Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘gay rights’

Curious about your local candidate’s stance on the issue? Check out this site, highlighted today in the Globe and Mail for “endorsing” candidates who are strongly opposed to gay marriage and who – presumably – would vote to overturn it, given the opportunity.

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.

In a democracy, I have an absolute right not to discuss how I intend to vote with anyone. However, I’m choosing to waive that right, because politics is such an important topic on this blog, to discuss why, despite the corruption, scandals and aggravation, unlike so many Canadians, I won’t be switching my vote from Liberal to Tory this time around. This is the first time I’ve ever felt the need to explain my vote, and maybe that makes the vote all that much more important.

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.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I like Damian Penny’s blog an awful lot. I even agree with most of the things he writes. But some of his readers and commentators… well, that’s another story altogether. Case in point: the delusion-fest going on right now about how Harper and the Conservatives are going to win the election by focusing endlessly on the same two issues they’ve spent the last couple of years talking about.

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.

The Senate overwhelmingly approved the gay marriage bill, officially legalizing it across Canada.

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.

I haven’t done one of these in a while. And some bloggers have been writing very, very good posts. So it’s high time, I guess.

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.

Spain legalized gay marriage just two days after Canada passed similar legislation, becoming the fourth country in the world to end this form of discrimination:

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.

One of the most controversial government bills in a long time passed in Parliament tonight, legalizing same-sex marriage and ending discrimination against gay Canadians:

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.

That’s the greater implication of this proposed blackmail by the Conservatives:

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?

Terrified by yesterday’s departure of Pat O’Brien from the Liberal fold, Paul Martin has agreed to amend bill C-38 on same-sex marriage before passing it, to appease some members of his party:

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.

Federal MP Pat O’Brien quit the Liberals and has decided to sit as an independent because he’s opposed to the Liberal bill to allow same-sex marriage.

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.