Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Harper re-opens the debate
Despite the passing of bill C-38 legalizing same-sex marriage last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has reopened the debate on same-sex marriage. During last January’s election campaign, Harper promised to hold a debate and free vote on the issue if elected. Last week, opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage were in Ottawa to lobby MPs; the free vote will be held later this year.
In 1969 Canada’s federal government decriminalized homosexuality. Two years later, Toronto held its first Pride parade, which has since become one of the foremost celebrations of sexual difference in Canada. In June 2003, in response to court rulings, Jean Chrétien announced that his government would legalize same-sex unions. In December 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ottawa has the sole right to decide who can marry in Canada, but that it can’t force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages.
Bill C-38 passed in the House of Commons by a 158-133 vote, and became law on July 20, 2005. This made Canada the fourth country to legalize same-sex marriage, after the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium. There have been about 10 000 same-sex marriages in Canada since bill C-38 passed.
When Paul Martin’s government introduced the legislation in February 2005, Harper tried to amend the bill to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Martin argued that bill C-38 protects religious freedom and ensures minority rights, but many religious groups have voiced fears that they will be forced to perform same-sex unions.
Harper wanted to amend bill C-38 at the time to allow only heterosexual marriages, and to allow provinces to grant same-sex union rights. Martin argued that “separate but equal is not equal” (quoted in CBC online, February 17, 2005). Same-sex marriage advocates have held the same position; they argue that it is still discrimination to allow same-sex couples access to a lesser version of marriage.
Public opinion on the issue has been deeply divided. A poll conducted in 2005 found that 52 per cent of respondents were against changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, while 44 per cent agreed with it.
Age gaps were key in the poll: 61 per cent of Canadians polled between the ages of 18 and 29 agreed with the new legislation, while of those 60 and older, 71 per cent opposed the legislation. A more recent poll suggested that two-thirds of Canadians believe the matter to be settled, but that doesn’t say how many of them believe it to be settled satisfactorily.
It is unclear what Harper wishes to gain from reopening debate on this issue. If his desire is to see same-sex marriage re-criminalized, he is probably fighting a losing battle. Even if a majority of MPs vote to ban same-sex marriage again, the Supreme Court will most likely order parliament to reverse their decision.
Harper could then invoke the notwithstanding clause, something he has said he wouldn’t do, but this would only be a temporary solution. And even if this didn’t cause him to lose the confidence of the House, the next time a Liberal government is elected, the whole thing would start all over again.
I`m not sure whether your angle on the PM reopening the debate was appropriate. The debate has and will never be reopened (at least for the time being). All that the the PM has promised and which was part of his Election Platform was the fact that a free vote will happen. This is quite different than re-opening debate. When the vote occurred in the House of Commons last July, Prime Minister Martin forced his MP`s to vote for the new same sex legislation. That was a forced vote, not a free vote. This time, sometime this fall, all Harper wants to do is allow MP`s to vote freely without being tied or bound to party lines. Whether he loses the vote or not it doesn`t matter; the point is that he promised a free vote and it will happen.
And no he won`t invoke the notwithstanding clause- that`s just bad politics. So when approaching this issue I would try and get the facts straight before making assumptions of what may or may not happen.