MPs to vote on future of gay marriage law

[outhere_i_m]

MPs to vote on future of gay marriage law

Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:14 PM EDT

 

link

 

By Robert Melnbardis

 

MONTREAL (Reuters) - The Canadian Parliament will hold a free vote later this year on whether to start the process of scrapping a law that allows gay marriages, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Friday.

 

Canada became the fourth nation to legalize same-sex union when the law -- introduced by the previous Liberal government -- was adopted in late June 2005.

 

The right-leaning Conservatives, who won the January 23 election, campaigned on a promise to allow legislators a vote on whether to look at the issue again. In a free vote, members of the House of Commons are allowed to vote independently on an issue rather than along party lines.

 

"It was a commitment in our election platform and there will be a free vote this fall," Harper told reporters.

 

There is no guarantee legislators would vote in favor of re-examining the law, since Harper controls only a minority of seats in the House of Commons. Surveys of parliamentarians suggest most are unwilling to reopen the debate.

 

Harper promised the free vote after coming under pressure from socially conservative and religious elements inside his party, who oppose the law and say it could lead to polygamy.

 

"Once you weaken the defense of marriage, you open the door to all sorts of other arrangements such as group marriages," said Diane Watts of Real Women of Canada, who predicted a close vote.

 

Liberal legislator Paul Martin, who was prime minister when the law was passed, said Harper should be "building on the foundation of previous governments as opposed to essentially trying to tear down foundations that have been built."

 

Polls show that a slight majority of Canadians support the right of same-sex couples to marry. The vote promised by Harper will be held during Parliament's autumn session, which runs from mid-September to mid-December.

 

Opposition parties will undoubtedly use it as a chance to paint the Conservatives as untrustworthy social extremists.

 

This could cause problems for Harper in the next election campaign -- widely expected some time next year -- as he bids to win enough support to gain a majority. The Conservatives currently hold only 125 of the 308 seats in the Commons.

 

Liberal legislator Keith Martin said the same-sex marriage issue had already been settled in Canada, both in Parliament and in a succession of court decisions.

 

"I think he (Harper) is doing it as a sop to his far-right neoconservatives that still want to ban same-sex marriage," Martin told Reuters.

 

Some political observers speculate that Harper wants an early vote on a motion to reopen the gay marriage debate because it will be defeated, thereby allowing him to kill off the issue once and for all before the next election.

 

If legislators did approve the idea of addressing same-sex marriage, the government would then introduce legislation changing the definition of marriage back to that of a union between a man and a woman.

 

James Moore, a pro-gay marriage Conservative legislator said he was fine with the idea of voting on the issue.

 

"It's exactly what we promised, so we're keeping our word," he told reporters.

 

Harper also said he had not made a decision about an invitation to attend the 1st World Out Games, a gathering of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender athletes who will compete in 35 disciplines in Montreal, July 26 to August 5.

 

(Additional reporting by David Ljunggren in Ottawa)

[MichiganTruck_Mafia]

[06StangAwesomecar]

MPs to vote on future of gay marriage law

Fri Jun 2, 2006 4:14 PM EDT

 

link

 

By Robert Melnbardis

 

MONTREAL (Reuters) - The Canadian Parliament will hold a free vote later this year on whether to start the process of scrapping a law that allows gay marriages, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Friday.

 

Canada became the fourth nation to legalize same-sex union when the law -- introduced by the previous Liberal government -- was adopted in late June 2005.

 

The right-leaning Conservatives, who won the January 23 election, campaigned on a promise to allow legislators a vote on whether to look at the issue again. In a free vote, members of the House of Commons are allowed to vote independently on an issue rather than along party lines.

 

"It was a commitment in our election platform and there will be a free vote this fall," Harper told reporters.

 

There is no guarantee legislators would vote in favor of re-examining the law, since Harper controls only a minority of seats in the House of Commons. Surveys of parliamentarians suggest most are unwilling to reopen the debate.

 

Harper promised the free vote after coming under pressure from socially conservative and religious elements inside his party, who oppose the law and say it could lead to polygamy.

 

"Once you weaken the defense of marriage, you open the door to all sorts of other arrangements such as group marriages," said Diane Watts of Real Women of Canada, who predicted a close vote.

 

Liberal legislator Paul Martin, who was prime minister when the law was passed, said Harper should be "building on the foundation of previous governments as opposed to essentially trying to tear down foundations that have been built."

 

Polls show that a slight majority of Canadians support the right of same-sex couples to marry. The vote promised by Harper will be held during Parliament's autumn session, which runs from mid-September to mid-December.

 

Opposition parties will undoubtedly use it as a chance to paint the Conservatives as untrustworthy social extremists.

 

This could cause problems for Harper in the next election campaign -- widely expected some time next year -- as he bids to win enough support to gain a majority. The Conservatives currently hold only 125 of the 308 seats in the Commons.

 

Liberal legislator Keith Martin said the same-sex marriage issue had already been settled in Canada, both in Parliament and in a succession of court decisions.

 

"I think he (Harper) is doing it as a sop to his far-right neoconservatives that still want to ban same-sex marriage," Martin told Reuters.

 

Some political observers speculate that Harper wants an early vote on a motion to reopen the gay marriage debate because it will be defeated, thereby allowing him to kill off the issue once and for all before the next election.

 

If legislators did approve the idea of addressing same-sex marriage, the government would then introduce legislation changing the definition of marriage back to that of a union between a man and a woman.

 

James Moore, a pro-gay marriage Conservative legislator said he was fine with the idea of voting on the issue.

 

"It's exactly what we promised, so we're keeping our word," he told reporters.

 

Harper also said he had not made a decision about an invitation to attend the 1st World Out Games, a gathering of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender athletes who will compete in 35 disciplines in Montreal, July 26 to August 5.

 

(Additional reporting by David Ljunggren in Ottawa)

 

Get the liberals out and now some smart people are back in, hope the vote goes in favor of marrige between a man and a woman only.

Canadians might be waking up, their probaly sick of all the BOO-HOOing the gays make, I know I am.

Maybe if they would stop jamming their crap down everyones throat (no pun intended), people wouldnt care so much, but they got it sooooooooo bad, they have to make issues out of everything.

[NAPmidget]

Get the liberals out and now some smart people are back in, hope the vote goes in favor of marrige between a man and a woman only.

Canadians might be waking up, their probaly sick of all the BOO-HOOing the gays make, I know I am.

Maybe if they would stop jamming their crap down everyones throat (no pun intended), people wouldnt care so much, but they got it sooooooooo bad, they have to make issues out of everything.

 

Totally agree with you on this one. If they didn't have "Pride" marches up and down the street, and if they would stop pushing and cramming their isolated views.....who knows, maybe a lot less backlash.

[OAC Lineman]

Totally agree with you on this one. If they didn't have "Pride" marches up and down the street, and if they would stop pushing and cramming their isolated views.....who knows, maybe a lot less backlash.

If groups which have been discriminated against stopped "cramming" their views down the public's throats, we would still have slavery in the south, and women would not be allowed to vote! Wake up, and embrace equality!

[unionj]

If groups which have been discriminated against stopped "cramming" their views down the public's throats, we would still have slavery in the south, and women would not be allowed to vote! Wake up, and embrace equality!

I think most people are tired of all the "WOE IS ME" bullshit. I know a Ford employee who lived with the same woman for over 20 years and could not get benefits for her due to non marriage. Yet a Gay guy can get benefits for his significant other, now you tell me what is fair and what is not?

Basically just live your life enjoy your gayness and do as you want others to do to you, leave us alone.

[OAC Lineman]

I think most people are tired of all the "WOE IS ME" bullshit. I know a Ford employee who lived with the same woman for over 20 years and could not get benefits for her due to non marriage. Yet a Gay guy can get benefits for his significant other, now you tell me what is fair and what is not?

Basically just live your life enjoy your gayness and do as you want others to do to you, leave us alone.

Typical ignorant reply! You assume because I support equality for LGBT's, that I am gay myself.

 

And I'm not sure what's wrong with your friend, but to get benefits for my wife, before we were married, all I had to do was to prove we lived together for at least 6 months. Maybe commom-law relationship language differs in the states?

[NAPmidget]

If groups which have been discriminated against stopped "cramming" their views down the public's throats, we would still have slavery in the south, and women would not be allowed to vote! Wake up, and embrace equality!

 

K, what about the poor pedophiles? Everyone gives them grief cause they like to have meaningful relationships with younger partners. They have been disciminated against! They should march! If you think being unsupportive of gays is akin to slavery, you are truly retarded. Freedom of speech says they can say they are gay and proud, and it also allows me to say I think being gay is not something to be proud of. That is not bashing or discriminating, it is my view, and in fact the view of the majority of voters. If the majority of the country were gay, we would quickly become extinct because gays cannot reproduce, hence un-natural.

[Trimdingman]

If I had to do what gays have to do to get sexual gratification, I would not be very gay. I would be a sad screwed up loser, and I would need to get checked out regularly for AIDS. I pity the poor misfits. If you smell shit in the front, steer clear or you could catch a terminal illness.

Edited June 3, 2006 by Trimdingman

[lauraleez]

Totally agree with you on this one. If they didn't have "Pride" marches up and down the street, and if they would stop pushing and cramming their isolated views.....who knows, maybe a lot less backlash.

 

Just what exactly do you think you are doing right now? Cramming YOUR views.

 

I think most people are tired of all the "WOE IS ME" bullshit. I know a Ford employee who lived with the same woman for over 20 years and could not get benefits for her due to non marriage. Yet a Gay guy can get benefits for his significant other, now you tell me what is fair and what is not?

 

This is not the case in Canada. After One year of living together, you are common law. You can get your spouse on your benefits with a signed by a notary affidavit.

[Trimdingman]

 

Where did you get that shirt? I want one.

Edited June 3, 2006 by Trimdingman

[lauraleez]

If I had to do what gays have to do to get sexual gratification, I would not be very gay. I would be a sad screwed up loser, and I would need to get checked out regularly for AIDS. I pity the poor misfits. If you smell shit in the front, steer clear or you could catch a terminal illness.

 

Your comments are sickening. It is NOBODY'S business what they do in their bedrooms, just like it is none of my business what you do in yours!

Get over it.

[OAC_Sparky]

Your comments are sickening. It is NOBODY'S business what they do in their bedrooms, just like it is none of my business what you do in yours!

Get over it.

Exactly.

[Trimdingman]

Your comments are sickening. It is NOBODY'S business what they do in their bedrooms, just like it is none of my business what you do in yours!

Get over it.

 

 

I was just issuing a public health warning. I am trying to be a good citizen.

[youngSTAP]

I'm not gay, nor is anyone in my family (that I know of) but I'll be damned if I'll tell others how to live their lives.

 

The company we work for even sees it that way because they allow GBLT individuals to have same-sex benifits.

 

Really, why would anyone feel threatened by what other's orientation is? I don't! It's a fact of life and it's not your place to "agree with it" or not. It's their's.

 

 

 

yS

[lauraleez]

I'm not gay, nor is anyone in my family (that I know of) but I'll be damned if I'll tell others how to live their lives.

 

The company we work for even sees it that way because they allow GBLT individuals to have same-sex benifits.

 

Really, why would anyone feel threatened by what other's orientation is? I don't! It's a fact of life and it's not your place to "agree with it" or not. It's their's.

yS

 

Wonderfully said!

[Mister.Roboto]

Bottom line is that gay marriage (and homosexuality itself) goes against Christian ideals.

 

I'm certain if the Christians could get a law passed banning my sexual lifestyle, they would do that too.

 

They aren't worried about banning gay marriage, they just want to ban gays (and muslims, pre-marital sex, working on Sabbath, etc etc).

[NAPmidget]

Your comments are sickening. It is NOBODY'S business what they do in their bedrooms, just like it is none of my business what you do in yours!

Get over it.

 

I totally agree with you. I don't care what anyone does in the bedroom. I didn't mean to imply that I did. What I do care about is what they do in the public. That IS my business, and the business of anyone with children that they do not want those views inflicted upon. You think being gay is Ok but me denouncing it is sickening? You get over it!

[lauraleez]

I totally agree with you. I don't care what anyone does in the bedroom. I didn't mean to imply that I did. What I do care about is what they do in the public. That IS my business, and the business of anyone with children that they do not want those views inflicted upon. You think being gay is Ok but me denouncing it is sickening? You get over it!

 

If you looked carefully, that was to Trimdingman.

So straight people doing those things in public is OK with you?

[NAPmidget]

If you looked carefully, that was to Trimdingman.

So straight people doing those things in public is OK with you?

 

Oops, sorry about that. Thought you were directing that against me. And, no, I don't think straights should be that way in public either.

[charly]

I was just issuing a public health warning. I am trying to be a good citizen.

 

 

You need to try a little harder..

[lauraleez]

Oops, sorry about that. Thought you were directing that against me. And, no, I don't think straights should be that way in public either.

 

No problem. It just gets me so angry when there is such a double standard when it comes to this. And where I come from, the worst of the bunch for forcing their views on people, are the religious ones. My views are not gay rights, christian rights or minority rights....It's HUMAN rights. Everyone deserves to be treated the same. If we don't start treating each other that way, the children will suffer the same intolerance.

[outhere_i_m]

Where did you get that shirt? I want one.

 

 

Hey Trim

 

why is it that i am not surprised that you would like this shirt.

[outhere_i_m]

If I had to do what gays have to do to get sexual gratification, I would not be very gay. I would be a sad screwed up loser, and I would need to get checked out regularly for AIDS. I pity the poor misfits. If you smell shit in the front, steer clear or you could catch a terminal illness.

 

 

What do you mean you would be a SAD SCREWED UP LOSER, from the way I see it, you already are.

 

HIV and AIDS is not a gay disease.

HIV and AIDS does not discriminate.

 

 

1959

 

First known case of human HIV infection

A blood sample is taken in 1959 from a man living in Leopoldville, Belgian Congo, now Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire). For decades, the sample is stored away in a freezer. In 1998, after sophisticated testing is developed for HIV, the blood sample from 1959 is tested and confirmed as positive for HIV.

 

 

Maybe you should read some more.

 

 

HIV and AIDS in Canada

Surveillance Report to December 31, 2005

April 2006

 

Surveillance and Risk Assessment Division

Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control

Public Health Agency of Canada

 

HIV and AIDS in CANADA

 

or you could watch a 240 minute PBS special that takes a look back at the past 25 years of HIV and AIDS

 

PBS 25 years The Age Of AIDS

 

Oops, sorry about that. Thought you were directing that against me. And, no, I don't think straights should be that way in public either.

 

 

Seems your issue isnt about gay or straight, but more along the lines of public decency.

Edited June 4, 2006 by outhere_i_m

[Trimdingman]

Are you saying that gays are not the main cause of AIDS? Political correctness means shit to the AIDS virus. It is you who needs to do some reading.