Life Is Not Purgatory
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Democracy
Last night the House of Commons, the seat of government for the Dominion of Canada voted on a non-binding motion to "...reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others..." I am glad to say the motion was defeated 137-132.
There has been a lot said by both side in the debate which a simply inflamtory and based upon no reasonable or rational thought. The principle that most annoyed me was the point that by allowing gays and lesbians to marry would then open the door to marrigage between 'mother and son', 'father and daughter', etc.
Strictly speaking... if the text of the motion describing marriage as 'the union of one man and one woman' were the only guideline for a legal marriage, then incestous couples would be legal! I wish the conservatives would take a step-back, stop fearmongering and make rational points rather than making stupid comments such as opening the door to 'polygamy and incest'.
The Oppostion wanted a referendum on this issue... to which the Prime Minister (whom I rarely agree with replied):
"If it's always the majority vote by the referendum, who will defend the minorities?" he asked journalists. "In government, we are there to protect every minority."
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by the majority.
Last night the House of Commons, the seat of government for the Dominion of Canada voted on a non-binding motion to "...reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others..." I am glad to say the motion was defeated 137-132.
There has been a lot said by both side in the debate which a simply inflamtory and based upon no reasonable or rational thought. The principle that most annoyed me was the point that by allowing gays and lesbians to marry would then open the door to marrigage between 'mother and son', 'father and daughter', etc.
Strictly speaking... if the text of the motion describing marriage as 'the union of one man and one woman' were the only guideline for a legal marriage, then incestous couples would be legal! I wish the conservatives would take a step-back, stop fearmongering and make rational points rather than making stupid comments such as opening the door to 'polygamy and incest'.
The Oppostion wanted a referendum on this issue... to which the Prime Minister (whom I rarely agree with replied):
"If it's always the majority vote by the referendum, who will defend the minorities?" he asked journalists. "In government, we are there to protect every minority."
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by the majority.
