Prime Minister Martin to proceed with same-sex marriage bill

After a ruling by the Supreme court which gave its blessing and dropped it back in Martin's lap without defining whether the traditionl definition of marriage was unconstitutional. Religious institutions will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages. In Parliament...

the bill will go to a "two-line whip" vote in the House of Commons. That means cabinet ministers will have to vote for the bill. However, backbench MPs will be free to vote as they choose.

"Individual members of Parliament should be and will be free to vote as they see fit. However, the position of the government is definitive. For that reason, cabinet members will be required to vote in favour of the legislation," Martin said.

In order to comply with the court's decision, Martin said lawmakers who vote against the legislation wouldn't be left with many options.

sympaticomsn.ctv.ca...

Somewhereinbetween you are indeed,but I have'nt quite got your point ..Are you against or infavour..I guess not.But let's put this another way,if they are not allowed to marry in atleast some 80% of the country if not more,it is kind of undemocratic don't you think that these people have not much of a choice themselves,and in my dictionary as long as people just Love each other what's the fuss.I would'nt be surpriced that a gay marriage would even oulast a traditional one now adays...
Politics does'nt always have all the right answers about purely political topics let alone once they start mixing with religion...no???

Originally posted by Horus_Re
Somewhereinbetween you are indeed,but I have'nt quite got your point ..Are you against or infavour..I guess not.But let's put this another way,if they are not allowed to marry in atleast some 80% of the country if not more,it is kind of undemocratic don't you think that these people have not much of a choice themselves,and in my dictionary as long as people just Love each other what's the fuss.I would'nt be surpriced that a gay marriage would even oulast a traditional one now adays...
Politics does'nt always have all the right answers about purely political topics let alone once they start mixing with religion...no???

The point was to post the status of the supreme court decision and where it lies now with the federal government. Perhaps since I made no comment, I should have requested it be posted as an article or however it works in here, as I gather from your comment that it appears that I have not fully informed myself of the rules which I take it requires me in this particular venue, to add my personal view.

My apologies, I'll refrain from posting any news items henceforth, since I believe that adding my own slant obviates a supposed unbiased piece.

Thing that bothers me a lot is the fact that Martin will not allow a nation wide referendum on the issue. Martin talks the talk about democratic reform, but certainly doesn't follow through. If he thinks so many people support gay marriage than why not send it to Canadians to decide?

Originally posted by f16falcon
Thing that bothers me a lot is the fact that Martin will not allow a nation wide referendum on the issue. Martin talks the talk about democratic reform, but certainly doesn't follow through. If he thinks so many people support gay marriage than why not send it to Canadians to decide?

I agree.
While I can see why they're avoiding a nationwide referendum (namely the majority deciding minority rights), I disagree with the fact that Canadians really have no say.
You must keep in mind that Harper, the conservative leader, also agrees that a referendum is not suiting to the situation.

im finding it hard to express what i mean to say.

perhaps im too caught up in politcal correctness when i make an effort no to be, i think it's stupid.

*smacks self in head and goes away for a bit*