That’s something closer to the post I should have originally made in this thread.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?)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
, I go both ways.