Thursday, December 07, 2006

Same Sex Question Period

The Government has lost it.

Stronach: "Can the Government articulate the harm to Canadian society of gay marriage?"

Government: "We're having a free vote and that's what matters."

Stronach: "Will this be the last time?"

Government: "We're having a free vote."

Hedy Fry (who, suddenly, I respsect): "Given the government has no problem breaking its promises on income trusts, on appointed senators, on crossing the floor, why is it bringing this motion which clearly violates the Charter?"

Government: "We're having a free vote and that's what matters."

Hedy Fry: "Given the minister of public works has said he sees no societal harm in gay marriage, could the PM please share with the minister and this House what these harms are?"

Government: "We're having a free vote."

First: It's sort of pleasing that at least the Government (though not some backbenchers, who were embarassing in their speeches) isn't falling back on the old "it hurts families." Because, of course, it doesn't. Asked every day by Stronach to articulate the harm, the Government hasn't. That, at least, is a good thing.

But: They can't answer whether this is it. They can't say that they won't try again. We abuse the Bloc for playing the "If at first you don't win a referrendum, try, try again." Doesn't the same thing happen here?

At the end of the day, I'm not worried. It's going to fail. Even if it passes, it's so patently unconstitutional, on so many levels, that the Supreme Court won't tolerate it for an instant.

And Harper knows exactly what will happen if he uses the Notwithstanding Clause. He would basically be turning the Mace over to Dion to get beaten over the head with.

At the same time, it's still a little depressing to hear one's value to society being debated in any sort of serious manner.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"At the end of the day, I'm not worried. It's going to fail. Even if it passes, it's so patently unconstitutional, on so many levels, that the Supreme Court won't tolerate it for an instant."

Then why did the Supreme Court "tolerate it" in the same-sex marriage reference?

Dean P said...

The Supreme Court didn't tolerate anything.

The Supreme Court didn't take the fourth question--the question as to whether it would be against the Charter not to have gay marriage--on procedural grounds.

Using the Court of Appeal for Ontario as a base, it ruled that certain couples had the right under the Charter to be married.

The Government did not appeal this.

Then the Government asks that question in the abstract in a reference.

The attorneys for EGALE made the point that there never has been a situation where the Government has asked in a reference a question that it could have pursued on direct appeal.

Here's an analogy: You're put on trial for something--let's say, posting anonymous comments. The trial court convicts you. On appeal, the court of appeal says no, posting anonymous comments is not criminal. The Crown doesn't appeal (this is a ruling of law and thus the Crown could appeal).

Then, the government turns around and asks the Supreme Court in a reference "Is posting anonymous comments illegal?" You aren't there, even though the ruling will personally impact you.

So the court was in the position that it a) was dealing a question that directly impacted the rights of the Ontario couples but who were not present to defend their rights, and b) MIGHT present an opinion that would be at odds with the position of 8 provincial superior and appeals courts but which would not be binding.

I.e. the Court didn't answer the question because of standing and prudential concerns, not because it tolerated it.

Anonymous said...

Hedy Fry has been fighting for civil rights in the House since her first election in 1993, back when MP's who supported gay marriage were labelled as "wack-jobs". I'm proud to have her in the House.

Anonymous said...

In other words, the court refused to find a right to marriage for gay couples in the Charter. So stop claiming otherwise.

Dean P said...

The court also refused to find the lack of a right to marriage in the Charter. The court declined to consider the question. It didn't decide anything in any way.

Learn about the law before you make braindead comments like that.