A rchive Date
[ 22-06-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/dfisher.html
The end of the beginning
Gays will soon have the right to marry in Canada, but it seems unlikely that their demands will stop there - other rights will soon be requested
By DOUGLAS FISHER - Sun Ottawa Bureau
June 22, 2003
Charles Darwin made "evolution" a noun of great significance. It encapsuled the way species change over generations, and that such change is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
This curious preface is here because Jean Chretien rolled the words "evolution" and "evolutionary" forth during his talk about the government's decision to let two judgments by provincial courts favourable to same-sex marriage go unchallenged. Instead, the government will ask the Supreme Court to: 1) Reframe the legal definition of marriage (getting it in line with the ruling by the Ontario high court); 2) cite federal jurisdiction on marriage is paramount; 3) make clear that clergy are not required to marry same-sex couples.
With the top court's prescriptions in hand, Chretien, backed by his entire cabinet, will bring a motion to Parliament for a "free vote" (meaning Liberal backbenchers won't have to vote for it). If passed, this new motion on same-sex marriages becomes the law of our land from sea to sea.
Of course, it's most unlikely to be rejected, given its ministerial sponsors, which include John Manley and Sheila Copps. And Paul Martin, so "pro-active" and presently the most important backbencher of all time, is strong now for same-sex marriages. So are all NDP MPs, almost all Bloc MPs, and a handful of Tories.
Anyone looking back on the parliamentary record has to be confused and amused by Chretien's description of this leap to approve same-sex marriages as an evolution. If it is, it is slap-bang evolution! It's true that in 1998 the federal Liberals in convention at Ottawa approved a motion to put the legalization of same-sex marriage into the party program. But this was bypassed by the higher authority of the Liberal government next year.
Substantial debate
On June 8, 1999, the House of Commons had a substantial debate on a motion by a Reform party MP that then went to vote. The motion called on Parliament "to take all the steps necessary to preserve the definition of marriage as ... the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."
Several ministers took part in the debate. Then-justice minister Anne McLellan spoke for the government. MPs from each of the five parties in the House had their say, more speaking against same-sex marriage than for it. One reason the justice minister said she had to speak was because of the federal government's jurisdiction over marriage and divorce.
Provincial governments came into the matter because they are responsible for the "solemnization" of marriages. McLellan's speech was blunt. She insisted the government would take any steps required to preserve the definition of marriage which Canadians want respected. She said: "Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages."
The turnout was splendid for this House vote late in the evening in favour of an opposition MP's motion, and 271 of just under 300 MPs voted. An impressive 216 were for, and 55 against, the motion. The Liberal turnout was heavy, led by Chretien and almost all his cabinet, including Martin and Manley, stood beside him.
A handful of Liberals did vote against the motion in defence of the stock definition of marriage, including Metro MPs Charles Caccia, Karen Kraft Sloan, Carolyn Bennett and Bill Graham.
Over three-quarters of the Liberals MPs of that time will be able to take part in the "free vote" later this year which Chretien has promised, once the new definition of marriage is enunciated by the Supreme Court. Indeed, I figure some 180 MPs who voted in 1999 will have the chance to vote again this year.
Definition of marriage
There has been a swarm of responses to this same-sex issue reported by the media since Chretien said there would not be an appeal of the ruling of three judges, led by Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry. Not one response, whether for or against this fillip to marriage as we've known it, has predicted the free vote will defeat the definition of marriage to be issued by the top court.
No. It's as good as done. And one has to wonder how in such a brief space of four years the Chretien Liberals could pivot and go the other way. Yes, I know this crew has reversed on short notice, or no notice at all, before this. (See NAFTA; see the GST.) But marriage, as we have known it, has been of a man and a woman, and respected for centuries in the laws of both our founding peoples, as well as a being a sacrament in most Christian churches. All this is suddenly to be changed to satisfy the demands of, at best, about 5% of the population.
A vital question is: Is this the end of the campaign so astutely shaped by homosexuals such as Svend Robinson? Will the free vote en-graining same-sex marriages as a right of homosexuals under the Charter of Rights clear the political deck?
I don't think so. A huge, negative reaction is unlikely to come, demanding marriage go back to being a union of one man and one woman.
No, but however the definition may read, soon other homosexual couples will want more relief under the Charter. They will cite their equal right to those of heterosexuals in entering marriage through a religious ceremony of their choice, not be confined to a civil formula.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]]
|