Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘gay rights’

Here I am on another Sunday night procrastinating going to sleep… because when I next wake up it will really be Monday and the weekend will be over. And there’s nothing more depressing than a Monday morning. So I’m determined to make it worse by being tired as a zombie. Makes perfect sense to me.

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?

I hadn’t intended to spark a political debate with my post below about the futility of a quick election. But since it evolved into one, I might as well explain that one of the reasons I won’t vote Conservative is because of things like this:

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.

What could be more perfect for the pro-gay marriage camp than finding out that the anti-gay marriage camp was being financed by Americans:

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.

Allison points out this article at Israel21C about how gay Palestinians are seeking refuge in Israel:

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?

Newfoundland has legalized gay marriage, making it the eighth Canadian province or territory to do so:

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…

The Canadian Supreme Court issued its decision on gay marriage today in a historic judgement that essentially kicked the issue back into the hands of lawmakers:

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 Supreme Court of Canada is set to issue its ruling on gay marriage on Thursday:

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.

Bush winning the election is not what’s making me so uncomfortable. At least, it doesn’t make me any more uncomfortable than a Kerry win would have.

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.

As I predicted, it looks like a fairly convincing victory for Bush.

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.

A proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the US failed to obtain a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives… but this doesn’t mean the issue is dead:

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.