Debate rages on over same-sex marriage

And championing the crusade against the government's proposed legislation is, not completely unsurprisingly, Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Harper, long the man in the shadows despite in title leading Her Majesty's Official Opposition, has clawed onto the issue like dog to a bone, despite not having full support of even his own party [http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politi... ] .

To be fair, Harper's efforts to stimulate interest and ire in truly important public policy issues like the federal government's sponsorship spending scandal have yet to catch fire with Joe and Mary Sixpack, frustrating not only to Harper but to all government watchers and taxpayers who cringe each time they hear a federal toilet flush in Ottawa and wonder how much of their paycheque is winding its way through the CCRA sewer system.

But to pin Conservative hopes of electoral rebound on such a divisive social policy issue is either hopelessly naive or politically suicidal.

To be sure, Canadians at large are split [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/050... ] ; most polls indicate there is no clear majority of opinion on either side of the debate and even if there were, wasn't it pollsters who predicted a majority Conservative government last June?

But by and large, Canadians are a tolerant lot, and no party who hangs its electoral hopes on divisive social issues ever finds its way into 24 Sussex. It's why feeble media attempts to introduce political hot potatoes like abortion never resonate with the electorate beyond the extremists on either end of the spectrum. Indeed, what other polls indicate is that what Canadians don't want is another election, on this or any other issue [http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.ph... ].

Furthermore, Harper insists he can amend current legislation to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying without having to invoke the Charter's notwithstanding clause. While he has yet to make clear just how his legislation would achieve this aim, legal scholars from across the country have essentially labeled his claim false, citing not necessarily support for gay marriage, but rather a deeper understanding of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms than Mr. Harper appears to be demonstrating. Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that while the rights, privileges and benefits of marriage ought to be extended to same-sex couples, the government ought to give it a different name, like a 'civil union,' for example. But the Charter does not allow for semantics: the government could no more tell a same-sex couple they couldn't call their

Go To Page: 1 2 3

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic