Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Eat it, Pat!

Well, I do hate to gloat, but I have to. To Pat O'Brien, Grant Hill and Elsie Wayne:

You lost! Take your hate-mongering, homophobic, anti-family, neurotic crusade and stick it somewhere imaginative.

Bouquets of Gray has expanded previous analysis of the new parliament's position on same-sex marriage. From what can be discerned, it would appear that, at most, the anti-gay forces might be able to muster 140 votes. The only way they could get the 155 they'd need to guarantee the reversal of SSM would be if:

123 out of 124 Conservative MPs plus the end up voting against it;
The 3 anti-SSM BQ MPs vote against it;
All 29 anti-SSM Liberals vote against it.

Now, this is clearly impossible, for several reasons.

First of all, of those 29 Liberals, a number of them do not want to revisit the issue. They would likely vote down any attempt to re-open the debate. But let's assume for argument's sake that they all vote against SSM.

Second, we already know that seven Tory MPs (Jim Prentice, Gerald Keddy, James Moore, Josee Verner, Lawrence Cannon, Garth Turner and John Baird) support same-sex marriage. That means, at most, the Tories will have 117 votes against SSM.

Third, Pat O'Brien's suspiciously absent hate-group Vote Marriage Canada endorsed only 101 of the 124 current Tory MPs. Minus the seven mentioned above, that means that there are still 16 Tory MPs (7 of them from pro-SSM Quebec) whose voting intentions are unclear. Odds are, about half of that 16 would swing in favour of SSM, but again for the sake of argument, let's just pretend that they all vote against SSM.

This leaves us with an absolute (and very improbable) maximum of 149 votes against same-sex marriage.

I wonder if they'll finally give up once they lose again?


At 1/26/2006 4:01 a.m., Blogger Bart said...

I agree , and was especially pleased that the four most notable religious right candidates in BC , lost to opponets. In my opinion, they will see this as a win for them mixed with a message from their deity that needs special interpretations from some eerily enlightened and oh , so trendy intellexts as the unstoppable and oh , so courteous .....Miss Elsie Wayne , of Moose Turds , New Brunswick ( a province , but actually the estate of the Mccain clan).

At 1/26/2006 2:49 p.m., Blogger CanadianTruth said...

Just a note. Not all that vote for the traditional definaition of marriage are anti-gay, gay haters or gay bashers.

There is thought that marriage happens in the church, unions happen outside the church. While some just do not want to see SSM at all, some would prefer that the traditional definaition apply to hetros while allowign homos to have 'unions'.

Not a biggie to me, if they want to call it marriage let them, but let's not label everyone 'haters' because they might, like about 40 Liberal (and former Liberal) MPs, support the traditional definition similar to the laws in most European countries.

At 1/27/2006 4:49 a.m., Blogger late said...

I would venture that even if they lose this vote, the issue is far from settled in the minds of conservative Canadians. I suspect that the SSM will be something that the CPC will support but never really want to enact, analogous to the US Republicans support of banning abortions yet not _really_ wanting to do that.

Like the abortion issue in the US, I think same sex marriage will be a rallying point to help the CPC rally the troops and get the vote out on election day -- but will never actually get anything done beyond appointing SSM-opposed Supreme Court Justices.

Just a theory though

At 1/27/2006 9:05 a.m., Blogger CanadianTruth said...

Most Conservatives aren't 'social conservatives'. That is a mistaken assumption that too many people are making. If the CPC presses too hard on the issue they will lose some support (many people on both sides feel that SSM should be in the form of a union instead of a marriage). If they tread into the abortion waters they will lose even more.


Post a Comment

<< Home