Stephen Harper tries to divide Canadians





What Canadians think about gay marriage (Video by Steven Townsend)



If you are not using Internet Explorer 6, you may require an audio/visual player such as Quicktime or RealPlayer to view or hear these public service announcements.
View the same-sex marriage television public service announcement "Blanket"
View the same-sex marriage television public service announcement "Bedroom"
TV PSA: "Bedroom"
View the same-sex marriage television public service announcement "Parents"
Radio Public Service Announcements in support of equal marriage
Radio PSA: "Complaints"
Radio PSA: "Message"
Radio PSA: "Late"
Bandwidth courtesy of BGR Design


Affect change: The increased influence of attitudinal factors on Canadians' support for legal same-sex marriage (By Mark Warren Lehman, 2006)



Same-sex marriage: separation of church and state




Send this page to a friend!


Advocacy News - Stephen Harper tries to divide Canadians

December 6, 2020

Stephen Harper tries to divide Canadians
Attack on our Charter rights is a failed strategy

By Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell

The United
Church of Canada

"Now is the time for Members of Parliament to respond with a clear and decisive been there, done that, don't want to go there again."
Choice Okoro,
The United Church of Canada's human rights coordinator.
(CNW, December 6, 2020)


"To reopen the debate and deny the right to equal marriage would be a violation of the religious freedom of faith communities, such as ours, who wish to recognize same-sex marriage as part of their religious practice."
Right Rev. David Giuliano,
the United Church's Moderator
(CNW, December 6, 2020)

Stephen Harper and his Conservative minority government insulted Canada's constitutional democracy today when it pandered to extremist Kristian fundamentalists by challenging the Charter rights of gays and lesbians, again.

The Conservatives introduced a motion in Parliament attacking equal marriage for same-sex couples. This shameful action by the minority Government of Canada is fuelled by American-inspired Evangelicals, Vatican mouth-pieces like the Canadian Catholic Bishops of Bigotry, and others who have repeatedly conspired to break down the separation of church and state.

The actual motion reads: "That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages."

The divisive Conservative motion to reopen a debate on gay marriage shows the contempt that the Conservatives, like their masters in the U.S. Republican Party, have for minority rights. Fortunately, our Members of Parliament are limited in their powers, precisely in case someone like Harper is in the House.

Marriage equality is secure in Canada, unless a Prime Minister invokes the notwithstanding clause in our Constitution, overriding a Charter right. And even then, the process would have to be repeated every five years in order to maintain a prohibition against gays and lesbians.

Even MPs who previously voted against equal marriage for same-sex couples call this motion "political trickery" (Paul Zed, CanWest News Service, December 6, 2020) and "hollow" (Paul Szabo, CBC, December 6, 2020).

Better us than them?
Gay bashing as a public service

"It is better, therefore, for the Conservatives to let these MPs blow off some steam in a futile debate of no legal consequence and short duration than get up to political mischief in some other area. They are active, for example, on a few foreign policy files urging highly moralistic positions that push Canada away from balance and realism. As such, they are a tremendous menace, as most ideologues are, in the world of international relations."

"The same-sex debate is a meaningless charade", by columnist Jeffrey Simpson
The Globe and Mail,
Dec. 6, 2006

The motion has no chance of moving forward. The Conservatives would face a fight with the courts, and with the provinces. We did not allow ourselves to be taken away from the happiness of married life, and back to the barricades, because of this motion. The battle for marriage equality has been won and over for a long time now. But that hasn't meant that this action by Harper is painless and without consequence for gays and lesbians, their families, and friends everywhere.

Today Mr. Harper took the first step towards attacking a minority group's rights, no matter that he fell on his face. He, or others like him, could be vile enough to try it again, and again.

"Mr. Harper is prepared to spit in the faces of those future gay couples who long for the recognition, status and mutual obligations that marriage brings -- not civil union, not marriage by some other name, but the marriage that has brought men and women together for centuries," an editorial in today's Globe and Mail said.

Survey says ...

Human rights in Canada are not determined by popular vote, but clearly the data says, to know us is to love us!


Would you vote for keep or repeal the same-sex marriage law?

Source: The Strategic Counsel / CTV / The Globe and Mail Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 Canadian adults, conducted on Dec. 3, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

Two polls conducted by Environics Research show that public acceptance of gay marriage is on the rise while public condemnation is declining.

Last June, they published a study showing 59 per cent of those polled are in favour of equal marriage rights and 33 per cent opposed. Seventeen months earlier, Environics found 54 per cent in favour and 43 per cent opposed.
(Hamilton Spectator, December 6, 2020)

"Indeed," the Toronto Star wrote yesterday, in another editorial, "it is difficult to imagine Parliament seriously questioning the constitutional right of women, visible minorities or the disabled to be treated equally under the law. The hard-won right of gays and lesbians to marry, which has been affirmed by courts across the country and by Parliament itself last year, should be given the same respect. Nevertheless, Harper is pressing on to score political points with hard-core supporters. The unfortunate victims are gays and lesbians, who once again face the unsettling prospect of their constitutional rights being up for debate."

Where does the official opposition, the Liberal Party, stand on the motion? Well that depends when you ask. When newly minted Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion was running for leadership last week he claimed, along with all other candidates except Joe Volpe, that he would whip the vote, forcing all liberals to respect the Charter (Canadian Press, December 3, 2020).

This week, after his election, Dion's firm commitment to the whip is, well, less firmly in hand.

"If we have a party vote, he'll say that I muzzled my MPs and that if I had let them vote freely the motion would have passed," Dion said of Harper(Canadian Press, December 6, 2020). "Maybe from a strategic point of view, it would be better to have a free vote."

"They [Conservatives] are generally against it, and we could prove it with a free vote. If it is a whipped vote, we can't prove it as much, but at the same time with a whipped vote we can show that we want nothing to do with calling into question the Charter." (Dion, The Gazette, December 6, 2020)

"If we were at the second step [of legislation] it would be a whipped vote, right away," Dion said of the new line in the sand (Globe and Mail, December 6, 2020). "Since it's a first step . . . if we go with a whipped vote, [Prime Minister Stephen Harper] may say that I muzzled my MPs and that he will try again to make sure that next time they will be free. If we go with a free vote, we will demonstrate that we Liberals in the overwhelming majority don't want this kind of a reopenness."

The reality is more likely that the new Liberal leader is unwilling to pay the price necessary to demonstrate that his party walks the talk on Charter rights. Even if all Liberals voluntarily vote against this motion, it sends a message that Charter rights are subject to a vote.

Rights should never be subject to a free vote in the party that gave us Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is why we wore Trudeau's trademark red rose in our wedding suit lapels, on January 14, 2001, when we married and set out to win legal recognition. We knew we had the commitment of Canada's Charter in hand. We still do.

Increasingly, even our opponents are at last coming to recognize this, even if Harper will not.

Liberal MP Roger Cuzner said he and "most" of the other Liberal MPs who voted against the same-sex marriage bill will oppose the Tory motion, whip or not.

"If we open this, do you open abortion and capital punishment?" Mr. Cuzner asked. "It's been dealt with." (Globe and Mail, December 6, 2020)

Please join us in a letter writing campaign to demand our rights from politicians - Click here to learn more

Join us as we legalize same-sex marriage.  Subscribe to our free newsletter

Please help us pay for our advocacy expenses in support of same-sex marriage.
MailLink to our media coverage of related issues.