Gay Marriage In Canada Preserved!

[bjarvis]

The House of Commons in the federal Parliament of Canada voted at 3:25 PM this afternoon on a resolution whether to revisit the issue of gay marriage. It would not have affected marriage per se, but could have opened the door to a renewed long & painful debate.

The vote was 175 to 123 against re-opening discussion. Gay marriage as an issue for Parliament is closed.

PS. Hmm... seven abstentions. I wonder who...

Comments

[gingy.livejournal.com]

I'll bet you that priest from Quebec abstained.

[madknits.livejournal.com]

I am. Are you?

No, just a wannabe.

;-)

[madknits.livejournal.com]

Oh, Canada!

[rsc.livejournal.com]

Well, that's good. I had hoped (or naively wished) that the vote would be more lopsided than that, but it's enough to be conclusive.

3 times the charm

[trawnapanda.livejournal.com]

nine abstentions, actually, plus the speaker. there are 308 seats in the house.

the numbers in the analyses I've seen aren't completely consistent, but the latest ones (where they've had more time to check) are 12 tories voting against the party (ie pro gay marriage) and 14 liberals voting against marriage = pro hetero-only definition. That includes Peter Mackay (foreign affairs) against, and (whozit) the former Lib cabinet minister, who quit cabinet to vote against Bill C38 last time, today voted against the motion.

He said what I was reading again and again in the comments of newspaper columns -- this has been decided, its time to move on. and even the PM said this afternoon that he didn't see re-opening the issue now. There have been marriages for over 3 years now, over 12,000 of them, and the sun coming up in the east bang on time every day since has really helped our cause, methinks.

the Equal Marriage website pointed out that there have now been three parliamentary debates, in three separate parliaments, with three prime ministers, on the same question. in September 2003, motion for 'traditional' marriages (from the then leader of the opposition, Steven Harper) was defeated 137-132. Then in June 2005, bill C38 passed 158-133. And now, the motion to re-visit was defeated 175-123. The majorities are growing. Third time lucky, I hope.

Re: bill C38

[(Anonymous)]

Laws in Canada, laws in Canada's constitution, have not been followed since 1901 when Queen Victoria died, so why start now with laws in Canada concerning the definition of marriage?

Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901.

The next day, on January 23, 1901, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867, still stated: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen".

On January 23, 1901, Section 17 still stated: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons".

On January 23, 1901, Section 91 still stated: "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...".

What was the name of Canada’s constitutional Queen regnant who had executive government and authority of and over Canada after the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of Queen Elizabeth II?

Re: bill C38

[trawnapanda.livejournal.com]

don't tell me - let me guess - you don't live in a constitutional monarchy, do you?

How do you suppose that legislation passed when, say, King George IV, or William IV, was enforced when Victoria came to the throne? Or even legislation passed when one king is on the throne is enforced in the next reign? References to the monarch, be that person male or female, continue to be references to the monarch. References to the Crown are references to the Crown.

Dimwit.

And while we're at it, there was NO direct reference in the statutes to the gender of marital partners, until the Civil Marriage Act in 2005. Previous definition came from a legal ruling of Lord Penzance, in a polygamy/ divorce case in England in 1866:

I conceive that marriage [...] may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

because 1866 was before Canadian confederation, this ruling entered our common law. However, it's judge-made law, and susceptible to judicial overruling, and indeed was so overruled on a Charter basis in 2003. [notice that it had already been abrogated by divorce legislation decades earlier: Lord Penzance defines marriage as for life.]

But I don't expect anyone playing games with gender of nouns and pronouns to appreciate that.

with apologies to Brian for cluttering up his blog.

[cubmike74.livejournal.com]

I'm glad it was voted down. However I think it was a slimy move by Stephen Harper. In effect he satisfied his base (religeous right), without having to open an issue that he knew he couldn't win, or shouldn't re-open.
The actions of a coward.