~ CPC PING! ~
Posted on 05/31/2005 11:25:20 AM PDT by GMMAC
Same-Sex marriage bill stalls in political wrangle
By GLORIA GALLOWAY AND CAMPBELL CLARK
With a report from John Ibbitson
TORONTO GLOBE & MAIL
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Page A1
OTTAWA -- The definition of marriage is unlikely to be changed to include same-sex couples until some time in the fall, after the Liberals backed down yesterday from an attempt to curtail committee hearings and push the controversial measure through the Commons.
Faced with a procedural filibuster by Conservative Vic Toews, who wanted 22 additional witnesses to address the committee, the government retreated from a plan to end the hearings on June 9 and provided an extra week.
The move gives opponents of the measure some breathing room because it means the bill will not come back to the House until June 16. That makes passage through the Senate and royal assent extremely unlikely before the House breaks for the summer on June 23.
The Liberals could still use a majority vote to invoke closure on debate. They could also extend the sitting hours of the House to allow for more debate time each day, or extend the session -- any of which could make the bill law before the end of the summer break.
But opponents of same-sex marriage are pressing sympathetic Liberals to prevent quick passage. The Defend Marriage Trust has asked its members to call and e-mail eight Liberal MPs who oppose same-sex marriage, urging them to take the government down on a confidence motion rather than allow the bill to pass this spring.
Any rushed effort is bound to create dissension on the government back bench, since 35 Liberal members have voted against the bill on previous reading. The government cannot afford that while its minority hangs in the balance.
"What is the rush on this bill?" Liberal MP Pat O'Brien asked yesterday. "What's magical about getting it through the House of Commons by the end of June? I don't think there's a good answer to that."
Mr. O'Brien agreed to stay in the Liberal Party earlier this year after obtaining a commitment from Prime Minister Paul Martin to allow members of the public to appear at the hearings. He said he was annoyed with the motion to end the hearings June 9 and was pleased to hear of the compromise yesterday.
But "if this is hour after hour of witnesses being rushed through when MPs are not there or half asleep when they are there then I still have some questions about how meaningful [their testimony] will be."
Mr. O'Brien is one of the eight Liberal MPs that Defend Marriage has targeted. The group issued a press release last week providing e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of the MPs so people who oppose same-sex marriage can lobby them.
"They must be willing, on this issue, to bring down the government for the greater good of Canada," the release said. "Principle must come before politics."
Defend Marriage is still concerned that the bill will be rushed through the House and expects those Liberals who do not want the definition of marriage changed to keep the process meaningful.
"These hearings can't be just a facade," said Roy Beyer, the author of the group's release.
"With people flying in from across the country, we expect that there is going to be respect when they give a presentation and there is going to be discussion and interaction and when the committee finishes there should be a decent proper report presented to the Parliament."
Government strategists had initially reasoned that it was in everyone's interests to pass the bill quickly -- to get it over with, since it is a controversial policy that could damage some MPs in each party.
But they felt there would be no political advantage in creating an uproar by curtailing debate. And it was unclear whether they would have enough support to pass a motion in the Commons to limit debate, even though a majority of MPs support the bill.
Mr. Toews argued that the list of 41 witnesses put forward so far is slanted to favour same-sex marriage. And several of the 22 groups he wants to hear will argue that the bill could have ramifications on religious freedom by limiting some people's ability to continue to oppose publicly the marriage of gays and lesbians.
He said he believes that institutionalizing same-sex marriage would effectively label those who argue against it as discriminatory.
"Essentially what those who are the proponents of same-sex marriage are saying is that those who oppose same-sex marriage are the equivalents of racists."
Mr. Toews argues that this includes not only civil marriage commissioners, who in some provinces will be required to perform same-sex marriages even if they object to it on religious grounds, but also individuals like public school teachers, who could lose their jobs if they write a letter to a newspaper arguing against the marriage of gays and lesbians.
In addition, he said, religious and community groups could lose their status as charities or government grants if they continue to oppose or teach against same-sex marriage.
Mr. Toews had proposed a schedule that would have allowed a month to hear witnesses -- which the Liberal government argued was too long.
He said he believes that the Liberals in the Senate are preparing to rush the bill through -- but acknowledged that even with the additional witnesses, the government will pass the bill in the fall. "Oh, sure. Easily," he said.
Isn't that nice to have.
Last I checked, species that could reproduce were called species. If you couldn't, you were queer. Screw em all.
A long but interesting article about sexuality and societal mores.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412950/posts
Maybe they should close debate and watch their dissidents come over to the Conservatives...we need 19 Liberals to cross the floor to take over power.
They would need the Bloc and NDP to help them to get that majority vote.
AMEN!!!!
Beautiful!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.