the House of Commons votes on same sex marriage

[Basstrap]

I just finished watching it (I understand it was broadcast on CSPAN as well since many American politicians are interested in the outcome)

it was very close!
the Motion: to define marriage as the union of one and and one woman to the exclusion of all others

outcome:

-the Liberal backbenchers are almost split down the middle
-all alliance, of course, supported the deifintion
-the NDP voted against
-many Tories (i.e. Progressive Conservatives) voted against the motion

the Vote came to

Nay: 137
Yay: 132

defeating the motion and, in a sense, supporting same sex marriage.
the vote was saved, of course, by the Liberal Cabinet of 30 who all voted against.

It is not over yet, legislation still has to pass, I believe; but it certainly seems likely it will in light of this defeated motion and the supreme court allowing it

very interesting.

the Alliance (the official opposition who submitted the motion and who are for the traditional definition) will no doubt use the liberal vote for their uses in the upcoming Federal election. Because the Liberals voted almost entirely FOR the motion in 1999.

 

[anitram]

The Alliance is a repulsive party.

 

[najeena]

Like the legalization of pot, it's just a matter of time.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

The Alliance is a repulsive party.

I love your honesty, anitram.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

The Alliance is a repulsive party.

At least you don't live in its backyard.

Does anyone remember Stockwell Day? I have him tied to a chair in my cellar... you'll never hear from him again.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I was wondering what happened to him! Now that I know, I'm eternally grateful to you, Cujo.

Seriously, if I had to pick the one party that stood for almost everything I didn't, it would be the Alliance Party. If I had to, I would vote PC long before the Alliance. (Not that anyone cares, of course.)

PS. Remember those Stockwell Day snowmobile election campaign adds? Those were mint.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

I was wondering what happened to him! Now that I know, I'm eternally grateful to you, Cujo.

Seriously, if I had to pick the one party that stood for almost everything I didn't, it would be the Alliance Party. If I had to, I would vote PC long before the Alliance. (Not that anyone cares, of course.)

PS. Remember those Stockwell Day snowmobile election campaign adds? Those were mint.

He had me at the water skiing incident.

Sadly I agree with you Mikey. I would go tory with Clark before giving the keys of Parliament to a psycho like Day. Plus, the conservatives have a somewhat NDP stance on education fees mandate. Good for us students... well relatively.

Not to be partisan or anything... I would vote the hemp party before any of these lunatics. (and I know everyone cares about that)

 

[Basstrap]

I'm moving into Alliance territory in a month

Moving to Alberta
I'm preparing myself for the worse!

 

[bonoman]

Basstrap you arent moving to Aliance country you are moving to Klien country. You will soon see. Where are ya movin to?

 

[Basstrap]

Fort MacMurray for a few months

 

[anitram]

Thank you Michael, I try.

Thankfully I'm in Toronto, the Alliance folk don't come knockin' on my door, which is good for them and good for me.

Stockwell tied up in a basement? Fine by me. He was a funny little troll there for a while. I remember him on a seadoo in Ontario once, he looked like a fool.

 

[iacrobat]

The Alliance is a repulsive party.

I would say that just about sums it up!

 

[iacrobat]

At least you don't live in its backyard.

Does anyone remember Stockwell Day? I have him tied to a chair in my cellar... you'll never hear from him again.

You are oh so merciful!

Thanks you sparing us his stupidity!

Anything you can do about Stephen Harper?

 

[iacrobat]

Just read this in the Toronto Star.
----------------------------

Sep. 17, 2003. 09:21?PM

MPs pass bill to protect gays from hate propaganda


OTTAWA (CP) ? Openly gay MP Svend Robinson scored a major triumph for same-sex rights today as MPs passed his private member's bill to extend hate-crimes protection to gays and lesbians.

"It's been a good week for equality in Canada," an emotional Robinson said outside the Commons. "I feel proud to be a Canadian."

MPs voted 141-110 to amend the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code. The change would add homosexuals to a list of groups legally protected from incitement of hatred and genocide.

Robinson has fought for the inclusion since 1981.

It was the second contentious vote in two days on gay rights. On Tuesday, MPs narrowly defeated a motion to maintain the traditional definition of marriage - an attempt by the Canadian Alliance to scuttle the government's plan to allow same-sex unions.

The Criminal Code bans incitement of hatred on the basis of colour, race, religion and ethnic origin, but not "sexual orientation."

Gays have long protested the omission, citing the fact that homosexuals are frequently targeted for verbal and physical attacks.

Conviction carries a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison.

The bill passed today still requires Senate approval and royal assent before becoming law.

Several Liberals, the Canadian Alliance and many church groups say they fear that extending hate-crime protection for gays could criminalize religious texts, including the Bible, that condemn homosexuality.

Yet, a change to the bill that unanimously passed in the Commons last spring exempts from the hate crime section anyone expressing an anti-gay belief based on a religious text.

That change removed a handy excuse for those who would refuse equal protections for homosexuals, Robinson said.

"What this bill is about, fundamentally, is sending a message to the gay bashers. It's about sending a message to those who promote hatred and violence and the death of gay men like Aaron Webster, who was beaten to death with a baseball bat in Vancouver."

Fears that freedom of speech and religion will suffer are unfounded, Robinson added.

"It's a mask for homophobia for people who don't want to be honest about the real reason why they don't want to include sexual orientation in the law."

Still, even the amended bill won't clearly protect religious leaders who preach against homosexuality from the pulpit, said Liberal John Efford of Newfoundland, who voted against the bill.

"This has nothing to do with the gay or lesbian community," he said, adding it's a question of religious freedom.

Robinson said he regularly receives hateful e-mails and his constituency office in Burnaby, B.C. was trashed in 1988 when he became Canada's first openly gay MP.

Conservative MP Scott Brison, representing Kings-Hants in Nova Scotia, came out of the closet last winter. He, too, has been verbally threatened and physically attacked for being gay, he said in an interview.

Brison supported Robinson's bill as did most Liberals, the NDP, several Bloc MPs and half the Tory caucus.

Alliance members voted against it, citing concerns that free speech will be suppressed.

Alliance MP Brian Pallister, representing Portage-Lisgar in Manitoba, said he resents being called homophobic. He has fought for equal economic rights for gays in the past, he added.

"It's unhelpful to label people just because they disagree with you."

Physically and mentally disabled Canadians, along with other identifiable groups, are also hate-crime victims but aren't specifically protected under the law, he said.

"Where do you draw the line?"

To limit free speech only drives bigots and abusers underground, he said.

"You want those people out in the open," Pallister said, "then they show how stupid they really are."

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association, representing 28,000 front-line officers, support the bill.

Police have so far been powerless to prosecute the likes of Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kan., who runs a website that declares God hates homosexuals.

Supporters of Phelps have entered Canada twice in recent years to stage anti-gay rallies.

 

[kobayashi]

If I had to, I would vote PC long before the Alliance. (Not that anyone cares, of course.)

soon to be one and the same, virtually.

 

[bonoman]

The Alliance is a repulsive party.

That could be said about any party even the Liberals who far worse then any party ever!

 

[Pinball Wizard]

That could be said about any party even the Liberals who far worse then any party ever!

Maybe so. The plurality in Canadian politics is at it's most minimal... aside from some slight platform differences, it's all the same crap in separate piles.

It's come to a point when you can't even sling a pie at an elected official.

For shame.



PS- that's an interesting move Basstrap. Inform me when you're close to Calgary... so I can be busy that day.

 

[melon]

That could be said about any party even the Liberals who far worse then any party ever!

I'm sure you and Stockwell Day would have a blast then.

Melon

 

[Pinball Wizard]

Haha.

Worst party ever? I'd classify it as being one that couldn't unify it's constituency due to a conflicted and acephalous mandate. There never was strong leadership with the alliance... if there was they could have capitalized and exploited the "marginalization" of the West. Still a shocker that Manning lost to Day.

 

[iacrobat]

Haha.

...conflicted and acephalous mandate.

a?ceph?a?lous (?-s?f??-l?s)?Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Biology. Headless or lacking a clearly defined head: acephalous worms.
2. Having no leader.


[From Medieval Latin acephalus, from Greek akephalos?: a-, without; see a-1 + kephal?, head; see -cephalous.]


Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


I had no idea!

 

[Michael Griffiths]

That's Cujo's handy little thesaurus for ya'

 

[Pinball Wizard]

It's called 2 wasted years in biology and anthropology.