VGF - Discuss Stuff and Games  

Welcome to the VGF - Discuss Stuff and Games forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   VGF - Discuss Stuff and Games > The World Around You > Current Events
Cheat Codes Arcade-(277 Games) RPG Donate Member Forums Daily Crossword Puzzle

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-28-2005, 10:08 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,052
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Points: 15,849.15
Bank: 804.22
Total Points: 16,653.37
Post

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...sex050628.html

Quote:
The Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through with a vote of 158 for and 133 against.

* INDEPTH: Same-sex Rights

Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex unions.

But the passage of Bill C-38, once again, came with a political price tag for the government. Joe Comuzzi, resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the bill - an open rebuke of the government legislation.

Comuzzi was the minister responsible for Northern Ontario.

Although he was the only cabinet minister to break ranks with Prime Minister Paul Martin over the controversial plan to legalize the marriage of gays and lesbians, it highlighted the divisions within Canada and the within the Liberal party, pitting supporters of equality rights against those who are defending religious freedoms.

For Comuzzi, the decision to resign meant putting principles ahead of the privileges of cabinet. "In 2004, during the election, I promised faithfully to the people of Thunder Bay-Superior North, that I would defend the definition of marriage," he said, explaining his move.

The prime minister said he regretted the decision of a man he called an "old friend," but accepts it because the government must speak with one voice on same-sex marriage.

The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."

The government has moved over the last few months to appease critics both within Liberal ranks and among Canadians at large. Amendments were introduced to ensure no religious group or charitable organization is forced to accept same-sex marriage. But in spite of those amendments some groups remain unconvinced.

Same-sex marriage remains one of the most difficult issues ever to confront Canadian politicians. In large part passage of the bill is the reason the parliamentary session was extended for the first time in 17 years.

But while Tuesday night's vote closes off the debate in the Commons, the Conservatives insist there is no closure for Canadians who believe marriage should continue to be defined as the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says if his party forms the next government, the law will be revisited.

Harper made the promise one day after suggesting the adoption of the law lacked legitimacy because it relied on the support of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Harper said he believes Bloc MPs are the legitimate representatives of Quebec voters. But he argues most Canadians aren't buying it as a final decision since most federalist MPs are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Harper says a Conservative government would hold a free vote for all MPs on the matter, rather than forcing cabinet ministers to vote with the government.
So, the bill has to pass the senate now (which it always does), and then get royal assent (which it always does) and then we're third in line for this.

I don't understand why religious figures are worried that they'll have to preform these marriages, as the bill directly states: "It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs."
Link2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks
 


Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Points Per Thread View: 1.00
Points Per Thread: 15.00
Points Per Post: 5.00


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
© 1999-2007 VGF.com. All Rights Reserved. All content contained herein is property of VGF, Inc. VGF is not affiliated with any video game companies. Logos, trademarks, names, images, etc. are property of their respective companies.
Page generated in 0.09346 seconds with 13 queries