Gearing up for debate

Now that the Bloc and the Liberals (with their ally, the NDP) have decided that enough debate took place on Bill C-48 and have passed a motion that will allow the government to spend 4.6 billion dollars that belongs to the taxpayer with no programs or no agenda in place on how that money will be spent, the members in the house will spend a little more time to ensure that Bill C-38 is passed. On a side note to this post, I was glad to see that the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals all agreed that there was no alliance between the Conservatives and the Bloc (Question Period on CTV).

While I consider debating how the government is going to spend an additional 200$ dollars they collect per tax paying Canadian much more important than whether the Federal government says that marriage can be extended to persons of the same sex, the use of closure has put an end to that debate.

Before people start suggesting that I think tax rights run over issues of "human rights", my position on SSM is this:

As long as the state is in the business of providing marriage services to heterosexual couples, than homosexual couples should receive the same service. Likewise, I really see no reason why the state can bar two or more people from entering into a marriage contract. What two or more individuals decide in terms of a marriage model is fine with me.

The issue with SSM in this country is not what the government is suggesting, but rather how this issue has come down to a hot vote in June/July of 2005. Let us look to the example of the Netherlands on this very issue, after all SSM has been legal there since 2001.

A quick glance through the entry there (and other government sources) shows that the debate took nearly 10 years, several votes in the lower house, several court cases (which went against pro-SSM groups) to achieve the legal status that Canada will be voting on next week. At the end of the day, its was elected officals, not the courts that moved the nation towards SSM.

In Canada, we are now running a risk that laws will move ahead of what people are willing to accept. While SSM, I am rather sure, would be able to win a vote amongst urban Canadians, those under 25, etc..., I doubt it would pass in a national referendum. If the Liberals and co. are not careful and use closure once again, they may well polarise this country more than they think.

The SSM debate cannot just be done, but it must be seen to have been done, and that all sides have had the chance to debate. The continuation of the debate will not change MP's minds on this issue, but rather debate must give a release to those opposed to SSM. The debate must show that they were listened to, that their voice was heard, and that they have a valid position. If not, social conservatives will feel they have been pushed to the back of a bus. It took the Dutch 10 years of debate, surely the Canadian House of Commons can sit for a few more weeks.