“The United Nations is a wonderful idea in principle, except for the little problem of giving barbarians a vote.”

That’s courtesy of PZ Myers, in a blog post WTFing the UN’s move to remove sexual orientation from a resolution that protects people from being summarily executed. In other words, according to the UN, it’s okay to kill gay people for no reason. Which, obviously, must make perfect sense to the vast majority of backwards, human rights-abusing, Israel-bashing, hyopcritical members of the corrupt-to-irrelevance UN. Anyone still taking them seriously at this point has got to be smoking something strong.

(HT: Andrea)

Texas’ gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.

There’s some sort of metaphor here about how bigots who live in glass houses shouldn’t try to circumvent people’s rights or something. Rather than try to find the words for it, I think I’ll just have a good laugh.

Here are the top 5 issues being hotly debated south of the border that are thankfully not really on the radar screen in our election:

1. The war in Iraq. Because, well, we’re not actually fighting in it. The war in Afghanistan is, of course, an issue here, but it’s not nearly as divisive as Iraq is for Americans.
2. Terrorism and national security. Canadians are just plain less worried about this issue than Americans are, no matter what side of it they are on. Whether it’s because we’re more rational or more naive, the fact is that most Canadians don’t really believe that there is an imminent threat of terrorism, and the issue really isn’t showing up in our election discourse.
3. Gay marriage. It’s been legal nationwide since 2005. Since then, thousands of same-sex couples have tied the knot in Canada, our wedding industry has benefited from an influx of marriage “tourists” from the US, and everyone else basically yawned and went on with their lives. Even Stephen Harper isn’t bothering to rehash the issue in this campaign, recognizing the futility of beating a dead horse.
4. Abortion. Yeah, there have been a few rumbles, which have mostly consisted of scare-tactics by the Duceppe camp against Harper – who has stated that he has no plans to re-open the issue. As explosive as the issue is in the US election, here, it’s basically a non-issue, just as it has been in virtually every Canadian election campaign since the 1970s.
5. What our candidates look like. While Americans choose between their first-ever African-American president and their first-ever female VP, us Canadians have an election that’s about the candidates’ politics and not about their skin colour or background. Of course, that’s because they’re all a bunch of white guys (except for Elizabeth May). But I suspect that even if our PM candidates were a bit more representative of the country, we’d still manage to talk less about their skin colour or gender than the Americans do. Besides, Kim Campbell won’t exactly go down in history as a great Canadian leader, but I’d still rather have her than Sarah Palin any day.

The economy is, without a doubt, the #1 voting issue for both Americans and Canadians. As it should be. Polls have shown that the other top election issues for Canadians are healthcare, the environment and poverty. We can hopefully expect these issues to dominate tonight’s debate, and the above issues to hardly rate a mention.

Sometimes, it’s good to be Canadian.

Palin is a true-blue representative of her party. She is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and against gay marriage. Her opposition to abortion extends to cases of rape and incest. The women who backed Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the nomination for presidency don’t generally ascribe to those values.

[ . . . ]

Tokenism is an insult, an insidious one whose effects are difficult to erase over time. People will forget that there were other options on the Republican table, capable, long-serving, proven women like Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas – and that McCain ignored them in favour of doing something headline-grabbing. That effect is already starting to wear off. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll this week found, “Three quarters of all voters think McCain chose a female running mate specifically because he thought adding a woman to the Republican ticket would help him win in November.”

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with the otherwise politically-savvy selection of Palin. Choosing a candidate solely because she’s a woman is no better than systematically denying opportunities to qualified people because they are women.

And while McCain no doubt sees Palin’s stance on issues like abortion and gun control as qualifications, not drawbacks, given the socially conservative voters he’s trying to attract, the fact remains that Palin is much less qualified than the myriad other choices that McCain had – of both genders. She was chosen for her youth (to contrast McCain’s age) and her gender, proving that tokenism is no better than discrimination, after all.

“We made a promise to hold a free vote and we kept that promise. The result was decisive and we’ll accept the democratic result,” Harper told reporters.

Legislators voted 175 to 123 to reject a motion by the right-leaning Conservatives to re-examine the law, which some religious groups and critics say undermines society.

This motion was defeated by an even wider margin than that by which the initial law was passed last year (158-133), indicating that most of the country believes that this has already been decided, and it’s pointless to keep drumming it up. Same-sex couples have had the threat of the law being reversed hanging over their head ever since Harper took office, so hopefully this means that everyone can now get over the issue and move on to things that actually matter.

I suppose the Tories need to do this, get past it, and get on with things; Harper is probably even secretly grateful that it’s likely they’ll lose. Despite his personal convictions, the last thing he wants is a divisive fight on the issue and lengthy court battles. Then again, the timing makes me wonder whether he’s just trying to mobilize his conservative base ahead of an election.

In any case, the motion will probably be easily defeated. Here’s hoping people can get over it at that point and get on with things, and that they don’t allow this to devolve into a neverendum-referendum situation. The Quebec sovereignty issue is already one thing too many that refuses to go away. We don’t need another.

• Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage won approval in South Carolina, Tenessee, Virginia and Wisconsin, with similar amendments on the ballot in 4 other states also expected to pass once the votes are tallied. This would mean that a total of 28 states – more than half – will have banned gay marriage in the U.S., delivering a serious blow to the hopes of people in favour of equality and civil rights.
• Arizona passed measures against illegal immigrants, including making English the state’s official language.

On the other hand:

• Missouri passed a measure to guarantee stem cell research would be permitted.
• South Dakota’s voters rejected an attempt to restrict abortion in the form of proposed legislation.

Some analysts have further noted that, though Democrats made significant gains, they may have done so at the expense of ideology, since many of the newly-elected Democrats are much more moderate than Liberal while many of the defeated Republican incumbents were on their party’s more moderate wing. So the House (and possibly the Senate) may have shifted to the left, but both parties actually shifted to the right in the process.

What will it all mean? Your guess is as good as mine.

Quebec agency offended by “Outgames”

Not by the existence of the event, a sort of gay and lesbian Olympics, but by the fact that organizers didn’t bother to give the name “Outgames” a French translation.

People unfamiliar with Quebec society might think I am making this up.

I am not.

Nope, not surprised at all. Pauline continues with a rant about the OLF that is pretty much what I would say about them. (Oh wait, I think I did. Yep.)

But what really gets me is this tidbit, linked to by Pauline at the end of her post:

But what IS news, and what brought this to my attention today, was this report:

Iranian Leader Bans Usage of Foreign Words

Way to go, Ahmadinejad, your repressive tactics have finally caught up with those of the Province of Quebec.

It’s refreshing to see that this language nonsense is the only controversy that the OutGames seem to be generating. Just another reason why I love Montreal so much. When I consider the very real problems of the rest of the world, I love how petty ours are in comparison.

By the way, I haven’t actually attended any of the OutGames events just yet, but it will be going on for a couple of weeks so I hope to make it to something-or-other. Downtown has been a lot of fun, though, in the leadup to the event. This is big from a tourism point of view, and it’s nice to see so many businesses getting into the spirit of things and flying rainbow flags or otherwise rolling out the welcome mat.

It’s also nice to see the influx of extremely fit, good-looking men, in town for the event… in particular, the three guys in Finland shirts walking down St-Denis this afternoon. (No, the point of the OutGames isn’t lost on me. But hey, a girl can look, right? No harm in a little eye candy.)

Lists like this one creep up from time to time. When they have a witch-hunt quality to them (in other words, when a group opposed to something publishes a list of MPs who support it, or vice-versa, in order to attack them), they make me very, very uncomfortable. For instance, the CIC’s infamous grading of federal MPs is merely a list giving high scores to anti-Israel MPs and attacking any Jewish or pro-Israel MPs. (For those who are interested, the CJC has published an issues guide that contains an overview of key issues for the Jewish community and a list of questions to put to local candidates, but doesn’t actually endorse any candidate or party).

Attacking MPs is one thing. Promoting them, however, is another. When candidates or MPs declare themselves to be in favour or opposed to something, then I don’t have a problem with that.

But this anti-gay marriage site is sort of a grey area: The coalition is endorsing certain candidates, but it’s hard to tell whether the candidates have given their endorsement to the coalition. Furthermore, many of us will view the site as a sort of “who not to vote for” guide – precisely the opposite intention of its creators. Nonetheless, if you’re concerned about equal rights for all Canadian citizens, I suppose it’s worth a look.

So why vote Liberal, you may ask?

Is it because I think the Liberals have done such a great job? Not really.

Is it because I buy into the scare tactics about Stephen Harper being George W. Bush reincarnated, prepared to turn us into a far right-wing theocracy? No, I find those ads amusing at best and ridiculously disastrous for the Liberals at worst.

Is it because I think that the culture of corruption that has set in amongst the Liberals is worth rewarding? Definitely not.

Is it because I’m voting strategically, in a riding where a Liberal vote would prevent a Bloc or NDP candidate from getting elected? Nope, my riding has been solidly Liberal since 1968 and even the sponsorship scandal won’t be changing that anytime soon. I could safely lodge a protest vote with little impact.

Is it because Martin convinced me in the debates? Not at all; in fact, he’s probably one of the worst debaters I’ve ever seen, and he got his butt kicked all the way to Ellesmere Island and back.

Is it because I agree with the majority of the Liberal policies and platform issues? Not even.

Is it because I believe that a Liberal victory represents the best chance to keep Quebec in Canada and to fight sovereignty? On the contrary, I think it will probably hurt a great deal.

So, you’re probably asking yourself, why on earth would I vote for this party?

Good question.

The answer is simple: Despite all the scandals, despite all the corruption, despite the promises I don’t believe and the policies I don’t agree with, the Liberal party still is the “best of the worst” in my mind. On the major things the government has done lately, I’ve been much closer to the Liberal point of view than to the Tory one.

Some examples:

• The economy: Whatever else he’s done, Martin has balanced the budget and improved economic conditions. He did his best to stand up to people like Jack Layton against spending we can’t afford. He even stood up to Bono – and hey, if you can say no to Bono, you can say no to anyone. The Canadian dollar is up, unemployment is down, and while the economy is still plagued with problems, I simply don’t believe that Harper is better equipped to solve them than Martin is. The Tory promises to reduce the GST may play well in the media, but in practice there are plenty of other places worth cutting first.
• Social issues: Gay marriage is probably the most prominent example lately. As I’ve stated many times on this blog before, every Canadian – gay or straight – ought to recognize this as an issue of fundamental human rights. Any of us who belong to any kind of minority should understand that if you can have a majority-rules decision against one minority, the same logic could be used against any of us. Martin and the Liberals were on the right side of this one. Harper and the Tories were on the wrong side. And while I don’t really believe Harper will reverse it, nor do I agree with electing a party that has dedicated so much time, energy and resources to fighting it. I think the Liberals took a courageous position on this one and I respect them for it (if for little else).
• Voting for the candidate, not the party: Cop-out? Perhaps. But I like Marlene Jennings, the incumbent Liberal MP in my riding, well enough. Her voting record is often in step with what I believe (though not always), and she has been especially strong in defending Israel and in working to strengthen Canada’s ties with Israel, which is an issue of importance to me. And I’m comfortable having her represent my riding in Parliament, whether as a member of the government or as a member of the opposition.

So the upshot is, I’m not entirely happy to be voting Liberal and I’m not about to hit the campaign trail for Martin’s team. There are plenty of places where I flat-out disagree with the Liberals on policy, and there’s no doubt the party is about as corrupt as you can get. But I’m not going blue this time, for those reasons and for the reason that I simply don’t believe the Tories have presented enough of a positive platform. They’ve been stronger in attacking the Liberals, sure, but their policy initiatives haven’t won me over.

Okay, bring it on. I’m ready.

The post starts by linking to a very sensible column in the Ottawa Citizen about what Harper needs to do if he wants to improve his chances in this election:

For the past couple of years, the party has focused on highlighting Liberal corruption and opposing same-sex marriage. This strategy has created three problems, all of which remain unresolved and continue to plague Mr. Harper.

One, Canadians know little about what he actually stands for: they only know what he is against. Two, the Liberals and the media defined the Tory leader before he could do so himself, which explains his personal unpopularity and the Tories’ inability to break 30 per cent in polls. And three, the party has not been able to attract new support because it has failed to reach out to new constituencies. Most people who oppose same-sex marriage are already voting Tory. The party has to move beyond that base.

Then, on the news that Harper is doing precisely the opposite, we get comments like these:

It’s an appeal to the social conservative vote, all right, but that’s not just the stereotypical Christian right. It’s also a way to appeal to new immigrants and the various ethnic communities, who need assurance that the Tories won’t ram a secular social change down their throats.

Actually, the idea that the Tories would pick up votes from immigrant communities by bashing gay marriage proved to be a massive failure in the last election. Why Harper keeps harping on it (no pun intended) is a mystery probably best explained by lack of any other coherent policies.

Then there’s this gem:

This IS a brilliant idea! Here’s how it works:

By bringing up SSM and causing the Liberals to use their ‘boogeyman’ tactics, Stephen Harper has deprived the Liberals of their most powerful weapon.

In this phase of the campaign, the parties should be keeping their most powerful arguments for the final stage. By forcing the Liberals to respond now, their most dangerous argument is going to be exhausted before the end of the campaign, and the Liberal message will appear repetitive.

This is a risk, and will cause a bump in the polls for the Liberals, but it is a brilliant strategy which will ultimately help make a Conservative win happen.

Never doubt Stephen Harper’s intelligence.

Oh, that’s a great strategy there. Lead off the election campaign by talking constantly about the thing you want voters to forget??? Sounds like the other person whose intelligence I need to doubt is the author of this comment.

The Conservatives don’t have a chance in hell. But the delusion-fest continues. Read if you dare.

In honour of this news, here, found in an e-mail forward, are the top twelve reasons homosexual marriage should not be legal:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Here’s Lynn on so-called “messianic Judaism”:

We Jews have been fighting this battle for nigh on two thousand years. Christians have been trying to explain to us where and how we went wrong since the dawn of Christianity. Whether it’s the threat of eternal damnation or death by the sword, the noose, the bullet or the gas chamber, whether it’s physical violence or gentle persuasion, we’ve been there and done that. We have all the tee shirts. Those of us with any historical education at all are way too familiar with these ploys to fall for them. Unfortunately, we live in an age when too many of us lack that education. Jews today are generally smarter about everything else and (except, perhaps, in Israel) stupider about Judaism than they’ve ever been. So we’re ripe for the picking. And, with a little help from their friends, the missionaries are eagerly anticipating the harvest.

Lisa eloquently sums up – as only she knows how – the overwhelming sentiment in Israel these days about disengagement:

The situation is heating up here; it’s not pleasant; it’s very complex; as usual, the people with the least power are paying the highest price; and I really wish this painful enterprise had been planned and executed in a more organized, sensitive fashion.

And closer to home, Debbye has some of the most reasonable commentary on the gay marriage issue I’ve seen so far from the right:

To reiterate: the one prospect I find insupportable is that of allowing gays to marry yet a future Conservative Party government suddenly declaring those marriages null and void. Try to put yourselves in the position of marrying, making plans for a future together and even making joint financial investments and then imagine being told your marriage is no longer legitimate.

Forget the circusy atmosphere we see on television and some of the wilder “activists” showcased by a sensationalist media and focus on the human face of this issue. Gay couples love one another – in probably the same variables of intensity and committment as straight couples – and I believe their love is entitled to respect.

The damage to the institution of marriage was done long before gays emerged from the closet. We can blame easier divorces, the pill, Roe vs. Wade, or the sexual revolution and even the “disposable society” but we simply cannot with any honesty blame gays much less instituting gay marriage.

Hmmmm, all women today. Well, I guess that’s fair, seeing as how the guys usually get all the linky love. Once I’m highlighting women bloggers, I should direct everyone to Meryl, Imshin and Allison while I’m at it, not for any particular post but more for all of them in general.

The sun’s come out and dried up all the rain. It’s gonna be a nice day.

The measure passed the 350-seat Congress of Deputies by a vote of 187 to 147. The bill, part of the ruling Socialists’ aggressive agenda for social reform, also lets gay couples adopt children and inherit each others’ property.

[ . . . ]

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero noted this in debate before the vote.

“We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality,” he told the chamber.

It’s pretty clear which way the tide is moving on this one. And, much to the chagrin of Stephen one-issue Harper, it’s not going to win him any votes to keep rallying against it.

The USA, of course, will probably be among the last of the countries in the Western World to grant equality to gays. But then, there were people who voted against freeing the slaves, too. I bet their descendants are real proud of them.

Meanwhile in Israel, the only country in the middle east where gay rights exist, sadly not everyone respects them:

What started off as a lively parade of nearly 5,000 Gay Pride activists quickly turned violent Thursday as three young marchers were stabbed by ultra-religious protesters of the parade.

Sickening, the whole thing. And it just goes to show that no single religion has a monopoly on harmful extremism.

The bill will become official once it receives approval in the Senate, likely within days. With it the barriers to gay and lesbian weddings will tumble in Alberta, PEI, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories — the last jurisdictions where courts have not yet struck down the marriage law.

The legislation applies to civic weddings at public places, like city halls and courthouses. No religious groups will be forced to sanctify same-sex marriages if they don’t want to.

I’ve blogged extensively on this issue in the past, and I won’t rehash all the arguments I’ve already made on why I firmly believe in this issue. (If you’re interested, see here, here, here, here and here for some past posts on the subject).

Of course, the Conservatives have erased any hopes they might have had of being a viable alternative to the Liberals by marginalizing themselves as a single-issue party:

But Conservatives promise the debate isn’t over yet.

Leader Stephen Harper said he will bring back the same-sex marriage law for another vote if he wins the next election.

And with that, he’s pretty much guaranteed that he will never, ever win a Canadian election. Elections are won in the middle, not with promises to revoke a right once it’s been won.

This debate will rage on. And our American neighbours seem to be sadly heading in the opposite direction, so it may take them quite a while to get to this place.

But in my opinion, this is a great day in Canadian history. Just as we wonder what took so long for women or people of colour to be granted equal rights in the past, future generations will look back on this day.

Congratulations, Liberals. You finally took a stand on something. It took you long enough.

The Opposition Conservatives are willing to support the NDP’s $4.6-billion budget amendment, but only if the Liberals agree to delay same-sex marriage legislation.

The Liberals have the numbers to pass the budget even without Conservative support. So did the Liberals grow a backbone and tell the Tories to stuff it? Hah! Not exactly:

Reacting to word of the opposition offer, Prime Minister Paul Martin’s spokesperson Scott Reid said no deal had been struck.

“The government committed to make every effort without summarily cutting off debate and others’ views to get C-38 passed this session,” Reid said.

But, Reid added, actually getting the same-sex marriage legislation passed before Parliament rises may be out of the government’s hands.

“That remains our hope, but the fact of the matter is that if the Conservatives are determined to obstruct and filibuster, it may be difficult.”

In other words, they’re committed to the bill as long as it doesn’t make life too difficult for them. Oh yeah, that’s a strong stand.

Damian Penny thinks that the Tories have failed because they haven’t told Canadians in any clear terms what they stand for. I have to disagree. The Conservatives are making it blazingly obvious what they stand for: they have a single-minded obsession with gay rights that is trumping everything else on the agenda. Kate McMillan thinks the Tories need a three-syllable platform to win support. Well, how’s this for a three-syllable platform: “homophobes”.

Sadly, the Conservatives seem unable to get past being a single-issue party, and the Liberals seem unable to stand up to their blackmail. And of course, when auctioning off civil rights, minorities like Canada’s gay population are the first losers. Who will it be next?

They include:

• Stronger guarantees that Charter rights will not override religious freedoms
• Justices of the Peace who do not want to perform civil marriages of same-sex couples will not have to do so
• Churches are not required to rent out their halls for same-sex weddings
• Religious educational institutions will still be allowed to preach that homosexuality is against God’s law, without being subject to hate crime laws

Except for the second point about justices of the peace not being required to carry out the law, these amendments seem reasonable and designed to simply guarantee religious freedom.

Still, you have to wonder whether Martin would have done this if his fragile grip on power hadn’t been threatened yesterday. I’m wondering if he’s even capable of taking a stand and stating clearly that bill C-38 will pass because it’s the right thing to do.

With that view, Mr. O’Brien, why not just leap all the way to the Conservatives, where you can spend lots of time and energy opposing the rights of the gay minority in Canada to your heart’s content? After all, the Tories lost Belinda Stronach to the Libs, it could be considered a fair exchange.

Anyway, this weekend did not rain as was predicted. In fact, it was sunny and beautiful. I hope everyone took advantage. Justin Trudeau sure did.

So what is it with the French and rejecting constitutions anyway? I think Chriac should simply insist on a Notwithstanding Clause.

Quote of the day: “President Bush has made a mistake in his show of support for Abbas (or Arafat in a Brooks Brothers Suit with better barber).” I never quite understood why Arafat, with all his millions, couldn’t afford to look better. Or, for that matter, why Suha never bought some sorely-needed plastic surgery. Oh, was that rude? I’m so sorry. I should know better than to insult dead terrorists. That would be uncivilized.

Speaking of terrorists, Abbas is making more threats, suggesting that suicide bombings “may be over” (yeah right) while threatening more if “progress” is not made. How, I wonder, does Abbas define “progress”? Israel is set to let 400 terrorists back on the streets, and the Palestinians are set to… do nothing but complain and launch more violent attacks, as usual. When was the last time the Palestinian side made any “gestures”?

On the home front, with Parliament set to get back to work tomorrow, amidst the scandals and non-confidence votes, Liberal MP Irwin Cotler dares to suggest that the government get some actual work done by passing proposed bills legalizing same-sex marriage and decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. A valid argument. We’re paying all these people to govern, it’s about time they get on with it. Of course, the Tories oppose both bills, but I wonder whether Stephen Harper is capable of trying to attack the issues, or if he’s programmed to a single note and will keep hammering away on the sponsorship scandal instead?

Members of the Canadian Parliament on Tuesday voted down an opposition attempt to derail the minority Liberal government’s bill to legalize gay marriage.

The New Democratic Party and most Bloc Quebecois MPs joined with a majority of Liberals in voting 164-132 against a motion to block legislation to legalize gay marriage nationally. The Conservative Party motion called for no second-reading of the bill unless it included language that reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

My Canada affirms equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion or religious beliefs, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. My Canada doesn’t look to enshrine discrimination in any form in legislation. My Canada is flawed, but at least it’s trying. And the Conservatives do not reflect my Canada in their persistent, singular focus on an issue that’s meant to get votes from one group by denying rights to another.

No, this isn’t the most important voting issue for me. It won’t even make the top ten. But it is a shining example of how the Conservative pandering to the social right-wing is not going to get them elected anytime soon. Memo to Harper: Elections are won in the middle.

Powerful religious groups in the United States are quietly sending money and support to allies in Canada fighting same-sex marriage.

Moreover, some U.S. groups say they are prepared to spend whatever it takes to ensure same-sex marriage does not become legal north of the border.

This plays into everyone’s stereotypes. If you’re on the left, it’s only too obvious that those bible-thumping, gun-totin’ rednecks from evil America would be trying to circumvent our precious Canadian human rights. If you’re on the right, then the Americans are the only ones willing to protect the precious institution of marriage, and us Canadians should observe and learn something from the red states. And if you’re Stephen Harper, you might as well kiss your hopes of leading Canada goodbye.

Really, the hype about this is somewhat nonsensical. Gay marriage will pass in Canada, no matter where the funding for its opponents is coming from. Intolerance is intolerance on both sides of the border. And the religious groups do have a right to their opinion, whatever that may be. There’s still freedom of expression in this country.

But sheesh, if groups against gay marriage need to resort to funding from American interest groups, their support here in Canada must be even lower than I thought.

Between Open House, its ’sister’ community center in Tel Aviv, the gay-friendly commercial spots and pick-up parks here and there around the country, the annual gay pride parades in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and a fairly indifferent street-level attitude toward open homosexuals, Israel offers a refuge for Palestinian gays.

In their everyday lives at home, they must hide their sexuality because revealing it – or having it revealed against their will – would put them in violation of one of the most forbidding taboos in Arab society. Palestinians exposed as homosexuals are liable to be killed by Islamic or nationalist activists, or by their brothers or other male relatives.

Next time you go to a left-wing rally on a university campus and see someone holding a sign reading “Queers for Palestine”, why not give them a copy of this article?

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador became the eighth of Canada’s provinces and territories to legalize same-sex marriage after its high court authorized such unions.

The provincial court’s decision came 12 days after Canada’s Supreme Court gave the federal government authorization to change the definition of marriage. The government will introduce the legislation in the House of Commons early next year.

Of the holdouts, most will probably quickly fall in line once Canada passes federal legislation on the subject, as is expected early next year. Most likely, there were simply no cases for them to rule on yet.

Alberta, however, is a question mark. The conservative province has vowed to fight, thoughit’s unclear what recourse they would have against a federal law. Albertans, like many Americans, seem to maintain an irrational fear that gay marriage will somehow destory their lives. Then again, maybe all the men in Alberta are just terrified that they’ll somehow be forced to marry Ralph Klein…

In a landmark ruling, Canada’s Supreme Court said the government was within its constitutional rights to change the definition of marriage to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

[ . . . ]

The legislation is expected to win the necessary support in parliament, after it is introduced by the government early next year.

But the court ruled that religious officials could not be compelled to marry same sex couples, if the practice ran counter to their beliefs.

It also declined to rule on the question of whether a change to the laws regarding same-sex marriage was required by the constitution, a move that could complicate the task of shepherding the draft law through parliament.

This is a nice ’something for everyone’ compromise. For those in favour of gay marriage, it cleared the way for a new definition of marriage. For those opposed, it didn’t compel the issue on a constitutional basis, nor did it step on the toes of religious autonomy. For those who believe that this was a matter for legislators and not judges, the Supreme Court essentially agreed.

It’s a shame that the court didn’t have the courage to decisively say that discrimination against gay people is against the spirit of the Charter of Rights. This ruling reminds me that sometimes, trying to be everything to everyone means ending up being nothing to nobody.

The ball’s in Parliament’s court now. A vote for gay marriage is expected to pass fairly easily, with the NDP, the Bloc, and most Liberals voting for, and the Conservatives voting against. But on principle, I disagree that matters such as rights should be decided by a majority-rule vote.

I suppose I’ll have to be patient as I wait for the country to catch up to that thinking. After all, at least we’re a lot further ahead on the issue than our US neighbours.

The ruling will be handed down just two months after the court heard a high-profile reference case from the federal government — an unusually short period of deliberation in such a seemingly complex case.

The reference, launched after appellate courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec legalized same-sex marriage, asked the court four questions.

The first question is whether the federal government has jurisdiction to alter the definition of marriage. The second involves the constitutionality of Ottawa’s plan to redefine marriage to include gays and lesbians.

The third question involves whether religious institutions are legally protected from having to marry same-sex couples. The fourth question — added on the eve of last spring’s federal election campaign — involves the constitutionality of the existing exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage.

There’s a lot of speculation about what might happen. Canadians are very divided on the issue. I’ve made my opinion clear, and I don’t see how the court could really rule against gay marriage given the trends of legalization of it by province after province. But I wonder if they’ll somehow find a way to strike a compromise to avoid antagonizing the conservative right, given the precarious minority government situation of the Liberals. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics, but the justices live in the same world we do and see the same polling data that we do.

Here’s hoping that the court hands down a judgement that strikes down the discrimination inherent in the current definition of marrriage – of course, still respecting the rights of religions to decide for themselves.

The trouble is, the combination of results that have given the Republicans another four years in the White House, significant gains in Congress and a virtual lock on the Senate all at the same time. That means that one side pretty much dominates all three houses – as opposed to the tenuous hold they had last term. And no matter what side the power is concentrated on, that is too much power for one team in a nation that is very much bitterly divided.

The GOP doesn’t have much to hold them back now. Despite the fact that nearly half the country didn’t vote for them, they have a popular vote win, a win on “their” issues in many direct questions, and pretty much a free rein to move the country even further to the right for the next four years – and, with Supreme Court appointments, for a long time after that.

Gay marriage is not an issue that should be decided by popular vote – because a majority shouldn’t get to decide to deny rights to a minority. But look for the Republicans to push ahead for a nationwide constitutional ban on gay marriage, for no good reason other than because many people find the idea distasteful. In fact, this issue probably helped Bush win the election, by encouraging Conservatives to go cast a vote. Similarly, abortion is once again in trouble. We can probably expect a woman’s right to choose being gradually chipped away in the next few years.

Many Kerry supporters are disappointed because they fear another four years of what they perceive to be devastating international policies by the Bush team. Personally, I’m much more concerned about the domestic American scene. In fact, the Democrats most likely lost this election by assuming Iraq was the only issue, and failing to make a strong case for their liberal values at home.

And with so much power concentrated on the Republican side, I admit I’m worried. I’d be just as worried if all the power were concentrated on the left. Either way, too much power in one camp with too few checks and balances is a dangerous thing.

But many of the networks are still labelling it “too close to call”, pointing to the slim 140,000-vote margin in Ohio for Bush that, if eradicated, could theoretically swing the election to Kerry.

Frankly, I think Ohio is still the big story because the major media networks want it to be the big story. That’s where they sent all their reporters, so that’s where they’re expecting the story. Plenty of other states have even slimmer margins and have been declared for one candidate or the other.

Bush won the popular vote convincingly this time, unlike four years ago. And he’s leading in the three states that the networks have yet to call, including the all-crucial Ohio. Very soon, Kerry’s going to come under a lot of pressure to concede. This isn’t Florida in 2000, no matter how much people were expecting it to be. This is a solid victory and Kerry should be gracious enough to admit it.

The Bush victory was pretty expected, and I don’t have much to say about it that a million other bloggers haven’t already said. Personally, I think the more telling stories were some of the direct ballot questions, particularly the issue of gay marriage. 11 states have banned gay marriage by passing constitutional amendments to disallow it. This is a serious step back for human rights in the United States, and it’s extremely sad that so many people have turned out in droves to deny even the possibility of granting rights to a minority that are already enjoyed by the majority.

I could say much more about this election, but I’m posting manually since blogger seems to be down (perhaps overloaded with election blogging?) so I’ll leave it at that… for now. More to come.

The largely party-line vote in the Republican-led House was 227-186, 49 votes short of what was required for approval.

In July, Democratic-led foes blocked a similar measure in the 100-member Senate where proponents failed to get even a simple majority to lift a procedural hurdle against it.

[ . . . ]

Democrats charged that Republicans have pushed the measure, along with other proposals which had little chance of passing, merely to divide voters and rally social conservatives.

Of course, voters aren’t left with much of a choice, as none of the candidates in this election have been willing to clearly speak out against the continued discrimination of gays and lesbians on this issue. Instead, voters have a choice between Bush – who wants to ban their right to marry – and Kerry, who thinks the states should get to decide:

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose gay marriage. Yet like most fellow Democrats in Congress, they favor leaving the matter to individual states.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, has said he also believes states should decide whether to sanction same-sex marriages, but that Bush sets the administration’s positions.

One day, the US leadership will realize that continuing to maintain a second-class citizenry is wrong. Until then, I suppose gay people can always come to Canada.

That makes 5 of 10 provinces and 1 of 3 territories to date to legalize gay marriage. Within the year it will likely be legal everywhere, marking a giant step forward for human rights in Canada.

In the meantime, several American states are proposing constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, including Ohio, Georgia and Oklahoma. Bans have already passed in 6 states.

The Canadian Supreme Court is due to hear arguments next month on proposed legislation legalizing gay marriage nationwide. It’s been a long time coming. Let’s hope our neighbours to the South sit up and take notice.

Then the Governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey, resigned – he claimed – because he is gay and had an extramarital affair. And that became front-headline news.

I watched a bit of the media circus with increasing distaste.

I must confess, I had hardly even heard of McGreevey before. So my initial reaction when I watched him was admiration for his willingness to take responsibility, and disgust that his stated reasons for stepping down should – in 2004 – force anyone out of politics.

Then I started seeing the reports about the alleged real reasons McGreevey resigned: He’s facing a sexual-harassment lawsuit from a former security advisor (an Israeli, of all things), and allegations of widespread corruption in his office.

I’m disgusted that personal lives continue to be fair game for political attack.

I’d like to see it stopped. After all, knowing a man had an affair means I’d be wary of dating him, not of electing him. And knowing or learning he’s gay wouldn’t affect my political opinion of him at all.

But by giving these personal, irrelevant excuses for a resignation clearly motivated by indiscretions that are relevant to office, McGreevey essentially told the public that it’s okay to make sexual orientation or marital fidelity into political issues.

We should be working to firm that line, not to blur it. After all, this is 2004, not 1904. The number of gay men and women who have achieved success in public life tells us that it’s time for this to stop being an issue. The Clinton years showed us that most voters will even forgive someone for having an affair, assuming – correctly – that this is a matter between spouses, not fodder for public consumption.

The fact that gay groups are supporting McGreevey simply compounds the absurdity. If I were them, I’d have nothing but contempt for a man who is essentially telling voters that it’s okay to resign in shame for being gay, while trying to use the issue to cover up real problems.

That’s the kind of abuse that happens when the personal and the political become one and the same. And that’s what makes this story so sad.

Update: Wonkette on the subject (via Damian Penny):

McGreevey’s speech was stunning, inspiring and perhaps even profound. . . It’s too bad he’s so corrupt.

Well put.

The reason for the popular MP’s departure from political life was not immediately known. Robinson, an outspoken figure on Parliament Hill, became Canada’s first openly homosexual MP when he publicly declared his sexual orientation in 1988.

His aggressive stands on same-sex marriage, charter protection of gay rights and Palestinian autonomy – among other issues – have made Robinson a lightning rod for critics.

This is indeed big news. All the NDP members bother me, but Robinson is particularly annoying.

For the record, it’s not the “openly gay” or “protection of gay rights” issues that bother me about Robinson. Far from it. On those points, I actually agree with him.

No, it’s more due to things like this:

He was demoted from his international affairs critic’s role two years ago after travelling to the West Bank, staging his own detention at an Israeli checkpoint and then accusing the Israeli military of murder and torture.

“I plead guilty. Yes, I am taking sides,” Robinson said at the time.

“I am taking the side of peace over war. I am taking the side of the oppressed over the oppressor.”

Oh, and let’s not forget the time he nominated the ISM for a Nobel Peace Prize. Hey, I suppose they deserve it just as much as Arafat does…

Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out, Svend.

The Quebec court case pitted some religious groups against Michael Hendricks and Rene Leboeuf, who want to marry after being together for 30 years.

The religious groups were appealing a September 2002 ruling by Justice Louise Lemelin of Quebec Superior Court that said restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman was unjustified under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This isn’t really too surprising, as public opinion in Quebec is overwhelmingly supportive of gay marriage. And it’s only a matter of time until the rest of the country follows suit.

I don’t think the Massachusetts court is an example of judicial activism. I think it’s an example of the inevitability of the rights of American citizens being granted to all Americans.

It doesn’t matter if some religions think it’s a sin. The Constitution doesn’t take religion into account when granting Americans equal protection under the law.

Read the rest.

Massachusetts gays won another major victory on Wednesday when the state’s highest court told lawmakers to allow full-fledged marriage for gays and said anything less would make them “second-class” citizens.

Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court, whose landmark ruling last year struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage, said in an opinion that only marriages for gays, not civil unions, were valid under the state’s constitution.

The court’s 4-3 ruling echoed its November decision, and left no wiggle room for state lawmakers who were pushing for a law that would create civil unions — essentially a parallel form of marriage for gays and lesbians.

I guess Boston now has a new tourist attraction to advertise. In the meantime, Canadians are still waffling on the issue… and I suspect that will continue for the forseeable future. Change – even change that’s right and necessary – takes time.

The highest court in Massachusetts ruled on Tuesday that the state cannot bar gays and lesbians from marrying, but it stopped short of ordering the state to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In a 4-3 ruling that could make Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage, the Supreme Judicial Court said the state may not deny the rights conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.

“We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution,” the court said in its ruling.

When the Canadian Supreme Court issued a similar ruling, world war three nearly erupted here. And this is Canada. Something tells me the American controversy will be even bigger.

An 18-year-old student has filed a suit in Palm Beach County, Fla., against a private school, alleging he was expelled for telling a teacher he is gay.

Jeffrey Woodard claims that Jupiter Christian School expelled him three days after he was pulled out of Bible class by a teacher and asked in confidence if he was gay.

When Woodard answered “yes,” a school official called his mother and told her Woodard couldn’t attend an upcoming school retreat unless he and his mother, Carol Gload, met with the school to talk about his sexual orientation, according to the lawsuit.

“We were given three choices at the meeting — to get counseling, for him to voluntarily withdraw or expulsion,” Gload recalled.

[ . . . ]

School President Richard Grimm said last week that he could not comment on the issue because it involves private information about a former student, but he said the school’s policies are based on Biblical values.

Florida laws don’t prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. So the sickest thing is that this student might actually have no legal recourse.

All this is assuming, of course, that he was expelled for being gay. There could of course be some other reason – maybe he failed all his courses, or assaulted a teacher, or set fire to the locker room.

But if it’s true he was thrown out for being gay, then I can only hope, for his sake, that his case causes enough public debate in Florida to make some changes. It’s time for people to stop justifying this blatant kind of discrimination.

This bill was kind of a rock-or-a-hard-place issue. It’s tempting to lump it together with yesterday’s marriage vote, but in reality, the issues are separate. Sure, both votes involved gays and human rights, but that’s where the similarities end.

Firstly, today’s vote was proposed by idiotarian Svend Robinson (and for the record, it’s his politics, not his sexual orientation, that I object to).  Remember Svend? The guy who nominated the ISM for a Nobel Peace Prize? And made the announcement on IndyMedia? Yeah, forgive me for being a bit skeptical of him.

In this case, though, I find myself agreeing with Svend . . . because the alternative is people like this:

Opponents of the bill had complained that the legislation would stifle free speech, particularly among religious groups.

Some worried that passages in the Bible condemning homosexuality could be declared hate literature.

“We’ve seen through the courts that when religious freedom comes up against gay rights, that in fact religious freedom intends to be more often than not the loser in those particular cases,” said Derek Rogusky, of the group Focus on the Family.

Actually, the main difference is that the issue here is not marriage – where, granting the right to gays to marry doesn’t infringe on the rights of straight people to do so. The issue is much more controversial than that. A debate has been raging about hate laws right here on this blog, and I can’t say that there’s any black and white clear answer on the notion.

However, it seems clear to me that, considering the fact that these hate laws already exist, and that it’s already illegal to incite hatred against people based on colour, race, ethnicity, or religion, then it seems logical to me that sexual orientation be included as well.

In other words, either the law should be for everyone or no-one. Either extend it to gays or scrap it altogether. Anything else is just plain hypocritical.

The Canadian Alliance’s motion asking MPs to reaffirm the heterosexual definition of marriage was defeated by a vote of 137 to 132 Tuesday night.

[ . . . ]

Tuesday’s motion was similar to one passed by a vote of 216 to 55 by the House in 1999, in which many Liberals voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

Because of the 1999 vote, the Alliance succeeded in embarrassing the Liberals who voted against today, but in favour of the similar motion only four years ago. But their hopes of pre-empting the Liberals’ planned vote on extending marriage rights to gays, and embarrassing the government even further, were dashed.

So what’s changed in 4 years? Has society become that much more in tune with human rights? Or did the recent court decisions in Ontario and B.C. act as catalysts for change? Either way, Martin Cauchon is right:

“I believe it is about equality, dignity and respect for all Canadians,” said Cauchon.

“We are at a historic moment in time. We have the opportunity to challenge our simple assumptions and beliefs and do what is right in terms of equality,” he added.

The defeat of today’s Alliance motion, of course, doesn’t mean that the Liberal motion to legalize gay marriage will pass. The tiny margin indicates that it’s a contentious topic that isn’t going to be clearly resolved anytime soon. It’s likely to become an election issue, which, given the Liberals’ virtual assurance of getting into power, will probably be used as leverage to weaken their majority and strengthen the religious right.

But besides all the politics, we have to remember that a society makes progress by recognizing and correcting past and present wrongs. “It’s always been that way” is a lousy argument for the status quo, if we’re slowly recognizing that the status quo denies basic rights to a minority population. “My religion says so” is even worse. These are just excuses that the majority likes to use in order to keep the minority from attaining rights, and we should look back in shame at how long it took us to recognize that when it came to the rights of women, or people with different skin colours.

You can see how your local MP voted on today’s motion here.

Must be tough being both gay and Jewish. Kind of a double-minority-whammy. At least this guy’s got a good sense of humour about it.

“I’ve done some referendums. I’m not keen on that,” he said, speaking to reporters in North Bay in the middle of a Liberal caucus meeting this week.

He said the reason Canada has a Constitution and the Charter of Rights is to protect the rights of minorities.

As well, he feels the job of elected officials is to make important decisions on issues such as gay marriages and to defend the rights of minorities.

“To have a referendum on these things, there would be no protection anymore.”

In my opinion, this is the correct interpretation of the role of government, and anyone who is a minority in any way (which, I suppose, we all are in a sense) should defend this role.

Someone I was talking to (who shall remain nameless but he knows who he is) said it well. What would the result be, he asked, if they called a vote in Quebec asking people whether the Jews should be charged more tax than everyone else?

Or, to put it another way, democracy doesn’t give three guys on a lifeboat with no food or water the right to kill and eat the fourth.

So when I see things like this, it really makes me squeamish:

Two federal Liberals are preparing a legal bid to have the Supreme Court butt out in favour of letting the “High Court of Parliament” settle the contentious issue of gay marriage. MP Roger Gallaway and Senator Anne Cools, both from Ontario, said Thursday they are asking the Supreme Court to allow them to appear as “interested parties” when, at the behest of the Chretien government, the court reviews the constitutionality of draft legislation redefining marriage as the “lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.”

Gallaway and Cools oppose allowing homosexuals to marry and say they believe Canadian sentiment is running their way.

What if this were rewritten but replace “gays” with “Blacks” and “to marry” with “to vote”? Think about that for a minute.

Human rights should not be decided by opinion polls.

For the record, the only real argument I’ve ever heard against homosexuality is Biblical. The Bible says it’s bad, end of story. That’s what people mean when they say it’s “unnatural.” (”God created Adam and Eve, not . . . .”) That’s what they mean when they talk about protecting the “sanctity” of marriage. What “sanctity?” Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church. It’s a religious rite of passage in the Jewish faith and in just about every other faith as well. Exclusive control over marriage has traditionally been usurped by religious authorities and they don’t like giving up their grip on it because it’s a very powerful institution to control.

Problem is, in this country, in the United States of America, we recognize civil marriage. In the United States of America, we recognize the rights of individuals to marry without the blessing of any priest, minister, rabbi, mullah or guru. In other words, without the approval of any god or his/her minions. Here in America, control over marriage is shared by religious institutions and our civil government. But the last word belongs to the state, not the church, and the First Amendment to our Constitution says that the rules and regulations of the latter do not govern or dictate to the former. Religious doctrine does not, can not and must not determine the rights of citizens under the civil law.

So if a gay couple wants to get married in a synagogue, they need to take that up with the rabbi. If they want to get married in a church, they’re going to have to find a minister who’ll perform the ceremony. A member of the clergy can say “I won’t agree to do that because the Bible says it’s wrong. What you want to do violates the religious beliefs of this institution.” If you don’t like it, you have to lobby to change it or find a different religious institution that’s freed itself from this particular form of bigotry. But neither the U.S. government nor the governments of its constituent states or municipalities have any business discriminating against some citizens on the basis of Biblical invective let alone invoking such invective in support of such discrimination.

What if the issue was whether black people should have the right to attend the same schools as white people? What about a vote on whether women should have equal rights under the law to men? Would it make sense to have politicians adopt law in these cases based on personal views, religious blackmail, or angry groups of racist or sexist constituents? Of course not. Equality under the law is a basic right guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights. And even if an MP lived in a riding where there was a high level of racism and opposition to minority rights, he or she should still do the right thing.

Incidentally, there is a listing at the bottom of this article on where various MPs stand on the vote. And at least one MP is outspoken about her views that rights aren’t decided by a show of hands:

Others who endorse same-sex marriage say it is not a matter of public opinion.

“It is a fundamental issue of human rights,” Montreal MP Marlene Jennings said.

When human rights are decided by popular vote, then the whole notion of equality falls apart. A lot of people say that the supreme court has no place redefining marriage. But I disagree. This is an issue of law. It’s the most basic law we have. As stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15, article 1:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Even if sexual orientation isn’t specifically listed as an “in particular” category, neither is it precluded from the definition. Every individual is equal before and under the law. It’s a right we cherish as Canadians. It’s time we started applying that like we mean it, even to people we may disagree with.

I guess I was a bit too smitten with Bush’s policy on Iraq and Israel such that I gave him a pass on domestic policy.

No more. I am wary, angry, and frustrated with the President now in a way that I have not been since September 10th, 2001.

Since matrimony is the theme of the day, let me say that the honeymoon is over and I want a divorce, Mr. President!

And Andrew Sullivan rings in on what this really means, which is all-out discrimination:

It seems clear to me that we are now headed toward a terrible and possibly definitive tempest on the issue of gay equality. President Bush said yesterday, in so many words, that he is considering amending the constitution to deny gays legal equality in their relationships – indeed to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the sacred words of the founding document.

In the meantime, comments over at Daimnation are going from the absurd to the ridiculous. Arguments like this one:

Aren’t religious views based on divine revelation — or, if one prefers, thousands of years of reflection and lived human experience –at least as compelling as ‘what harm could it do’ or ’studies show that…’?

Ah, the old “the scientific method can’t possibly compete with this booming voice in my head” argument. Or this one:

The same is true for gay marriage: what gay activists don’t understand is that they can call themselves married all they want, but they will not really BE married, in the only eyes that count, the eyes of God, who created the sacrament. Gay men and women are equal under the law, but their unions are not.

Here’s a thought: maybe they don’t all believe in the same god who you suggest would relegate them to second-class status! Maybe they believe in another interpretation of religion, another religion altogether, or *gasp!* no religion at all! And maybe they’re tired of having laws passed that deny them that freedom.

Isn’t the concept of “rights” itself religious? Even the Declaration of Independence says that rights are a gift from the creator. What natural entity has the authority to grant (or withdraw) basic human rights? If human rights are subject to human whims, they can hardly be called fundamental.

The old “only god can give us rights” argument. Hmmm. I guess we should take away the right to vote from Blacks, cause back when that was changed, people believed it went against god too.

The real reason behind the opposition to gay marriage is the widespread belief, supported by nearly a century of psychiatric research, that homosexuality is an inherently dysfunctional orientation influenced by a variety of social and psychological factors during childhood and/or adolescence.

You know, the only “dysfunction” is assuming that someone who isn’t like you is evil, wrong, or psychologically messed up. Maybe the teen suicide rates and the rates of “dysfunction” among homosexuals would be lessened if they weren’t one of the only minorities that it was still acceptable to persecute and oppress. Ever consider that?

Here’s the doozy of all arguments:

When I say gays shouldn’t (actually, can’t) marry, I am imposing my religious viewpoints on a minority. When they insist they should be allowed to marry, they are imposing their secular philosophy on me. Why does secularity trump religion? Because you are not religious? Oh, that’s fair.

Yeah, cause gays getting married is really gonna restrict your human rights. Suuuuuure. I find it amazing when people claim that it’s wrong to infringe on their “right” to infringe upon the rights of others. Kinda like the WTO protestors who claimed that it was an “infringement on their freedom of speech” to arrest them for smashing windows and trying to infringe on the freedom of speech of the people inside the conference. Hmmmm. Yes, I’m detecting a common theme of hypocricy here.

“As Prime Minister of Canada, [Chretien] has the moral responsibility to protect the equality of Canadians,” said Thoren Hudyma, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister’s Office. “There needs to be a separation between the church and state.”

I guess Bush would be exempt from eternal damnation as he has come out against gay marriage in the US . . . except that Bush isn’t Catholic.

In the meantime, Damian Penny disagrees with me that religion should and can be separate from politics. He makes the argument that because politicians are people with their own moral codes, that they cannot separate the source of those moral codes from their daily decisions and actions in office:

I’ve heard this “you should keep your religion out of your politics” argument dozens of times (especially during the 2000 federal election campaign, when people believed Stockwell Day was going to take the vote away from women ‘n stuff), and it’s always stuck in my craw. It’s one thing to say politicians shouldn’t impose their religious beliefs upon others, but if you subscribe to a particular belief system, how on earth are you supposed to divorce yourself from it when the time comes to vote on a particular issue? Religious belief is not really something you can pick and choose whenever its convenient. Everybody has a moral compass of some kind (indeed, the lefties who usually squawk the loudest about “keeping morals out of politics” are the most dogmatic, doctrinaire people around when it comes to issues about which they feel strongly), and for many – perhaps most – people, it will be founded in some sort of religious belief. And I just don’t see how you can put it completely to one side when pondering a moral issue.

In response, I would argue that the notion that morality need be founded in religion is a wrong and dangerous one:

It’s more than possible to be a moral person without being a religious person, and without grounding your morality in religion (which is a fallacious and dangerous link to make, but I digress).

What George Bush is doing is taking his religious beliefs, which are supposed to be personal, and politicizing them by imposing his interpretation of religion on 250 million citizens, some of which may share his beliefs and many of which don’t.

Now you may say, how is that any different than a president saying “my moral code says it’s wrong to kill, so I’m going to pass a law forbidding murder”. But it is different. There are concrete, natural reasons why it’s wrong to kill (a priori) that need not be based on a faith-based religious doctrine. It’s wrong to kill because fellow human beings have a right to life and killing causes grievous harm.

But to say that’s it’s “wrong” for gays to have the right to get married, just because of blind faith in religion, well, that has no place whatsoever in politics. Nobody’s telling Bush to be gay or to marry a guy. But if he’s going to tell all Americans that they can’t do it, he ought to have a damn good reason, and “my religion says so” just doesn’t cut it.

Damian responded by saying that religious codes of morality were the source for most of our secular notions on morality:

This does beg the question, where did the concept of a “right to life” arise in the first place? Most religions have a clear prohibition against killing other people (although, as everyone from the Inquisitors to Hamas illustrate, religious people will find no shortage of loopholes allowing them to get around this inconvenient rule), and that’s why murder was taboo long before secular philosophical arguments against killing gained popular currency. This is another area where politics and religion cannot be completely separated.

I think that is a powerful and persuasive argument that merits a response. I also think it’s wrong.

Rather than discuss this at length here, I’ll direct interested parties to this link to a philosophy paper I wrote on the subject. I’d post excerpts but in my egotistical opinion it’s better if you read the whole thing.

And for anyone who isn’t yet asleep, further reading can be found here, here, and here, among other places.

While Bush said people must be tolerant and “respect each individual,” that “does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage.”

Of all the stupid Bush quotes I’ve heard, that one’s one of the stupidest. Does Bush actually think that legalizing gay marriage would force him to divorce Laura and marry Dick Cheney?

This is a shining example of the problems that occur when governments try to play morals police and impose their religiously-derived code of morality on everyone. And is a main reason why, despite agreeing with them on many issues of foreign and economic policy, I could never vote for the right.

Gay marriage can’t be a “majority rules” decision, because the majority of us are straight. Put it to a popular vote and minorities usually get shafted. Instead, it’s time for us to recognize – as Canadian society is finally realizing – that we’re not abdicating any of our own rights by granting them to others. And that denying rights to minorities is something that history – and morality by any kind of secular definition – cannot tolerate or forgive.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Thursday sodomy laws that make it a crime for people of the same sex to engage in “deviate sexual intercourse,” a ruling that gives gay rights advocates a major victory.

[ . . . ]

The 30-year-old Texas “homosexual conduct” law makes it a crime for same-sex couples to engage in “deviate sexual intercourse,” defined as oral and anal sex, even if it is consensual and occurs in the privacy of a person’s bedroom. Violators face a maximum punishment of a $500 fine.

The ruling will invalidate sodomy laws that exist in 13 states. Besides Texas, the other states are Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

This only a mere 35 years after Pierre Trudeau made his famous statement that “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation” and got Canada’s nose out of people’s private business.

The landmark legislation will be drafted within weeks, then sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for fine-tuning and put before the House of Commons in a free vote by MPs months from now. But the prime minister made it clear Ottawa would not impose the new law on religious groups, who can still refuse to perform same-sex weddings. Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only countries allowing gay and lesbian weddings.

“What we’re doing at this moment might put Canada at the forefront of any solutions that exist,” Chretien said.

I guess I should join other bloggers such as Damian Penny on weighing in with my opinion on the subject, which is that this is one of the best pieces of legislation tabled by the Liberal government since . . . well, in a long time, anyway. And it’s long overdue.

I’ve heard a lot of BS arguments against allowing gay people to marry, usually by thinly-veiled homophobes who spout a lot of claptrap about “definitions” and whatnot. Some argue that it’s a slippery slope to allowing other forms of marriage, such as marriages involving more than one person. Others seem to be perfectly happy to restrict the right to marry to heterosexuals, perhaps afraid that if gays can marry, we’ll no longer be allowed to. I don’t know. I’ve thought long and hard trying to come up with some rational explanation for their objections, and came up with nothing. It’s not as though granting basic rights to someone else means that we have to give up any ourselves.

Especially considering no religious institution will be compelled to marry a same-sex couple, in much the same way that the Catholic Church won’t recognize or remarry divorced people. If you want to follow the tenets of a faith that discriminates, nobody’s stopping you, and there are plenty to choose from. Even Judaism discriminates broadly in who can be married in an Orthodox synagogue. But there are plenty of ministers (and even rabbis) out there who will gladly marry a same-sex couple, or else gay couples can be married in a civil ceremony. So why should the Federal Government be allowed to get in the way?

Marriage is essentially a contract. Sure, a religious marriage is considered holy, and any marriage is an affirmation of love and commitment. But why shouldn’t same-sex couples be allowed to have that love or make that commitment? And why shouldn’t they be granted the same privileges as heterosexual married couples?

I’m reminded of some of the arguments that were put forth before black people had the right to vote in the United States. “Voting is just for whites” or “Why would they even want to vote anyway?” or other ridiculous assertions like that one. Well, here we are again, in a time when we can no longer deny basic rights to 10% of our populations. Let’s end discrimination once and for all.

Elsie Wayne, the deputy leader of the Progressive Conservatives, said yesterday that homosexuals should “shut up” about their lifestyle and complained that Canadians should not have to tolerate gay pride parades, drag queens and same-sex marriages.

To me, the scariest part is all the comments on the National Post’s feedback page from people cheering on Elsie Wayne for her bigotry.

When will people learn that hatred masked in self-righteous morality is still hatred?

I honestly don’t understand why people are so opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Fine, I can understand if certain religious institutions don’t want to accept it. After all, religion is all about arbitrary prescriptions and proscriptions of lifestyles.

But marriage itself – in the civil definition – is mainly a legal contract, and any law that discriminates against a portion of the population based on something they can’t help ought to be scrapped. I mean, what is this, the eighteenth century? I thought we’d progressed beyond blaming homosexuality for the “immorality” of society.

Being gay is like being a redhead, or being left-handed. As I myself am both red-haired and left-handed, I certainly wouldn’t want any laws discriminating against me on either count. Just as I can’t help those, gay people can’t help being gay – nor should they be made to feel like they’re somehow inferior, or less deserving of the same rights as the rest of us. If they fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together, what’s so wrong about giving them the same rights to marriage as the rest of us?

Comments like this one baffle me beyond belief:

Supporters of same-sex marriage cannot guarantee a secure future, for they have no historical, moral or scientific basis to do so. No one knows what the fall-out will be from having in essence a more gay society, as people increasingly accept and engage in homosexual behaviour.

Oh yeah, cause gay people are out there in numbers trying to convince us unenlightened straight people to be more like them. Oh no wait, that’s not gay people . . . that’s religious people – people who think that somehow their “morality” needs to apply to everyone else and that they somehow have the right to dictate to others how to live. What does this person think, that if gays are given the right to marry, suddenly everyone will think it’s such a great idea and decide to be gay?

Some people are just really stupid.