Yep, Harper is like a dog with a bone on this issue. He just won’t give it up.

The CPC are failing at the very basic level of political communications on this one. It is a given that the media will hound him on this. Instead of giving answers like, “I support a free vote if the issue comes up again”, that allow it to linger and be front page news, they really need to craft a short sound bite that will put the issue to bed. Something like “Parliament has spoken on this issue, we are moving forward with our positive agenda (insert policy talking points one, two and three)for the future of this country.

Otherwise, they are headed for another stumbling campaign and possibly an unfortunate repeat of last time. Robert sums this one up perfectly Here:

Would you rather he win?

Then he truly is between a rock and a hard place isn’t he Candace? That particular policy is one that will give Harper, the CPoC, and every leader they choose, grief in every election it stands in, unless, by some strange quirk of fate, Canadians as a whole become less secular and tolerant…..and I will continue to be part of that particular grief giving.

Are we all sure the SSM issue has no legs as a CPoC campaign plank? My guess is that the CPoC’s own polling has prompted them to run with this.

There is more to the matter than simply whether Harper ” wants to win ” or not. A sizable percentage of the population want the traditional definition of marriage enshrined in legislation, and an end to SSM. In short, this isn’t solely Harper’s call to make. As the leader of a party, you can’t simply construct a platform with the only goal being to win an election. You have to represent the beliefs of a constituency. You can’t achieve that by attempting to persuade your core supporters that winning an election is more important than winning with a platform that accurately reflects the views of your core.

If Harper wins, but in doing so abandons socially conservative policies many of his supporters believe in, then why should these people feel they have ” won ” anything?

If remaining true to the values of those Canadians who are socially conservative means the CPoC can’t form a government, then so be it. The alternative is the complete political marginalization of social conservatives. These people have a right to political representation, whether one agrees with them or not. In many cases, they are our parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, our cousins, friends and co-workers. They aren’t ” evil ” because they disagree with the social direction the country is taking.

I don’t recall anyone demanding the NDP become less socialist so as to be more electable.

I actually think this was smart strategy on Harper’s part. The Liberals probably would have kept quiet about SSM until the last week or two of the campaign then they would have added it to their list of “Harper is scary” talking points, and the Conservatives probably would have lost a few all important points with voters right before the election. Martin has admitted outright that the Liberals will be slinging quite a bit of mud the Conservatives way, so why not get this out of the way early so the Liberals don’t have fresh ammunition a few days before Canadians go to the polls?

Harper will be spending the next few weeks rolling out his parties platform, and it’s also good for them to get their right-wing social issues out of the way first and then focus on their fiscal ideas.

After all, putting out a match with your fingers will burn you a bit, but not as bad as if you let the rest of house catch fire first.

Mike H., I’m not “demanding” anything of Harper or the NDP at at all: and I would say the same thing to Jack Layton. Ideological parties are inherently less electable. The Liberals are principle-free chameleons.

Balbulican:

I wasn’t trying to suggest that you were ” demanding ” anything from Harper, or the NDP for that matter. My point relates to the not-so-subtle coercion often used in an attempt to get the CPoC to become hardly distinguishable from the Liberals. It’s a tease, intended to foster hopes of electability in exchange for an abandonment of socially conservative supporters, and their influence within the party.

In my view, I’d rather see the CPoC keep losing, then betray their core supporters on SSM and drop kick them to the curb. As I said earlier, it doesn’t matter what percentage of Canadians support SSM, a sizable percentage don’t, and those that don’t are passionate in their opposition. They deserve to have their view represented, and not simply because a party that purports to represent their values and beliefs wants their vote.

Bill:

I don’t think you’ve accurately depicted Harper’s stance on SSM. If elected, he proposes to hold a free vote in Parliament to decide whether the traditional definition of marriage will be the only form of legal marriage in the country. Same sex couples will still have all the economic rights and benefits of conventional marriage, within the confines of civil unions. The 3,000 SSM marriages already performed will not be voided.

Using the poll you’ve cited, it’s clear that a strong majority, 61%, support the position put forth by Harper, so I’m mystified as to why you would suggest this is a self-defeating campaign issue for Harper.

>>” Before you begin debating the righteousness of the CPoC on this issue you should look at the desires of Canadians. If you don’t then you are atempting to force people to accept a position in a very undemocratic fashion.”

This has nothing to do with “righteousness ” Bill. It’s about giving those Canadians who oppose SSM a political voice on the subject. As I pointed out earlier, concerning the breakdown of the poll you cited, it may very well be you who is behaving in a ” very undemocratic fashion, ” not opponents of SSM.

For what it’s worth, I grudgingly support SSM (Now. It’s been a slow conversion. My conservative genes are Borg-like in nature.)

But I have close family members and friends who don’t. I love them dearly, and while I don’t agree with them (and usually have kept my disagreement to myself), it disgusts me to have them demonized by some supporters of SSM. As I said before, many fine people oppose same sex marriage, and I’m certain I’m not the only commenter here who has relatives and friends who fit that description.

Mike H you state that “Using the poll you’ve cited, it’s clear that a strong majority, 61%, support the position put forth by Harper, so I’m mystified as to why you would suggest this is a self-defeating campaign issue for Harper.”

How do you get this from the following;
“32% believe it should “be allowed to exist in civil law but not have the same legal weight as a conventional marriage”. In the alternate, the poll found that only a minority of 27% believe that “it is wrong and should never be lawful”. Two percent “don’t know” which of these views they have on this issue.”

32 + 27 = 59 (what did you throw the unsure two percent in because they might support the CPoC position?)and the 27 % would not swallow a lawful acceptance of civil unions put forward by the CPoC.

As for the demonization of those that oppose Same sex marriage, Homosexuals have for centuries been called demons and were been beaten tortured castrated and murder for being who they are. There are hundreds of cases in NYC alone where a homosexuals were witness to the beating deaths of their own partners, just because they lived as a married couple.

So those that oppose same sex marriage have to bear the burden of criticism. compared to what homosexuals have had to bear, BIG BOO HOO DEAL ! So they feel a little bad, is that worse than having your marriage not recognized by society, much like the slaves before emancipation?

Like homosexuals marriage between slaves was not legally recognised, and this was all backed up by the beliefs of so called good people.

Telling a homosexual he can have a civil union not a marriage is about as right as telling a slave it is Okay to follow the African tradition in which the bride and groom jump a broom, but God help them if they want to marry like Christians.

Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina stated that “The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.”

I’m sure the friends and relatives of Rev. R. Furman, did not like to see him demonized either.

As for righteousness (defined as Morally justifiable), yes this is an issues of righteousness.

Historically by all accounts slaves were treated better than homosexuals, this is not morally justifiable.

Stageleft is right there is a greater issue here, It is what is RIGHT!

Turning back the clock and having a so called “free Vote” on this issue is a CPoC attempt to turn back the hands of progress.

Shall we bring back the good old days? were they that good?

Sorry Mike H They are Ipsos-Reids Numbers not mine.

If you know anything about opinion polls you will know that ipsos-Reid is more likely to be right than any poll put forward by a political party. Ipsos-Reid does not have an agenda or a political opinion.

I would believe the conservatives as much as I would the liberals and who did they send their poll out to their constituents that Voted for them? I bet they didn’t send it to liberal ridings?

Sorry ’bout that Mike, didn’t mean to get that mixed up, consider those comments pointed at Bill.

You�re a smart fellow, SL, and you don�t need me to remind you of the fact that you, and those who share your ideology, don�t have a monopoly on what is “right.”

Ideology? The one that says we shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation? I would think that would fall into the category of common sense as opposed to an ideology. Regardless, I never said I or anybody else had any monopoly on “right”, but we are talking about discrimination here - is discrimination ever “right”?

Those people may well be sufficient in numbers to elect a government that passes SSM legislation it believes to be right.

Once upon a time sufficient numbers of people elected governments that passed laws saying black people could be owned by white people because they believed that to be right? Was it?

Once upon a time Canada had a government that passed legislation that allowed them to round people up, take their property, and put them in concentration camps for no other reason than they happened to be from a certain country; the majority of the people seemed to think that was right - was it?

Once upon a time Aboriginal children were beaten in school for using their own language in the class room instead of English and people thought it was the right thing to do, once upon a time teachers tied the left hands of left handed people behind their backs because writing with the left hand was unnatural - and people thought that was the right thing to do…. were either of them right?

I’ll stop there but I could easily create a very damned long list of things that the majority of people thought were right which we now know to be totally and absolutely wrong.

The idea being that we should be at a point in our social evolution where we, as a nation, and as a culture, don’t screw up on that sort of massive scale anymore. We should know what is right and what is wrong, we should know what is discrimination and what is not.

If we were anywhere near as modern, intelligent, and sophisticated, as we like to think that we are there would be no need to pass laws saying it’s OK for homosexuals to get married…. and if the majority of Canadians, in this day and age, agree with legislated discrimination it is solid proof that we’re still quite socially challenged and backward.

“As I said to Bill earlier, the gap between Harper’s position on SSM and that of proponents of full SSM rights isn’t as substantial as many are claiming.”

There were folks who argued that denying blacks the right to education in white institutions was nowhere near as bad as hanging them just for being niggers who dared to talk to white folks…and they were quite right. Being denied a drinking fountain is not as bad as being murdered.

Sometimes it not about degree of distinction…it’s about the fact the fact that distinction is being made at all.

Balbulican:

>>”Sometimes it not about degree of distinction…it’s about the fact the fact that distinction is being made at all.”

Well said, and true for the most part. I still disagree with equating the denial of full SSM rights with the wrongs that you and SL have raised.

All discrimination is not equally evil, or harmful. Far from it. If we are to condemn opponents of SSM as forcefully as Bill and SL would have it, do we then, on the grounds that all discrimination is an abomination, equally condemn proponents of affirmative action in the U.S., and similar, often unwritten discriminatory hiring practices in Canada?

What about polygamists? Is our denial of their right to multiple marriages any different than a denial of SSM. If not, why not?

SL:

The fact that you and millions of other Canadians have broken with your religious upbringing doesn’t cancel out the millions of Canadians who have not. My Catholic relatives (I was raised Catholic, but no longer practice the faith in any meaningful way) who oppose SSM are not racists to boot. They see racism is wrong, but not their opposition to SSM. I realize that’s a difficult concept for you to comprehend. It is for me too at times. Neither of us can change the fact that among strong believers, faith supercedes most secular considerations.

As I stated up the page, I believe our society will one day unconditionally accept SSM. You demand that day be now, but you may well be in the minority. If that turns out to be the case, then you may have to ” get used to it, ” not the other way around. Society as a whole may simply not be ready to accept unrestricted SSM yet.

You can’t have it both ways, citing a majority public opinion as grounds to change society when the majority thinks as you do, but also believing that the majority should be told that ” you’re wrong, and like it or lump it, we’re going to do as we please,” when they disagree with you.

“I still disagree with equating the denial of full SSM rights with the wrongs that you and SL have raised.”

Not “equating”. Pointing out an illustrative parallel.

As for polygamy…I really don’t have the energy to go round that carousel yet again, to be honest. So I’ll plead “thread integrity” here…we’re talking (or WERE talking) about whether or not the introduction of SSM was an intelligent or defensible campaign strategy, not the merits of SSM.

All is forgiven, Bill. Ego Te Absolvo.

Let’s save the other debate until the day a Conservative introduces his/her private members’ bill…then we can drag ourselves wearily back to those old threads and rehash the whole miserable topic one…more…time…

Sorry balbulican I was writing that as you posted.

I seek absolution once again !(-:

>>”Mike H your error is by 29% because you added the 27% that disagree with both parties and would have neither civil unions or marriages.”

That isn’t the case, Bill. My argument in relation to the poll you cite is very straightforward. 59% of Canadians in that poll would be in agreement with the SSM campaign position put forward by Harper (either completely opposed to SSM, or in favour of civil unions only). Your original post claimed that 71% of Canadians polled are in favour of SSM. They aren’t.

>>” Where were those that opposed it during this whole process? Was there a liberal conspiracy to lock them out of the process? Also how is Harper’s proposed vote not turning back the clock?”

I’m surprised you’d stumble this badly, Bill. Yes, there was a “liberal conspiracy” when SSM legislation was voted on in the House. It was called ” no free vote.” Party discipline was enforced by both Martin and Layton. We know approximately 30 Liberal MPs and at least 1 NDP MP were opposed to the legislation, but were not allowed to vote according to their consciences or the will of the majority of their constituents. That’s how the legislation was passed, Bill. Let’s not play games.

>>”And as for the ad hominem stuff you said about me wanting to ?become King? I would suggest you attack my position and leave the childish insults with no real backing to the school yard, where they belong.’

I would suggest you re-read what I’ve posted in reply to your comments. If you can’t see my attacks on your position, beginning with your misrepresentation of the poll results, then perhaps you’re not familiar enough with your own position as it pertains to this thread.

>>”As for polygamy…I really don’t have the energy to go round that carousel yet again, to be honest. So I’ll plead “thread integrity” here…we’re talking (or WERE talking) about whether or not the introduction of SSM was an intelligent or defensible campaign strategy, not the merits of SSM.”

Okay by me Balbulican, though I’d still like to finish that discussion sometime.

Mike H just to be 100% clear the words “a full majority (71%) support the concept of same sex marriage” are the verbatim words used by Ipsos-Reid, not my interpretation of them.