Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Canada Makes the Baby Jesus Cry

The Canadian Parliament voted today not to revisit the issue of gay marriage, which they approved last year. The new conservative government wanted to reopen the issue, and by a 175 to 123 margin, they voted not to do so. That’s an even wider margin than the vote to approve it. Now, of course, Canada’s entire culture will collapse, people will stop marrying one another and loving their kids, and dogs and cats will start living together.

Comments

  1. #1 Raging Bee
    December 8, 2006

    Now, of course, Canada’s entire culture will collapse, people will stop marrying one another and loving their kids, and dogs and cats will start living together.

    NOW he tells us…

  2. #2 CanuckRob
    December 8, 2006

    It’s not the dogs and cats living together that is worrying, it’s the grizzleys and polar bears. Those hybrids are frickin huge!

  3. #3 andy
    December 8, 2006

    To be more precise, the _minority_ conservatives proposed to have a Free Vote in Parliament on the question. All but 13 Conservatives voted to reopen the question; all but 13 Liberals (ironically) voted not to reopen the question, and all members of the New Democratic and Bloc Quebecois parties voted not to reopen. So it’s not quite right to say that the Conservative Government voted not to reopen the question, since as a minority Government, their motion was defeated by the combined forces of the Opposition parties. Parliament voted not to reopen, not the Government.

  4. #4 John
    December 8, 2006

    I happen to think the majority of conservatives in Canada are comfortable with gay marriage now. They just wanted a vote on the issue; they got, and the case is closed.

  5. #5 MAJeff
    December 8, 2006

    Now, of course, Canada’s entire culture will collapse, people will stop marrying one another and loving their kids, and dogs and cats will start living together.

    Just a little off. The gender bias which causes those same-sex couples to reject natural law and discriminate against members of the other sex will spread to the rest of society, and Canada itself will become a completely sex segragated society. The linguistic divide will be replaced by a gendered divide, and the two genders will gain control of different Provincial governments. Gender cleansing will occur in various cities and towns, and gender concentration camps will be established. It will take United Nations intervention, spurred on by the Vatican and Zimbabwe, to right Canadian society.

  6. #6 Mark Olson
    December 8, 2006

    Actually, given the “birth rate” of 1.5 they’ve already on the path (as warned by Mark Steyn) of leaving us as a country.

    (Note, I’m not making any sort of claim that SSM and low birth rates are connected, just that cultural collapse is on its way and possibly inevitable).

  7. #7 Scott Belyea
    December 8, 2006

    The new conservative government wanted to reopen the issue …

    Not the whole story.

    The Prime Minister (Harper) had promised such a vote in the last campaign. He is not a hardcore “social conservative,” and the informed speculation is that he wanted the motion to be defeated. He can now say to his more socially-conservative supporters that he tried. My guess is that he would have been both surprised and unhappy if the vote had gone the other way.

    And it’s interesting to note that 6 cabinet members voted against the motion.

    In any event, it seems that the issue is now dead. Opinion polls suggest that there’s been a shift in the last few years, and that most people just want to move on to other things.

  8. #8 XPM
    December 8, 2006

    Actually, given the “birth rate” of 1.5 they’ve already on the path (as warned by Mark Steyn) of leaving us as a country.

    Canada’s overall population growth rate is, in fact, positve.

    (Incidentally, Mark Steyn is a race-baiting nutter and a not terribly reliable source of information on Canadian society.)

  9. #9 pough
    December 8, 2006

    Don’t forget about the Santorum-proposed man-on-dog sex.

  10. #10 doctorgoo
    December 8, 2006

    MAJeff, you make me sad. How could any rational person possibly think that what you wrote might possibly happen?

    Canada itself will become a completely sex segragated society

    I’m gonna edit the Wiki entry for “rank stupidity” so that the definition is MAJeff.

  11. #11 Arden Chatfield
    December 8, 2006

    (Note, I’m not making any sort of claim that SSM and low birth rates are connected, just that cultural collapse is on its way and possibly inevitable

    ‘Cultural collapse’, eh?

    Please explain exactly what this ‘culture collapse’ consists of, and give me an example of it already having happened somewhere else in the world.

  12. #12 kehrsam
    December 8, 2006

    Please explain exactly what this ‘culture collapse’ consists of, and give me an example of it already having happened somewhere else in the world.

    Britbrit can’t keep her underwear on? Really, some of these are too easy. Kind of like Britbrit.

    More to the point, did you miss all the columns about how Norway had reverted to a state of nature with murder and rapine so ferocious that the few remaining Christians are huddled in an Oslo basement with no source of imported cheese? Or something like that.

  13. #13 Philip T
    December 8, 2006

    Ah, yes. It’s been a good while since we legalized SSM in Canuckistan. Things have been remarkably quiet, even here in Sodom-By-The-Sea, otherwise know as Vancouver, BC. No plagues of frogs, boils, or locusts. No earthquakes, even in this notoriously unstable area.
    My nearly decade-old OSM (Opposite Sex Marriage) is as strong as it ever was. I haven’t been tempted by man-love. My wife hasn’t strayed into girl-on-girl action (or, if she has, she hasn’t invited me to join in or film it…)

  14. #14 JBL
    December 8, 2006

    doctorgoo, I think you need to get your sarcasm detector checked.

  15. #15 MAJeff
    December 8, 2006

    doctorgoo, see the thread below about Mary Cheney, and you’ll see what I’m actually making fun of.

  16. #16 Jacob
    December 8, 2006

    What would have happened if gay marriage rulings were quashed by the Canadian Parliament? Does that mean that gay marriages would be invalid?

  17. #17 Ed Brayton
    December 8, 2006

    Jacob-

    The proposal they were seeking a vote on would not have voided existing marriages, only prevented future ones.

  18. #18 raj
    December 8, 2006

    The proposal they were seeking a vote on would not have voided existing marriages, only prevented future ones.

    Is it that they would have prevented future ones throughout the country, or just in provinces whose courts had declared the discrimination unconstitutional? It is my impression that, whatever the national parliament did, same-sex marriage would still have been legal in the provinces that had held the discrimination to be unconstitutional.

  19. #19 Russ
    December 8, 2006

    John said:

    “I happen to think the majority of conservatives in Canada are comfortable with gay marriage now. They just wanted a vote on the issue; they got, and the case is closed.”

    That’s funny, because as I remember it, It was put to a vote the first time. And an open one at that.

    And Scott Belyea said:

    “The Prime Minister (Harper) had promised such a vote in the last campaign. He is not a hardcore “social conservative,” and the informed speculation is that he wanted the motion to be defeated. He can now say to his more socially-conservative supporters that he tried. My guess is that he would have been both surprised and unhappy if the vote had gone the other way.”

    So it’s okay for Harper to table legislation he doesn’t believe in, that strips a (newly given) right away? Just to appease his base?

  20. #20 Gordon Stephens
    December 9, 2006

    Russ said: “That’s funny, because as I remember it, It was put to a vote the first time. And an open one at that.”

    Well, no. The first vote on it was a whipped vote, meaning if the MPs didn’t vote the way the party wanted them to, they’d lose their cabinet posts, other priveleges, etc.

    Which is good. . . keeps the bigots posing as moderates for electoral reasons in line.

  21. #21 nicole
    December 9, 2006

    Gordon, are you certain of that? I was living in Canada at the time and I remember it being specifically not a whipped vote. Or at least I thought I did.

  22. #22 Randi Schimnosky
    December 9, 2006

    Raj, you are mostly correct. The proposal to revist the gender neutral definition of marriage would not have actually changed anything, it would have resulted in the tabling of different legislation to change the definition of marriage back to one man one woman In the event that passed it would not have changed the gender neutral defintion of marriage in those provinces that ruled one man one woman discriminatory – to change the law in those provinces would have required Harper to use the “Not withstanding” clause of the Canadian constitution to override the constitution for a predefined period of five years. The notwithstanding clause has never been invoked and all parties including Harper’s conservatives have insisted they would not use it.

    Gordon and Nicole, when equal marriage was put to a vote the first time in Canada the Conservatives allowed a free vote for their members, the liberals allowed a free vote for all their members except the cabinet who were whipped to vote in favour of equal marriage. The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois whipped their members to vote in favour of equal marriage

  23. #23 doctorgoo
    December 9, 2006

    doctorgoo, I think you need to get your sarcasm detector checked.

    My bad, sometimes it can be hard to tell sarcasm from genuine stupidity. And with some of the wingnuts who come forward to spew idiocy on Ed’s blog, I just wasn’t too sure.

    Anyway, MAJeff, I apologize for any offense.

  24. #24 Alex
    December 9, 2006

    Gordon, are you certain of that? I was living in Canada at the time and I remember it being specifically not a whipped vote. Or at least I thought I did.

    The backbenchers were not whipped, but the Cabinet wes required to vote yes. MP Joe Comuzzi had to resign his Cabinet post in order to vote no against the original bill.