Last Updated Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:02:31 EDT
CBC News

The Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through with a vote of 158 for and 133 against.

Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex unions.

But the passage of Bill C-38, once again, came with a political price tag for the government. Joe Comuzzi, resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the bill - an open rebuke of the government legislation.

Comuzzi was the minister responsible for Northern Ontario.

Although he was the only cabinet minister to break ranks with Prime Minister Paul Martin over the controversial plan to legalize the marriage of gays and lesbians, it highlighted the divisions within Canada and within the Liberal party, pitting supporters of equality rights against those who are defending religious freedoms.

For Comuzzi, the decision to resign meant putting principles ahead of the privileges of cabinet. "In 2004, during the election, I promised faithfully to the people of Thunder Bay-Superior North, that I would defend the definition of marriage," he said, explaining his move.

The prime minister said he regretted the decision of a man he called an "old friend," but accepts it because the government must speak with one voice on same-sex marriage.

The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."

The government has moved over the last few months to appease critics both within Liberal ranks and among Canadians at large. Amendments were introduced to ensure no religious group or charitable organization is forced to accept same-sex marriage. But in spite of those amendments some groups remain unconvinced.

Same-sex marriage remains one of the most difficult issues ever to confront Canadian politicians. In large part passage of the bill is the reason the parliamentary session was extended for the first time in 17 years.

But while Tuesday night's vote closes off the debate in the Commons, the Conservatives insist there is no closure for Canadians who believe marriage should continue to be defined as the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says if his party forms the next government, the law will be revisited.

Harper made the promise one day after suggesting the adoption of the law lacked legitimacy because it relied on the support of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Harper said he believes Bloc MPs are the legitimate representatives of Quebec voters. But he argues most Canadians aren't buying it as a final decision since most federalist MPs are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Harper says a Conservative government would hold a free vote for all MPs on the matter, rather than forcing cabinet ministers to vote with the government.

It would be nice if sometimes OUR government would act AHEAD of social acceptance.

It would be nice if sometimes OUR government would act AHEAD of social acceptance.

There's a can of worms for you.

I don't think that would work so well in a "democracy".

But doesn't government set the standards no matter what?

But then how would the shitty politicians hold their jobs? They have to pander to the polls or we've have a serious unemployment problem. Do you really think Frist is qualified to go back to doctorin'?

Awesome, now, who wants to marry me?

It would be nice if sometimes OUR government would act AHEAD of social acceptance.

Are you saying that the governments role should be to legislate acceptance, rather than legislate against discrimination?

Where's the separation of church and state if a church can perform a marriage ceremony, which is a state function? You'd never let the church educate people on the public purse but are willing to let them perform marriage ceremonies.

Canada has enacted divisive legislation that was more about legislating acceptance than outlawing discrimination. The real fight is not about the roghts, benefits and responsibilities of marriage being granted to all. The real fight is about the definition of marriage.

The Canadian government had a course of action available to it that would not have changed the definition of marriage but choose not to take it. It was a course of action that would have got around the separate but equal issue. I've outlained it before. But Canada wanted to act like a leader and make headlines rather than be a real leader and do the right thing. Canada knows it cannot fully assure churches that they will not be ordered by the Supreme Court in the future to perform gay marriage. Right there it becomes bad legislation.

Are you saying that the governments role should be to legislate acceptance, rather than legislate against discrimination?

Where's the separation of church and state if a church can perform a marriage ceremony, which is a state function? You'd never let the church educate people on the public purse but are willing to let them perform marriage ceremonies.

Canada has enacted divisive legislation that was more about legislating acceptance than outlawing discrimination. The real fight is not about the roghts, benefits and responsibilities of marriage being granted to all. The real fight is about the definition of marriage.

The Canadian government had a course of action available to it that would not have changed the definition of marriage but choose not to take it. It was a course of action that would have got around the separate but equal issue. I've outlained it before. But Canada wanted to act like a leader and make headlines rather than be a real leader and do the right thing. Canada knows it cannot fully assure churches that they will not be ordered by the Supreme Court in the future to perform gay marriage. Right there it becomes bad legislation.

The State Function is to certify the marriage, not perform the marriage ceremony.

Gays can be married by any church but the State won't recognize it by license or law. That's the problem.

The ceremony really don't mean shit if you can't get recognized by the State.

In Canada, and I think in the US, the state provides the documentation required. The marriage is certified when the bride, groom, witnesses and person performing the ceremony sign the documentation. Documentation is then handed into the state for processing. The state grants the license to marry but the church actually performs the marriage.

Why are you so stuck on the idea that the state issued license must be called a marriage license. Why not leave marriage as the ceremonial domain of churches and have the legally recognized state portion go by another name for all? That way people are married when their signed document is processed by the state, and have it so the church is not a qualified signer of this document. I believe you want to fight over the use of the word married, while putting rights second.

In Canada, and I think in the US, the state provides the documentation required. The marriage is certified when the bride, groom, witnesses and person performing the ceremony sign the documentation. Documentation is then handed into the state for processing. The state grants the license to marry but the church actually performs the marriage.

Why are you so stuck on the idea that the state issued license must be called a marriage license. Why not leave marriage as the ceremonial domain of churches and have the legally recognized state portion go by another name for all? That way people are married when their signed document is processed by the state, and have it so the church is not a qualified signer of this document. I believe you want to fight over the use of the word married, while putting rights second.

If it is the discirmination aspect you really want the government to address and not social acceptance this seems like a much easier, quicker solution.

Dude, you gotta ask for dates first....then maybe if you meet a nice norwegian metal boy he will want to marry you.