| RACooper |
02-18-2005 03:50 PM |
Harper speech stirs wide outcry
Comments during gay marriage debate roundly condemned
Insulting `to play politics with an ancient historical wrong'
Feb. 17, 2005. 06:45 AM
TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU
Quote:
OTTAWA—It wasn't long before the historic parliamentary debate on same-sex marriage descended from principled claims to partisan shots, and then into surprisingly nasty exchanges on the floor of the Commons.
The barely veiled antagonism between Prime Minister Paul Martin and Opposition Leader Stephen Harper surfaced in the two leaders' speeches.
And the divisive potential of this debate over the coming days and weeks was clearly on display in remarks by other members of Parliament.
In his lead-off speech on Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, the Prime Minister appealed for recognition of a legal right to marry for same-sex couples, calling it a question of equality and minority rights. He appealed to MPs' sense of history and duty.
The debate, Martin said, is "about the kind of nation we are today and the nation we want to be."
"This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward and it is that important."
Martin called the bill's Conservative opponents "insincere," "disingenuous" and unwilling to admit they would have to override a fundamental Charter right to equality in order to block same-sex marriage.
He said it would require using a special "notwithstanding" clause to suspend lower-court decisions that have already changed the common-law definition and extended marriage rights to gays in seven provinces and one territory. Such a move would be a threat to all minorities, said Martin.
"If the Prime Minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group what is there to say that they will stop at that?" he asked.
But Harper shot back Liberals are hypocritical and dishonest about their own positions, and accused Martin's party of "draping itself in the Charter like it drapes itself in the flag."
"Same-sex marriage is not a human right," said Harper, but a "newly invented Liberal policy" that is not akin to rights like "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, equality before the law."
Harper said marriage is a foundational social unit that should not be altered, and ethnic minorities understand that, while Liberals with their "folkloristic" view of "cultural communities" don't.
The Conservative leader proposed an amendment to enshrine traditional marriage in law, while recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever form provinces might legislate in order to give "all the rights and benefits of marriage" to same-sex couples.
He argued he would not need the override power to entrench the opposite-sex definition of marriage because for the first time, Parliament and not the courts would be defining it in law, and courts would show more "judicial deference" to a statute.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe spoke passionately about the stigma and historic discrimination faced by gays and lesbians that led many to suffer, some to attempt suicide.
"The debate on same-sex marriage is ultimately a question of citizenship," he said, as was the decision to recognize women as "persons" with a right to vote. "We can't claim that Quebec or Canada are just societies unless citizens are treated with complete equality."
New Democrat leader Jack Layton was absent, recovering from appendicitis surgery. NDP MP Bill Siksay spoke for his party from a personal perspective as a gay man.
He said the individuals who championed marriage rights for gays reflected the values he learned in his family, church and community, and "the importance of making a lifelong commitment." He said marriage is an institution same-sex couples want to embrace, not change.
"Gay and lesbian people cannot be considered full citizens if key institutions of our society are considered out of bounds to us."
But already the debate is full of raw emotion.
Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, said when the vote was extended to women, "were at that point women called men?"
"You do not need to call them the same thing in order to give them equal benefits and rights, which is what our party is proposing to do," Vellacott said.
Duceppe retorted: "Women were not called men, they were called nobodies. They essentially didn't exist," he said. "Sexual orientation isn't a choice.
"And basically what you're saying to some people is that you should never have been born. I can't accept that."
Martin, who dismissed calls for a referendum on same-sex marriage, said he is a person "of strong faith" and acknowledged that four years ago he voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. His misgivings then "were a function of my faith and my perspective on the world around us.
"But much has changed since that day," he said.
|
|
