From the “Their Nuts Sure Ain’t Like Ours” file: Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has declared the still-contentious issue of same-sex marriage closed after his motion to reopen debate on whether to restore the “traditional” definition of marriage in Canada went down to a resounding defeat. [Edited to correct the purpose of the motion. Thanks, Canadians!]
After a Conservative motion calling on the government to restore the traditional definition of marriage was defeated yesterday by a resounding 175 to 123, Mr. Harper said he will not bring the matter back before Parliament.
“I don’t see reopening this question in the future,” he told reporters who asked whether same-sex marriage would return to the table if the Conservatives won a majority government.
Nor does he intend to introduce a “defence of religions” act to allow public officials, such as justices of the peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
This doesn’t mean that the Conservative Party won’t bring the matter up again in the future when Harper’s no longer in charge, but Harper’s done the astonishing-to-my-American-eyes thing and quit while he was ahead rather than, say, keep calling votes in hopes of chipping away at the edges of same-sex marriage. Not that he’d have much of a chance:
The vote yesterday, which fulfilled a Conservative election promise, marked the sixth time since 2003 that the House of Commons has decided in favour of same-sex marriage.
Eight provinces and Yukon, meanwhile, have declared that excluding gays and lesbians from marriage is a violation of equality rights.
The Liberals and Conservatives both allowed their members to vote according to their consciences. Thirteen Liberals voted for the motion aimed at ending homosexual marital unions and 13 Conservatives, including six cabinet ministers, turned it down.
Joe Comuzzi, who gave up his cabinet seat last year because he refused to vote for the Liberal government’s same-sex marriage law, voted against the Conservative motion yesterday.
I find the whole Parliamentary party-discipline thing fascinating. The idea that members wouldn’t always at least have the option to vote their consciences is a little odd to me. Nevertheless, I read somewhere else that Harper, at least, allowed Conservatives to vote their consciences because he didn’t want anyone to be able to say that he dictated the vote on a still-contentious issue. The same probably went for the Liberals.
And, but lordy, wouldn’t it be nice to have members of Congress talk like this about social issues that are popular with the populace but anathema to one special interest group or another?
One of those ministers was Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, who previously had voted against expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
“For me, this was just a practical matter,” he explained after the motion was defeated. “It’s been debated in the House.
It’s been considered by the provinces, by the courts, and I think it’s time to move on,” Mr. MacKay said.
Via Scott, who also wrote a post yesterday before the vote took place explaining why Canadians weren’t going to stage a giant backlash against same-sex marriage just because the courts were involved in getting the legalization ball rolling.
Just a quick FYI to you Zuzu:
Stephane Dion, the leader of the liberal party, did not enforce party discipline on the vote, leaving the MPs free to vote their concience. I think the Bloc Quebequois and NDP may have done a whipped vote however.
Just a clarification: the motion wasn’t even to “restore the ‘traditional’ definition of marriage” — just to reopen debate on whether to restore it or not. A sore-loser move on Harper’s part, in any case, and it’s good that he’s come to his senses.
I think I remember reading that the Bloc and NDP were to vote along party lines. Either way, this is very good (though not unexpected) news.
Also, afaik, this was actually a vote on whether or not to try to debate SSM again, not actually an ‘abolish or not’ vote.
Fixed.
I think the NDP should have let its MPs vote their conscience… so we’d have known who to purge from the party. :P
There was only one person in the NDP who was ever opposed to SSM, and yeah, Layton threatened to have her removed from caucus.
The Bloc whipped their caucus so the 6 or so Bloc MPs against SSM stayed home and just didn’t vote.
What you’re missing is that Harper knew this would fail and always meant to drop it. He just went through with it because it was a promise he made during the election. Unfortunately for him, he misjudged Canadians and appealing to their basest instincts did not get him a majority.
I’m sure he’s glad it failed. Had it passed, it would have divided his party, and had SSM been revoked, there would have been a huge constitutional snarl. Most of the MPs who went from opposing SSM to opposing this motion did so because they knew it was unworkable to change it, now that the Supreme court has made its opinion known and hundreds (thousands?) of Canadians are now married to SS-spouses.
No, no, no. What you fail to understand is that gay rights advocates in Canada successfully used…litigation! Hence, there will be a massive anti-gay-rights backlash and reaction against anti-democratic courts that will last for generations! Generations I tell you!
A politician who follows through with his campaign promises. Interesting concept!
It’ll be interesting to see if the religious folks try to form their own party again (Reform, anyone?) if Harper sticks by his plan to drop the issue.
Yeah, but Scott, this backlash will happen in a very Canadian way. People will be invited to discussion groups, snacks will be served. Royal commissions may be created, snacks will be served. The main reason that things are discussed and litigated in Canada is because we serve snacks.
Oh, they always have that option. It’s just that the party has the option of barring candidates from running for reelection on its ticket, and good luck winning without backing from a major party. Lieberman could pull it off because the American system is geared toward weak parties; in Britain and Canada, it to my knowledge never happens.
Heeheehee…right on Hawise.
A Conservative backbencher in British Columbia by the name of Chuck Cadman lost his party’s endorsement in the summer 2004 election, ran as an independent and won. But this guy was very active in his constituency (maybe *because* he was a backbencher), and his ousting was widely perceived as a palace coup within the constituency’s Conservative association. According to the papers, quite a lot of people in his constituency who identified as Conservatives volunteered for him and voted for him. He has since died (cancer, I think), so I don’t know if he would’ve been able to hold the seat as an independent over the long term.