[Crossposted at CultureKitchen]
As I write this, I’m watching the Canadian House of Commons’ final debate on bill C-38: The Civil Marriage Act, a law to extend marriage equality to all Canadians (currently, eight of ten provinces and one of three territories have established equal marriage rights). This bill’s path to tonight’s final reading has been a bumpy one, from the Liberal’s surviving a no-confidence vote, to a bold strategy that caught the Tories off guard and passed the budget (keeping the Government from falling), to cutting off debate last night. Cabinet member Joe Camuzzo resigned his cabinet position rather than follow Prime Minister Martin’s order for all members of the Cabinet to vote for C-38.
The passage of C-38 is not in doubt tonight, nor is passage in the Senate. The votes exist for marriage equality.
I’m not going to liveblog this…don’t know enough about the Canadian Parliament or it’s members (couldn’t recognize Stephen Harper if he walked up and introduced himself), the minutiae of Canadian law or the Charter (I do know enough, though, that I was able to shock a Canadian with my accurate interpretation of the “Notwithstanding Clause”…not so much that I had a great analysis, but that an American had heard of it and could give a somewhat concise look at how it related to the topic). Instead, if you read on, I’m gonna ask a question.
Sue Barnes just said: “We cannot distribute justice or fairness on the basis of numbers.”
Here’s what Prime Minister Paul Martin said at the introduction of C-38:
There is one question that demands an answer – a straight answer – from those who would seek to lead this nation and its people. It is a simple question: Will you use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny to Canadians a right guaranteed under the Charter?
This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers – yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no.
Will you take away a right as guaranteed under the Charter? I, for one, will answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I will answer it clearly. I will say no.
The notwithstanding clause is part of the Charter of Rights. But there’s a reason that no prime minister has ever used it. For a prime minister to use the powers of his office to explicitly deny rather than affirm a right enshrined under the Charter would serve as a signal to all minorities that no longer can they look to the nation’s leader and to the nation’s Constitution for protection, for security, for the guarantee of their freedoms. We would risk becoming a country in which the defence of rights is weighed, calculated and debated based on electoral or other considerations.
That would set us back decades as a nation. It would be wrong for the minorities of this country. It would be wrong for Canada.
The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right.
We cannot exalt the Charter as a fundamental aspect of our national character and then use the notwithstanding clause to reject the protections that it would extend. Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim.
To those who value the Charter yet oppose the protection of rights for same-sex couples, I ask you: If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? If the Charter is not there today to protect the rights of one minority, then how can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that it will be there to protect us tomorrow?
Change the context. Imagine this debate in Congress, or look back at debate over the FMA last year. What (straight) American politician can we imagine making these same statements, and then taking action to put them into practice?
Update [2005-6-28 18:7:59 by MAJeff]: Watching the vote is kinda cool…The first vote was basically an amendment to send the bill back to committee for a full reconsideration…it lost 127-158
Update [2005-6-28 18:7:59 by MAJeff]: On to the final vote: C-38 passes 158-133.
I caught a bit of Sue Barnes’ speech and she was great. This is about minority rights. Period.
I’m liveblogging Bush’s speech but I’m grateful this bill will pass this evening. Thanks MAJeff!
It’s fascinating to watch. I can tell that ShrubCo’s consultants have been working with the Tories. It’s comforting to know that y’all have some crazy motherfuckers up there, that we don’t have an exclusive hold on them.
lol – not by a longshot! And, Harper is my MP.
Seriously, I should have watched this debate/vote. Bush’s speech was a huge snoozer interspersed with “Sept 11, Sept 11, Sept 11”. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I’m proud of my country for passing this legislation. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Harper.
my condolences on Harper. I feel for you. When I lived in Minnesota, my Rep was Gil Gutknecht…they guy in in, like, 1997 asked HHS to reinvestigate whether HIV caused AIDS….he’s a bright one.
that post shows why I probably shouldn’t write for a living (a problem as an academic)…or at least I need a really, really good editor.
It’s scary, but so did I. LOL
What gays and lesbians want is not accomodation, they want equality.
didn’t catch the MP who said it (near the very end of debate), but he said it perfectly, he said it exactly right.
One thing I found particularly offensive in the conservative rhetoric was the likening of homosexuals wanting to be called married with black people wanting to be called white. That made me stop for a second to figure out what, exactly, was wrong with it before I realized… The conservative MP in question had omitted a word: heterosexual marriage. No-where in the definition of marriage – which is not a Christian or religious one, by any stretch of the imagination – does it say “1 man, 1 woman”.
More accurately stated, the statement of this member of the conservative contingent is as follows. (Original quote first, then corrected version.)
No, Mr. Epp, they did not. And homosexuals are not asking to be called heterosexuals. What they are asking is the same thing as blacks and women asked. To be called human.
And, they demanded to be fully equal citizens.
… here at CPAC
Voting currently is on a Conservative Amendment to send the entire bill back to Committee and reconsider it in the Fall. Likely to fail
n/t
That’s where I was watching it (had it linked in the diary as well)…it schizzed out right as they were closing the call to vote…but came back on in time…votes for amendment and final passages are in an update.
There was a point in the last few days when I wondered if this bill would get through before summer recess. Good to see it has. This coming July 1st will be a Canada Day to celebrate! Yeah for diversity and acceptance!
I got a little tingly as I watched the final vote. Literally standing up for equality, or against it…the votes embodied and enacted. What a great way to close out the 35th anniversary month of Stonewall and to follow Toronto’s Gay Pride weekend.
Well stated Jeff. It was a tingly experience, wasn’t it?
O.
Lovely news and how I wish I could say we were even close to that here in the US.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, MAJeff, for this good news. I’ve been in the doldrums the past few days and that damned speech tonight wasn’t helping. This bit of news is most welcome.
It’s so nice to hear of sanity in the world — of tolerance and equality rising above prejudice and selfishness. We get the CBC on cable here, so I’ll be sure to watch The National this evening. Thanks again.
Oh, yeah…Shrub was giving a speech tonight…it actually slipped my mind…I wouldn’t watch anyway, I simply cannot listen to that man speak.
Me neither. I’ve been in full-on speech avoidance mode, but I keep hearing and reading mentions made. Yes, that’s how low my mood was — it only took knowledge of the existence of the speech to trigger the visceral response. It’s beyond Pavlovian at this point.
That’s one of the reasons I love having my cat around…she knows nothing about this stuff, but only wants some lovin every so often….rubbing a furry tummy is a good antidote to lots of the world’s ills
The Chinese believed that when a cat rubbed against you and/or you petted it the cat transferred Chi (life force energy) to you. What a wonderful belief.
Two NHL hockey players get married at centre ice.
Thanks for your great diary. It’s so cool to see an American taking an interest, and BTW doing a much better job than this native Canadian could at understanding and articulating the details. There has been a clip on the news that’s been repeated quite a lot today – a couple being married in Toronto. The narrative mentions the number of Americans tying the knot there. This is in contrast to yesterday’s quotes from Canadians saying essentially ‘who wants to get married? <shudder> yea, um – whatever…’ I’ve found that difference to be funny on a lot of levels –