The War On Gays

Posted on Friday, November 05 at 11:21 by Captain Flynn
That's right. To these states, taking away some rights wasn't good enough. They had to take away all rights.

Today we heard Stephen Harper in the House of Commons calling for the country to have a closer relationship with George W. Bush. We all remember Stephen Harper's position on gay marriage in the last election. Now, under George W. Bush's mandate, eleven states have written bigotry into their constitutions.

Does Stephen Harper intend to do the same to ours?

Background

Link to this article



Note: Background Link to this article

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by avatar arc628
    Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:56 pm
    Something tells me Stephen Harper will back off of this issue. I think he realises that he just can't win. A recent poll found that 56% of canadians are in favour of gay marraige and Sakatchewan has now legalized it. It's just a wedge issue that will (and should) go away

    ---
    If you don't like what you got, why don't you change it. If your world is all screwed up, rearrange it - Trooper

  2. Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:23 am
    First of all, please keep in mind that it isn't the people voting to legalize same sex marriage...it's ONE judge. ONE person. Not much of a democracy. If the Liberal government was less cowardly, they'd put it to a vote in the House and be done with it. If it wins, so be it...if it loses, so be it too.I'm sick of activist judges making the laws.

  3. Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:44 am
    I agree that the liberals were, and are, cowards on this and many other issues. But I really don`t care who pushes along social and economic justice, as long as it gets done! To me, its common sense, like granting women the right to vote. A vote shouldn`t be needed on such a no brainer! Just do it! Not to say that democracy doesn`t matter, because it does. Elimination of discrimination by the supreme court of Canada is alright with me, because, if some are oppressed, then nobody is free!

    ---
    Dave Ruston

  4. Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:12 pm
    I don't support the ammendment per say, but I do think the whole gay marriage issued should be put to a national referendum in Canada.

    As for bush anti-gay agenda, as much as I hate the man( what he is doing in Iraq, his tax-cuts and environmental policies and so on) I don't mind his views on homosexuals!

    Let's not forget that Bill clinton, a democrat, also opposed same sex marriage. He brought in Defence of Family Act and he proposed "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it came to gays in the military. All those acts I fully support.

    That is one of the reason I can't support New Democratic Party. To me they are way off-line in their view on social issues such as abortion, same sex and euthanasia. We need a mainstream, inclusive centrist alternative who would protect our Canadian soverignty save our environment and get us out of NAFTA. For me there is only one person who is qualified enough to lead it. That person is no other than David Orchard.

  5. Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:38 pm
    re:"As for bush anti-gay agenda, as much as I hate the man I don't
    mind his views on homosexuals! ...We need a mainstream,
    inclusive centrist alternative who would protect our Canadian
    soverignty ...""

    Well, how nice. Being a bigot is "centrist" now, is it?
    This is unacceptable drivel; read a book.
    Canada must not stoop to the fithly lies and dirty tricks going on in
    the US right now; we must (and the real centrists in the US hope
    we will) continue to defend human rights at home and abroad. As
    for the US so-called 'election' -- stay tuned for the news of the
    'election' being completely rigged,folks -- is widely acknowledged
    as a terrible omen for the entire world ; more than a shift to the
    right, it's redefining what 'right-wing' means, where what used to
    be centrist is now seen as rabidly "liberal'.

  6. by avatar canuck
    Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:26 am
    Democracy shouldn't have anything to do about it. It's about granting a minority group Equal Rights and Benefits by the Government. Period.

    "the lawfull union of two people to the exclusion of all others".

    What the hell is so objectionable about THAT? I haven't seen a SINGLE piece of evidence that this change to the definition of marriage used in Canadian Law will lead to priests being forced to marry same-sex couples, against their religions' doctrine.

  7. Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:31 am
    27% of Gays voted for Kerry, 20% of Gays voted for Bush and the rest didn't bother or voted for Nader(in which case they shouldn't have bothered).

    Gay people aren't that simplistic that they are a single issue constituency and the majority really don't give a fig about marriage it seems, just a vocal minority.

    That being said, who cares, let'em get married, why should they be happier than anyone else...

  8. Sun Nov 14, 2004 6:03 am
    Plain old garbage. History bears me out,marriage = one man and one woman. Your Liberal view is why we are in this mess to start with.Hard to abbrogate "Natural Law. This is another sign of minorities pushing they're agenda off on other Canadians. Majority is not correct in this one. Canadians are not deaf, dumb, blind nor stupid. Pls peddle this somewhere else. Sirgalahad.

  9. Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:59 am
    Give yer head a shake Clementine!! Its totally against natural law. Remember Adam and Eve, it was not Adam and Steve. Rights fall under Natural or Common law not minorities.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news