:50Z")
For the millionth time 😉 , I go both ways. Aaaaaaanyway, opinions on what **Muffin** posted? I mean, is anyone really shocked? I am starting to really love our “Shucks, whatever you crazy kids want to get up to is awright with us,” Canadian mentality (OMG maybe we are actually getting an identity! Shock horror!). It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/54 "2005-02-18T03:10:42Z")
You have to find a polygamous jurisdiction first, then move here. On the upside, legislation for that should be dry and complex enough to bore most people into acceptance. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/55 "2005-02-18T03:18:59Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > But isn’t that a statement outside of federal powers to determine who can _perform_ marriage? Provinces have that role don’t they? Federal paramountcy. Presently, the provinces have their own marriage acts, but that is because the feds have let them. When the feds make their own marriage law, it will trump the provinces. Therefore, when the feds include a clause in the new law that lets churches off the hook, the provinces have to respect it. You can dig about on which sort of things are federal powers and which sort of things are provincial powers in our Constitution [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/index.html](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/index.html) > [@Constitution Acts](#): > > The Constitution Act, 1867 > . . . . > VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS > > Powers of the Parliament > > 1. 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; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,– > . . . . > 2. Marriage and Divorce. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/56 "2005-02-18T03:40:11Z")
> [@](#): > > POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT > Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada 91. 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** ; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,… > > 1. Marriage and Divorce. > [@](#): > > EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES > Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation 92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,… > > 1. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province. Bolding mine. So you’re saying that despite the exclusive provincial power to solemnize marriage (which I guess mean perform/license a marriage) federal law trumps that by the simple fact that they’re the federal government. If so that should be enough the placate most of the objecting religious groups. However, is the federal definition of “marriage and divorce” broad enough to cover solemnization or is it a more specific power? ---
**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:** [February 18, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/57 "2005-02-18T03:40:19Z")
> [@Balduran](#): > > I take it from this that you’ve never lived out west. Western alienation runs so deep for some that they’d vote for anybody as long as they were a westerner. Amusingly, Stephen Harper was born in [Toronto.](http://www.conservative.ca/english/leader2.asp) **Hamish** , FWIW, was born in Vancouver and grew up in Victoria. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/58 "2005-02-18T03:42:39Z")
I think it’d be more accurate to say they’d vote for anyone but a Liberal out West. ---
**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:** [February 18, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/59 "2005-02-18T03:50:22Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Therefore, when the feds include a clause in the new law that lets churches off the hook, the provinces have to respect it. Didn’t the Supreme Court rule in the _Reference_ that that wasn’t so? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538/60 "2005-02-18T03:53:06Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > You have to find a polygamous jurisdiction first, then move here. On the upside, legislation for that should be dry and complex enough to bore most people into acceptance. 😉 Yup. But let’s run a thought experiment. Religions are protected under our Charter. Not just Christianity. The major world religion of Islam permits polygamy. Marriage is fundamental to religion, as the present debate over same sex marriage illustrates. Polygamous marriage is not illegal in Ontario. Sharia law is gaining inroads in Ontario. Therefore, parties would have grounds to make a constitutional challenge demanding poly marriages be made in here rather than just imported. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stephen-harper-leader-of-the-opposition-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-fleeing-jews/290538.md?page=4)