December 20, 2004
Gay marriage is a constitutional change and should be put to a referendum
Back we go to homosexual marriage, with a vengeance.
And I mean vengeance. The "tolerance" vigilantes are already out in force.
For example, Graham Thomson, one of Canwest's loopier columnists, has denounced Ralph Klein's call for a national referendum as "fanning the flames of public outrage," and leading a parade for bigots to burn down gays' houses.
Thomson also voices the strange, ignorant idea that if we allow democratic majorities to settle matters of minority rights, there will be no minority rights.
In fact, in Canada and elsewhere, all significant minority rights--from women's right to vote, to the gays' right to have sex, to the institution of human rights commissions--were bestowed by democratic majorities who saw wisdom in the proposals.
If not from democratic majorities, where does Thomson imagine these things came from? The Canwest editorial board? It makes you wonder what he was doing in history class. Not thinking, obviously.
But enough about Thomson and his ilk. Until they learn to stop ascribing ugly motives to everyone who disagrees with them, they are incapable of intelligent discussion.
It looks like Paul Martin will bring his gay marriage amendment into Parliament in early February, and will shove it through as fast as possible.
Even the most optimistic conservatives I know think this Martin bill will probably pass. Martin is forcing his cabinet ministers to support it, and Jack Layton is forcing his whole caucus to vote the party line. (More liberation brought to you by the New Democracy.)
So what about Ralph Klein's proposal for a national referendum?
Well, notwithstanding the more hysterical pronouncements of some in the media, it makes sense.
Let's start with the fact that instituting homosexual marriage effects a significant change to our Constitution. It radically alters our legal understanding of the most basic unit in Canadian society, and impacts the constitutional rights of the provinces.
In its recent reference decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged both these points.
Note also that the Court did NOT say Parliament must institute homosexual marriage, only that it may if it chooses.
In other words, the Court has said it's for a democratic majority to decide.
It doesn't matter how often federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler lies to the TV cameras. As with abortion, the Supreme Court says it's a democratic decision.
Now you may recall that the last time Parliament wanted to change the Constitution, with the Charlottetown Accord, it put the question to a direct vote by all Canadians.
This was only common sense. The Constitution belongs to the people of Canada, and they should have the final say over what's in it.
Canadians should therefore appeal to Martin's better instincts (because unlike Chretien, Martin actually seems to have a conscience) to allow the whole country to decide this issue.
And if Martin refuses, Canadians should appeal to the Governor General not to give Royal Assent to Martin's bill until it has first been approved by the people, as is their proper right.
Believe it or not, the governor-general has the constitutional power. And Adrienne Clarkson is imperious enough, and angry enough at the House of Commons, that a mass appeal from the people might convince her to use it.
Regardless, Ralph Klein is right. Only by a national referendum can this issue now be settled.
- Link Byfield
Gay marriage is a constitutional change and should be put to a referendum
Back we go to homosexual marriage, with a vengeance.
And I mean vengeance. The "tolerance" vigilantes are already out in force.
For example, Graham Thomson, one of Canwest's loopier columnists, has denounced Ralph Klein's call for a national referendum as "fanning the flames of public outrage," and leading a parade for bigots to burn down gays' houses.
Thomson also voices the strange, ignorant idea that if we allow democratic majorities to settle matters of minority rights, there will be no minority rights.
In fact, in Canada and elsewhere, all significant minority rights--from women's right to vote, to the gays' right to have sex, to the institution of human rights commissions--were bestowed by democratic majorities who saw wisdom in the proposals.
If not from democratic majorities, where does Thomson imagine these things came from? The Canwest editorial board? It makes you wonder what he was doing in history class. Not thinking, obviously.
But enough about Thomson and his ilk. Until they learn to stop ascribing ugly motives to everyone who disagrees with them, they are incapable of intelligent discussion.
It looks like Paul Martin will bring his gay marriage amendment into Parliament in early February, and will shove it through as fast as possible.
Even the most optimistic conservatives I know think this Martin bill will probably pass. Martin is forcing his cabinet ministers to support it, and Jack Layton is forcing his whole caucus to vote the party line. (More liberation brought to you by the New Democracy.)
So what about Ralph Klein's proposal for a national referendum?
Well, notwithstanding the more hysterical pronouncements of some in the media, it makes sense.
Let's start with the fact that instituting homosexual marriage effects a significant change to our Constitution. It radically alters our legal understanding of the most basic unit in Canadian society, and impacts the constitutional rights of the provinces.
In its recent reference decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged both these points.
Note also that the Court did NOT say Parliament must institute homosexual marriage, only that it may if it chooses.
In other words, the Court has said it's for a democratic majority to decide.
It doesn't matter how often federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler lies to the TV cameras. As with abortion, the Supreme Court says it's a democratic decision.
Now you may recall that the last time Parliament wanted to change the Constitution, with the Charlottetown Accord, it put the question to a direct vote by all Canadians.
This was only common sense. The Constitution belongs to the people of Canada, and they should have the final say over what's in it.
Canadians should therefore appeal to Martin's better instincts (because unlike Chretien, Martin actually seems to have a conscience) to allow the whole country to decide this issue.
And if Martin refuses, Canadians should appeal to the Governor General not to give Royal Assent to Martin's bill until it has first been approved by the people, as is their proper right.
Believe it or not, the governor-general has the constitutional power. And Adrienne Clarkson is imperious enough, and angry enough at the House of Commons, that a mass appeal from the people might convince her to use it.
Regardless, Ralph Klein is right. Only by a national referendum can this issue now be settled.
- Link Byfield
Comment