Paul Martin on Gay Marriage - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Yakk · 02-17-2005, 07:24 PM

Paul Martin is the Prime Minister (head of government) of Canada. He roughly has the powers of the President, and Senate and House Majority leaders, all rolled into one. However, due to the 4 parties currently in the house, his government is a minority one -- it cannot pass a bill without the consent of either of the two next most powerful parties.

Today he gave a speech to the House of Commons (analagous to the US Senate and House in power) on the subject of the Civil Marriage Act, Bill C-38. It is a pretty good speech.

The Bill is going up for a free vote. (on most non-free vote, if the government is defeated the government falls, and a new election occurs). This means that members of his own party are free to vote their conscience. (traditionally, breaking party ranks in the HOC for most votes is grounds for being booted out of the party.)

Quote:

I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.

This is an important day. The attention of our nation is focused on this chamber, in which John Diefenbaker introduced the Bill of Rights, in which Pierre Trudeau fought to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text – more deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be.

This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and it is that important.

And that is why I stand today before members here and before the people of this country to say: I believe in, and I will fight for, the Charter of Rights. I believe in, and I will fight for, a Canada that respects the foresight and vision of those who created and entrenched the Charter. I believe in, and I will fight for, a future in which generations of Canadians to come, Canadians born here and abroad, will have the opportunity to value the Charter as we do today – as an essential pillar of our democratic freedoms.

There have been a number of arguments put forward by those who do not support this bill. It’s important and respectful to examine them and to assess them.

First, some have claimed that, once this bill becomes law, religious freedoms will be less than fully protected. This is demonstrably untrue. As it pertains to marriage, the government’s legislation affirms the Charter guarantee: that religious officials are free to perform such ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith.

In this, we are guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, which makes clear that in no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple – in no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them. Period. That is why this legislation is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Moreover -- and this is crucially important – the Supreme Court has declared unanimously, and I quote: “The guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.”

The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so.

One final observation on this aspect of the issue: Religious leaders have strong views both for and against this legislation. They should express them. Certainly, many of us in this House, myself included, have a strong faith, and we value that faith and its influence on the decisions we make. But all of us have been elected to serve here as Parliamentarians. And as public legislators, we are responsible for serving all Canadians and protecting the rights of all Canadians.

We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective -- to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.

The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this – not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.”

Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal. What’s more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime – and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality.

Fourth, some are urging the government to respond to the decisions of the courts by getting out of the marriage business altogether. That would mean no more civil weddings for any couples.

It is worth noting that this idea was rejected by the major religions themselves when their representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2003. Moreover, it would be an extreme and counterproductive response for the government to deny civil marriage to opposite-sex couples simply so it can keep it from same-sex couples. To do so would simply be to replace one form of discrimination with another.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are some who oppose this legislation who would have the government use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights to override the courts and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. And really, this is the fundamental issue here.

Understand that in seven provinces and one territory, the lawful union of two people of the same sex in civil marriage is already the law of the land. The debate here today is not about whether to change the definition of marriage – it’s been changed. The debate comes down to whether we should override a right that is now in place. The debate comes down to the Charter, the protection of minority rights, and whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I know that some think we should use the clause. For example, some religious leaders feel this way. I respect their candor in publicly recognizing that because same-sex marriage is already legal in most of the country, the only way – the only way – to again make civil marriage the exclusive domain of opposite-sex couples is to use the notwithstanding clause.

Ultimately Mr. Speaker, there is only one issue before this House in this debate. For most Canadians, in most parts of our country, same-sex marriage is already the law of the land. Thus, the issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away.

Some are frank and straightforward and say yes. Others have not been so candid. Despite being confronted with clear facts, despite being confronted with the unanimous opinion of 134 legal scholars, experts in their field, intimately familiar with the Constitution, some have chosen to not be forthright with Canadians. They have eschewed the honest approach in favour of the political approach. They have attempted to cajole the public into believing that we can return to the past with a simple snap of the fingers, that we can revert to traditional definition of marriage without consequence and without overriding the Charter. They’re insincere. They’re disingenuous. And they’re wrong.

There is one question that demands an answer – a straight answer – from those who would seek to lead this nation and its people. It is a simple question: Will you use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny to Canadians a right guaranteed under the Charter?

This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers – yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no.

Will you take away a right as guaranteed under the Charter? I, for one, will answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I will answer it clearly. I will say no.

The notwithstanding clause is part of the Charter of Rights. But there’s a reason that no prime minister has ever used it. For a prime minister to use the powers of his office to explicitly deny rather than affirm a right enshrined under the Charter would serve as a signal to all minorities that no longer can they look to the nation’s leader and to the nation’s Constitution for protection, for security, for the guarantee of their freedoms. We would risk becoming a country in which the defence of rights is weighed, calculated and debated based on electoral or other considerations.

That would set us back decades as a nation. It would be wrong for the minorities of this country. It would be wrong for Canada.

The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right.

We cannot exalt the Charter as a fundamental aspect of our national character and then use the notwithstanding clause to reject the protections that it would extend. Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim.

To those who value the Charter yet oppose the protection of rights for same-sex couples, I ask you: If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? If the Charter is not there today to protect the rights of one minority, then how can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that it will be there to protect us tomorrow?

My responsibility as Prime Minister, my duty to Canada and to Canadians, is to defend the Charter in its entirety. Not to pick and choose the rights that our laws shall protect and those that are to be ignored. Not to decree those who shall be equal and those who shall not. My duty is to protect the Charter, as some in this House will not.

Let us never forget that one of the reasons that Canada is such a vibrant nation, so diverse, so rich in the many cultures and races of the world, is that immigrants who come here – as was the case with the ancestors of many of us in this chamber – feel free and are free to practice their religion, follow their faith, live as they want to live. No homogenous system of beliefs is imposed on them.

When we as a nation protect minority rights, we are protecting our multicultural nature. We are reinforcing the Canada we value. We are saying, proudly and unflinchingly, that defending rights – not just those that happen to apply to us, not just that everyone approves of, but all fundamental rights – is at the very soul of what it means to be a Canadian.

This is a vital aspect of the values we hold dear and strive to pass on to others in the world who are embattled, who endure tyranny, whose freedoms are curtailed, whose rights are violated.

Why is the Charter so important, Mr. Speaker? We have only to look at our own history. Unfortunately, Canada’s story is one in which not everyone’s rights were protected under the law. We have not been free from discrimination, bias, unfairness. There have been blatant inequalities.

Remember that it was once thought perfectly acceptable to deny women "personhood" and the right to vote. There was a time, not that long ago, that if you wore a turban, you couldn’t serve in the RCMP. The examples are many, but what’s important now is that they are part of our past, not our present.

Over time, perspectives changed. We evolved, we grew, and our laws evolved and grew with us. That is as it should be. Our laws must reflect equality not as we understood it a century or even a decade ago, but as we understand it today.

For gays and lesbians, evolving social attitudes have, over the years, prompted a number of important changes in the law. Recall that, until the late 1960s, the state believed it had the right to peek into our bedrooms. Until 1977, homosexuality was still sufficient grounds for deportation. Until 1992, gay people were prohibited from serving in the military. In many parts of the country, gays and lesbians could not designate their partners as beneficiaries under employee medical and dental benefits, insurance policies or private pensions. Until very recently, people were being fired merely for being gay.

Today, we rightly see discrimination based on sexual orientation as arbitrary, inappropriate and unfair. Looking back, we can hardly believe that such rights were ever a matter for debate. It is my hope that we will ultimately see the current debate in a similar light; realizing that nothing has been lost or sacrificed by the majority in extending full rights to the minority.

Without our relentless, inviolable commitment to equality and minority rights, Canada would not be at the forefront in accepting newcomers from all over the world, in making a virtue of our multicultural nature – the complexity of ethnicities and beliefs that make up Canada, that make us proud that we are where our world is going, not where it’s been.

Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us.

But much has changed since that day. We’ve heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We’ve come to the realization that instituting civil unions – adopting a “separate but equal” approach – would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We’ve confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms.

And so where does that leave us? It leaves us staring in the face of the Charter of Rights with but a single decision to make: Do we abide by the Charter and protect minority rights, or do we not?

To those who would oppose this bill, I urge you to consider that the core of the issue before us today is whether the rights of all Canadians are to be respected. I believe they must be. Justice demands it. Fairness demands it. The Canada we love demands it.

Mr. Speaker: In the 1960s, the government of Lester Pearson faced opposition as it moved to entrench official bilingualism. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was. In the 1980s, the government of Pierre Trudeau faced opposition as it attempted to repatriate the Constitution and enshrine a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was.

There are times, Mr. Speaker, when we as Parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson. They felt it in the days of Trudeau. And we, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of this earth, feel it today.

There are few nations whose citizens cannot look to Canada and see their own reflection. For generations, men and women and families from the four corners of the globe have made the decision to chose Canada to be their home. Many have come here seeking freedom -- of thought, religion and belief. Seeking the freedom simply to be.

The people of Canada have worked hard to build a country that opens its doors to include all, regardless of their differences; a country that respects all, regardless of their differences; a country that demands equality for all, regardless of their differences.

If we do not step forward, then we step back. If we do not protect a right, then we deny it. Mr. Speaker, together as a nation, together as Canadians: Let us step forward.

Based off a rough headcount, the bill looks like it will pass.

Almost all NDP (left wing) party members will vote for it. The Bloc Quebecois (soverientist Quebec party) will probably vote for it. And most of the minority government Liberals are expected to vote for it.

From:
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=421
The website includes what looks like a movie feed.

Charlatan · 02-17-2005, 07:47 PM

I was astounded by Stephen Harper's response...

Is his position so weak that he had to dig up the Liberal's record on Jewish refugees from WWII?

Glava · 02-17-2005, 08:35 PM

Your explanations seem a bit condescending.

tecoyah · 02-17-2005, 08:58 PM

I mean no flame here....so please do not take it as such. But, I truly wish the United States had the forsight to address this issue as well as the Canadians seen to have. And I find it unfortunate that our leadership is tainted by political lobbyists, to the extent that it cannot do so.

irateplatypus · 02-17-2005, 09:02 PM

the President made clear his position and lobbyed for support of a Constitutional amendment in his most recent State of the Union address. surely that counts as at least addressing the issue.

tecoyah · 02-17-2005, 09:18 PM

Yes ...it does.

boatin · 02-17-2005, 11:53 PM

that is a damn impressive speech. i can't imagine that there is anything in there that people could argue with. although i know they will.

i sure wish someone could articulate the other side as well as he did, and answer his points... but i don't believe it's possible to.

edit: call that a challenge, or not. i've said it before, but i see no difference in the arguement between gay marriage and interracial marriage. anyone want to explain to me how the arguments are any different?

'destroys the sanctity of marriage'
'bad for the kids'
etc

crap, and more crap, methinks...

Ace_O_Spades · 02-18-2005, 01:04 AM

HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!

I had chills reading that. My respect for Mr. Martin just rose... I deeply support this issue, and I strongly hope it will pass.

flstf · 02-18-2005, 03:57 AM

I don't understand what he means by the following excerpt from the speech. Why would civil unions not be equal as the rest of Canadians? Why can't civil unions grant the same rights as marriage?

The reason I'm asking is because here in the states I don't believe the majority will accept changing the traditional definition of marriage as being "a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife". However civil unions may have a chance of being accepted here.

Quote:

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.”

Kadath · 02-18-2005, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I don't understand what he means by the following excerpt from the speech. Why would civil unions not be equal as the rest of Canadians? Why can't civil unions grant the same rights as marriage?

The reason I'm asking is because here in the states I don't believe the majority will accept changing the traditional definition of marriage as being "a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife". However civil unions may have a chance of being accepted here.

Because companies could decide that while spouses get to share benefits, civil union partners do not. Hospitals could decide the same thing about visitors. Entire sections of law would have to be rewritten to address civil unions, and it likely wouldn't happen. "Separate but equal" never is.

NCB · 02-18-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Because companies could decide that while spouses get to share benefits, civil union partners do not.

I have an idea. How about leaving the issue of company benefits and such in the hands of the people that actually pay for the benefits??

Charlatan · 02-18-2005, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I have an idea. How about leaving the issue of company benefits and such in the hands of the people that actually pay for the benefits??

Yes, because corporations can be trusted to do the right thing...

How about, equitable coverage... period.

Superbelt · 02-18-2005, 05:58 AM

How about it shouldn't be the companies decision once the government realizes and makes into law the fact that there is effectively no difference between a hetero and a gay couple when they want to commit to each other for life.

Either everyone gets the benefits or noone does. Otherwise lies discrimination.

NCB · 02-18-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Yes, because corporations can be trusted to do the right thing... How about, equitable coverage... period.

There are plenty of large companies now that have benefits for all partners, including homosexual couples. My wife works for one as well as my brother.

Let's just leave it to the market. Govt doesn't need to be involved in the healthcare game. You're a Canadian, surely you understand that with your current healthcare debacle

Charlatan · 02-18-2005, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

There are plenty of large companies now that have benefits for all partners, including homosexual couples. My wife works for one as well as my brother.

Let's just leave it to the market. Govt doesn't need to be involved in the healthcare game. You're a Canadian, surely you understand that with your current healthcare debacle

Plenty but not all...

I wouldn't say we have a healthcare debacle at all... I believe *very* strongly in the idea of a Universal public healthcare system.

There are some issues but they are managable... hardly a "debacle".

NCB · 02-18-2005, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Plenty but not all...

I wouldn't say we have a healthcare debacle at all... I believe *very* strongly in the idea of a Universal public healthcare system.

There are some issues but they are managable... hardly a "debacle".

No offense, but there are people shacked up in hospitals for months at a time waiting for a nursing home room. Family practioners are having a harder and harder time finding specilist to see their patients. Three to six month wait for orthopedic surgery. The MRI and other high tech imaging gap. People are waiting up to 30 months to see for one. Higher chance of death after a heart attack. I could go on and on, but these are serious issues.

Anyways, y'all have a beuatiful country and I love it up there, but this universal thingy just ain't workin' for y'all.

Charlatan · 02-18-2005, 06:27 AM

The same could be said for the millions who have no health care coverage whatsoever or are getting screwed over by their HMOs in the states...

If you have the $$$ you have wonderful coverage in the US, no question... but not everyone has the $$$.

Both systems have their flaws. The thing is, if I need an operation, I don't have to mortgage my house.

Superbelt · 02-18-2005, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

There are plenty of large companies now that have benefits for all partners, including homosexual couples. My wife works for one as well as my brother.

Let's just leave it to the market. Govt doesn't need to be involved in the healthcare game. You're a Canadian, surely you understand that with your current healthcare debacle

How'd that market based solution stuff work for the blacks through the 1950's?
Ooh, wait, we had to pass the civil rights act in the 60's...

NCB · 02-18-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The same could be said for the millions who have no health care coverage whatsoever or are getting screwed over by their HMOs in the states...

If you have the $$$ you have wonderful coverage in the US, no question... but not everyone has the $$$.

Both systems have their flaws. The thing is, if I need an operation, I don't have to mortgage my house.

True, there are too many Americans without health insurance. However, access and treatment to the system is there and hospitals do not turn people away on ability to pay.

I'm not just critictizing your system just because it's a failed socialist experiment. I'm a news junkie and I tend to read alot about this stuff, and it's absolutely breaks my heart to read stories of Canadian children waiting needlessly for life saving surgey.

Anyways, I think I've hijacked this thread enough. This is a great subject to discuss though.

NCB · 02-18-2005, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

How'd that market based solution stuff work for the blacks through the 1950's?
Ooh, wait, we had to pass the civil rights act in the 60's...

Show me where homosexuals are being denied access to the healthcare system. It's not happening.

Master_Shake · 02-18-2005, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

If we do not protect a right, then we deny it

I don't understand how the ability to sell yourself into slavery is a right. Shouldn't the government be protecting people from making these kinds of terrible decisions? I wish they would extend the same protections to heterosexuals that the homosexuals currently enjoy.

Homosexuals should count themselves lucky that they haven't been held to the ridiculous laws the rest of us are. Why they could possibly want to subject themselves to such oppresive regulations is beyond me.

Superbelt · 02-18-2005, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Show me where homosexuals are being denied access to the healthcare system. It's not happening.

Actually it is. The non-biological father or mother of a child is not a legal parent because they aren't a hetero married couple. In many states two same sex partners cannot have joint guardianship of a child. Only one does.
If this parent has the better health insurance, often he/she are unable to apply it to their child because they aren't legally family.

martinguerre · 02-18-2005, 07:08 AM

*raises glass to Mr. Martin

those were some brilliant words, and i hope they win the day.

NCB · 02-18-2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Actually it is. The non-biological father or mother of a child is not a legal parent because they aren't a hetero married couple. In many states two same sex partners cannot have joint guardianship of a child. Only one does.
If this parent has the better health insurance, often he/she are unable to apply it to their child because they aren't legally family.

That's not a denial of services issue. I've asked instances where homosexuals are denied care and access to the system based on their homosexuality.

Yakk · 02-18-2005, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glava

Your explanations seem a bit condescending.

My apologies. I wanted to make certain the importance and strength of the person speaking where as understandable as possible to everyone, from Canada to New Zealand to China.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I don't understand what he means by the following excerpt from the speech. Why would civil unions not be equal as the rest of Canadians? Why can't civil unions grant the same rights as marriage?

The reason I'm asking is because here in the states I don't believe the majority will accept changing the traditional definition of marriage as being "a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife". However civil unions may have a chance of being accepted here.

Seperate but equal failed in the USA.
Seperate but equal failed in South Africa.
Seperate but equal has failed in Canada.

There are constitutional issues: provinces have alot of power over marriage and laws regarding marriage, and such a reworking may not be constitutionally valid.

Secondly, seperate but equal is not equal. One could abolish the definition and recognition of marriage within the government, and replace it with civil unions -- that would be equal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Martin

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union.” This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.”

Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal. What’s more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime – and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality.

Martin covered most of these points, above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

There are plenty of large companies now that have benefits for all partners, including homosexual couples. My wife works for one as well as my brother.

Let's just leave it to the market. Govt doesn't need to be involved in the healthcare game. You're a Canadian, surely you understand that with your current healthcare debacle

Canada spends as much government money, as a percent of GDP, on our health care system as Americans do. American spends more private money than public money on health care. Canada spends 1/3 as much money privately as publicly on health care.

The US spends more money on health care paperwork than the entire Canadian government budget. Over 3% of your GDP. Canada spends less than 1% of it's GDP on health care paperwork.

Our lifespan is longer (last I checked), our cancer survival rates are better, and our heart attack survival rates are worse.

When I break an arm, I walk into a clinic or hospital, hand them my health care card, and I get fixed.

Canadian public health care isn't perfect. But it does work.

Yakk · 02-18-2005, 02:27 PM

The rebuttal by the leader of the opposition, Mr. Harper:
http://www.conservative.ca/documents...216-c38-sh.pdf
I haven't finished reading it, and I'm off for the weekend, but I thought others might be interested.

scotchandwater · 02-18-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

The reason I'm asking is because here in the states I don't believe the majority will accept changing the traditional definition of marriage as being "a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

People accepted it when the definition was changed so that interracial couples could marry, people accepted it when interfaith people married, people accepted it when divorced people could marry, they will eventually accept this as well.
People just have to understand that they are not losing anything by accepting other people as equals in society, you only gain.

Kadath · 02-19-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

That's not a denial of services issue. I've asked instances where homosexuals are denied care and access to the system based on their homosexuality.

You're technically correct. The child is being denied access to healthcare because of the parent's homosexuality.

NCB · 02-19-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

You're technically correct. The child is being denied access to healthcare because of the parent's homosexuality.

Come on, you really believe that children are denied health treatment in this country?

I'm not trying to play a game of "Gotcha", I'm just making the point that homosexuals are not denied healthcare because they choose to be homosexual. I've asked for a specifc instance where homosexuals are denied treatment and you have not come up with any.

Kadath · 02-19-2005, 01:42 PM

You have reduced the debate to whether I can come up with anecdotal evidence of a homosexual being denied health care because of their sexual preference, and you say you are not playing gotcha? If I were going to find a case, I would look for something about how officially homosexual men are considered more at risk for HIV and so could be denied health coverage like a smoker would be.

Why do you not want homosexuals to be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? Answer that for me, please.

NCB · 02-19-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

You have reduced the debate to whether I can come up with anecdotal evidence of a homosexual being denied health care because of their sexual preference, and you say you are not playing gotcha? If I were going to find a case, I would look for something about how officially homosexual men are considered more at risk for HIV and so could be denied health coverage like a smoker would be.

Why do you not want homosexuals to be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? Answer that for me, please.

They do have the same rights. Same rights to pursue happiness. Same rights to vote. Same rights to do as they see fit. The smae rights to leave estate property to whomever they choose. The same rights to buy a home. The same employment rights. Same educational rights. The same right as granted in the all the Constitution. Hell, they can even get married.

They just can't redefine marriage. And you know what? Straight folks can't either.

alansmithee · 02-19-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

How about it shouldn't be the companies decision once the government realizes and makes into law the fact that there is effectively no difference between a hetero and a gay couple when they want to commit to each other for life.

There's a huge difference-the ability to naturally have children.

james t kirk · 02-19-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

No offense, but there are people shacked up in hospitals for months at a time waiting for a nursing home room. Family practioners are having a harder and harder time finding specilist to see their patients. Three to six month wait for orthopedic surgery. The MRI and other high tech imaging gap. People are waiting up to 30 months to see for one. Higher chance of death after a heart attack. I could go on and on, but these are serious issues.

Anyways, y'all have a beuatiful country and I love it up there, but this universal thingy just ain't workin' for y'all.

Not to derail this thread and all, but most americans only believe the spew the health industry down south throws at them.

You would be very hard pressed to convince about 90% of Canadians to switch to an American styled health care system regardless. That would be the most telling testimate to our Universal Health Care system.

Lastly, Canadians live longer and have a far lower infant mortality rate than Americans.

'splain that Lucy if your system is so grand?

filtherton · 02-19-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

They just can't redefine marriage. And you know what? Straight folks can't either.

Marriage is redefined by every generation. Do you remember when divorces were unheard of? There was a time when the definition of marriage didn't include interracial couples. Society is always in a constant state of self reinvention. To pretend that marriage has a carved-in-stone definition is to misunderstand how marriage is defined.

The problem is that the government put itself in the marriage game, when marriage is for most people a religious issue. All people should be entitled to government recognition of civil unions. No one should be entitled to government recongnition of marriage, unless all marriages are recognized.

Charlatan · 02-19-2005, 03:11 PM

We redefine things form time to time... at one point you might remember that a citizen meant a white man of a certain age who owned property... Definitions change over time as culture changes...

I suppose there were a lot of people in those days that fought the changing definition of citizen... I think we can *all* agree that that is a good thing.

Kadath · 02-20-2005, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

They do have the same rights. Same rights to pursue happiness. Same rights to vote. Same rights to do as they see fit. The smae rights to leave estate property to whomever they choose. The same rights to buy a home. The same employment rights. Same educational rights. The same right as granted in the all the Constitution. Hell, they can even get married.

They just can't redefine marriage. And you know what? Straight folks can't either.

Your first premise is false. How many states have anti-sodomy laws?

As for your second statement, filtherton and Charlatan have already done a fine job refuting it.

NCB · 02-20-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

We redefine things form time to time... at one point you might remember that a citizen meant a white man of a certain age who owned property... Definitions change over time as culture changes...

I suppose there were a lot of people in those days that fought the changing definition of citizen... I think we can *all* agree that that is a good thing.

Amen. Eliminating racial discrimanation is a great thing. However, equating the black experience with the gay experience (pun intended

), is out of whack. There are no Straights only and gays only lunch counters. There are no straight schools and gay schools (Well, not exactly. Remember NYC established it's own publiclly funded homosexual only school). The "plight" of homosexual is virtually non existant

filtherton · 02-20-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

The "plight" of homosexual is virtually non existant

Are you serious? If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. If that were the case, would the prohibition of interracial would be a nonexistent plight as well?

NCB · 02-20-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Are you serious? If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. If that were the case, would the prohibition of interracial would be a nonexistent plight as well?

filther, we're talking about this because the gay intifada has forced this debate on us. There is no crisis. Sorry

filtherton · 02-20-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

filther, we're talking about this because the gay intifada has forced this debate on us. There is no crisis. Sorry

"The gay intifada". hmm. I guess i missed that talking point memo. Try thinking about what your statements actually mean before making them.

Whether you want to call it a crisis or not, there is a certain portion of the population that feels like it's not getting its fair share. You can pretend that that's meaningless, but then again, "There is no problem." isn't a very compelling argument in light of the fact that there obviously is some sort of problem.

02-17-2005, 07:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I was astounded by Stephen Harper's response... Is his position so weak that he had to dig up the Liberal's record on Jewish refugees from WWII? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-17-2005, 08:58 PM	#4 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I mean no flame here....so please do not take it as such. But, I truly wish the United States had the forsight to address this issue as well as the Canadians seen to have. And I find it unfortunate that our leadership is tainted by political lobbyists, to the extent that it cannot do so. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-17-2005, 09:02 PM	#5 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the President made clear his position and lobbyed for support of a Constitutional amendment in his most recent State of the Union address. surely that counts as at least addressing the issue. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

02-17-2005, 09:18 PM	#6 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Yes ...it does. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-17-2005, 11:53 PM	#7 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	that is a damn impressive speech. i can't imagine that there is anything in there that people could argue with. although i know they will. i sure wish someone could articulate the other side as well as he did, and answer his points... but i don't believe it's possible to. edit: call that a challenge, or not. i've said it before, but i see no difference in the arguement between gay marriage and interracial marriage. anyone want to explain to me how the arguments are any different? 'destroys the sanctity of marriage' 'bad for the kids' etc crap, and more crap, methinks... Last edited by boatin; 02-18-2005 at 12:05 AM..

02-17-2005, 08:35 PM	#3 (permalink)
Glava Betitled	Your explanations seem a bit condescending.

02-18-2005, 01:04 AM	#8 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	HEAR HEAR!!!!!!! I had chills reading that. My respect for Mr. Martin just rose... I deeply support this issue, and I strongly hope it will pass. __________________ Feh.

02-18-2005, 05:58 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	How about it shouldn't be the companies decision once the government realizes and makes into law the fact that there is effectively no difference between a hetero and a gay couple when they want to commit to each other for life. Either everyone gets the benefits or noone does. Otherwise lies discrimination.

02-18-2005, 06:27 AM	#17 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The same could be said for the millions who have no health care coverage whatsoever or are getting screwed over by their HMOs in the states... If you have the $$$ you have wonderful coverage in the US, no question... but not everyone has the $$$. Both systems have their flaws. The thing is, if I need an operation, I don't have to mortgage my house. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-18-2005, 07:08 AM	#23 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	*raises glass to Mr. Martin those were some brilliant words, and i hope they win the day. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

02-18-2005, 02:27 PM	#26 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	The rebuttal by the leader of the opposition, Mr. Harper: http://www.conservative.ca/documents...216-c38-sh.pdf I haven't finished reading it, and I'm off for the weekend, but I thought others might be interested. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

02-19-2005, 01:42 PM	#30 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	You have reduced the debate to whether I can come up with anecdotal evidence of a homosexual being denied health care because of their sexual preference, and you say you are not playing gotcha? If I were going to find a case, I would look for something about how officially homosexual men are considered more at risk for HIV and so could be denied health coverage like a smoker would be. Why do you not want homosexuals to be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? Answer that for me, please. __________________ it's quiet in here

02-19-2005, 03:11 PM	#35 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	We redefine things form time to time... at one point you might remember that a citizen meant a white man of a certain age who owned property... Definitions change over time as culture changes... I suppose there were a lot of people in those days that fought the changing definition of citizen... I think we can all agree that that is a good thing. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke