Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I am worried that it won't pass. I was listening to "As it Happens" on CBC Radio last night and the Conservative Minister for London was on saying how many people are against this... specifically the alteration of the definition of Marriage.
When I try to understand this from the point of view of people who are against, I literally cannot understand their position. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Here is the crux of th ewhole argument. Their opinion is not based on science, or knowledge or even morality. It is based on the inbility to fathom fundemental change in social structure. Society is one of the most complex and fundementally unchanging structures that we know, and as populations increase, the ability to change that structure is inversly proportional.
How long did it take for women to get the vote? That is the perfect example. But we are in an interesting situation right now where we have a human rights ruling by the Supreme Court that says discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage laws are contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So, a free vote in parliament seems moot. Nothwithstanding Clause? Not a chance, it would be the end of any MP who voted in favour, with the possible exception of the redneck MP from redbeck ridings in Alberta (like mine for instance
)
So, despite the aruements, same-sex marraige is ALREADY protected, now the legislation simply needs to be amended. No new legislation need be introduced. Paul Martin may think this is a sticky situation, but he better do this the right way, and he better do it soon.
As for an election, if there is one it will be Harper's fault. He is such a fucked-up useless tool I can't beleive anyone allows him to talk in public, never mind lead a political party. Maybe there will be a non-confidence vote, and an election will follow, and the Conservatives will lose all but two seats. It happened before, why not again?
Dare to Dream...
Peace,
Pierre