Martinizing Marriage
Uncategorized Comments (0)
Martinizing Marriage
Using the Supreme Court as a tool for election
“Insiders say that at a recent meeting of the Liberal caucus, David Herle, co-chair of the national campaign and an influential Martin insider, told MPs that the same-sex issue had to be “punted” before the next election.”
The Globe and Mail,
Jan. 29, 2004
“As for Cotler, his was the kind of acrobatic feat that was almost too painful to watch … By adding a question to the three the justice department had originally asked, the minister has ensured that the case that had been slated to be heard in April — potentially in the middle of an election campaign — will now be pushed off to the fall, with no ruling until sometime in 2005.”
Toronto Star, Jan. 29, 2004
Last April we wrote about Prime Minster Paul Martin's desire to hide behind the Supreme Court of Canada where he hoped that the judges would make the difficult decision to honour our Charter rights, rather than own up to that responsibility himself. Our leader is taking marriage to the cleaners, to remove the stain of discrimination, rather than doing the job himself as a matter of responsibility and leadership.
Under constant questioning by the media, Martin eventually lowered the bar to equal marriage in May 2003 when he said that if the Ontario Court of Appeal “determined that this is a matter of rights … Parliament should act.”
The Ontario Court of Appeal couldn't have been clearer when they opened the door to same-sex marriage on June 10. British Columbia followed soon after (and many expect Quebec to do the same with an appeal now underway in that province).
But now that Martin is planning an election this spring, he has reverted to his earlier strategy of using the Supreme Court of Canada as a political tool to deflect and defer his responsibilities. Martin is fond of shell games (many criticize the millionaire PM because of his shipping line's tactic of putting foreign flags on his ships in order to avoid paying Canadian taxes, meanwhile his company grabbed $161 million from government dealings in the past 11 years).
The Prime Minister, and his all-too-willing Justice Minister, have introduced a new question into the Supreme Court of Canada reference: an inquiry on whether the traditional definition of marriage violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It's a question that has been asked and answered by four courts in Canada's three most populous provinces. No one doubts the answer, even the two procrastinators who ask it. It's the delay caused by asking the question that is important to this Liberal government, not the answer.
“Paul Martin wants to evade the issue of gay marriage because he's afraid of the impact on his support at the ballot box,” the Bloc Québécois Justice Critic Richard Marceau said Jan 28. “To satisfy his thirst for power … it shows how low they are willing to go to get elected …”
The Bloc Québécois Member of Parliament also pointed out “that the enlargement of the reference to the Supreme Court is not only a 180-degree turn from the Liberal government's promise not to appeal the decisions of the ontario and British Columbia appeal courts and the ruling by the Québec Superior Court, but also constitutes in itself a disguised appeal that will have serious repercussions all over Canada.”
Paul Martin, leader of the Liberal Party, is willing to leave 50% of the Canadian population in provinces and territories without full and equal access to marriage. Maybe Martin should take the Canadian flag off his party logo too, if he isn't willing to live by the Charter his party gave us. In essence, he is willing to trade human rights for votes.
It was ironic to hear the Prime Minister speak of duty today in a live press conference. He was asked to respond to the concerns of a mother who was on national TV yesterday, questioning why her son, a Canadian soldier, had been sent to his death in Afghanistan.
“Responsibilities have to be discharged,” the Prime Minister said.
Martin apparently finds it easier to assign others with “responsibilities” that have the ultimate cost, rather than accept one for himself with merely the potential of political cost. The Prime Minister discharges something else altogether, at a great expense to us all.
@ January 31, 2004