Stephen Harper was on Mike Duffy Live over on CTV tonight. Of course, the topic was Harper’s statements about same-sex marriage.
What’s the plan? A Conservative government will introduce a motion asking whether the House is interested in changing the definition of marriage. If the motion is defeated, there will be no further action. The law will not be retroactive.
What about the notwithstanding clause? Mike Duffy said something like, “Well, you’ll have to use the notwithstanding clause because of the Supreme Court ruling on the issue.”
Warning… Rambling Aside: Fuck. I don’t care what you think about same-sex marriage. Can we at least, for the sake of having a real debate about the need to use s. 33 to halt same-sex marriage, get on the same fucking page? Mike Duffy and all these ham-fisted CP reporters can read, but apparently they choose not to: GO READ THE STUPID REFERENCE. The reference does NOT rule that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. And so when lazy fucks like our buddy O’Hanlon (who is, incidentally, the freaking Ottawa News Editor) say things like, “But [Harper] didn’t explain how he would ban same-sex unions, given that the Supreme Court has indicated the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional,” they are being disingenuous or retarded or both. The Supreme Court held that:
- The definition of marriage can only be legislated by Parliament.
- Same-sex marriage is consistent with the Charter.
- The freedom of religion guarantee in the Charter is (probably) broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the State to perform same-sex marriages with which they disagree.
- As for question 4, regarding the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage: and I quote, “it would be unwise and inappropriate to answer the question.”
Yes, cases in some provinces have ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Yes, if Harper re-legislates the traditional definition of marriage, he will have some kind of trouble with these prior provincial rulings. But let us stop implying that the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage has been resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada or that the ability to stop same-sex marriage in provinces whose provincial courts haven’t yet weighed in on the issue isn’t available to Mr. Harper without invoking s. 33.
We are all educated adults. We can, at the very least, frame the scope of the issue before us properly, no?
- Rant Off -
Harper brushed him off and, correctly, stated that Duffy is full of shit about what the SCC said. Duffy quickly changed topics.
Why introduce it today? Harper said, “I was asked; and it’s no surprise. This has been our policy for some time.”
Duffy wrapped up by promising to stop beating a dead horse trying to discover the strategic value of the decision to talk about same-sex marriage on the first day of the campaign.
And that’s it.
Update later: By the way, can anyone tell me WHY he came out with this right away instead of ignoring the question (if it was a question that was actually put to him?) Where’s the upside?
I see that the front page of the Liberal website is already all over his ass on this. Not particularly surprising either.
I guess it is a 56 day campaign. That Charter graphic might get a little old by day 30? Maybe?
Anyways, I think the Liberals come out on top in Day 1.
