Can you believe these clowns?

Watching the SSM debate on CPAC.

The cognitive dissonance displayed by Conservative MPs, who can at once claim to be respectful of families, and yet at the same time attack gay families with such vehemence and venom... and then claim to not be homophobic, is just appaling. Watching Harold Albrecht give his speech, I was simply seething. I'm used to all of the vicious, vile things he was saying of course - that gay marriage is a threat to family, community, children, etc. - but the fact that this small-minded homophobe even has a soapbox on which to pontificate is ridiculous; this issue shouldn't even be before the House. As Joe Comuzzi just said, when was the last time a government asked parliament for permission to bring forward legislation? Is this not ridiculous? You either bring forward the legislation, or you don't.

Albrecht and his ilk like to say that this issue needs to be re-opened because last time it did not get a full and open debate.

Excuse me? Didn't this issue last time around receive five months of official debate on the bill itself, plus three prior years of debate ever since the high court in Ontario ruled in favour of same-sex marriage in the summer of 2002? To claim that we haven't had a debate on this issue is an utter and complete lie, and everyone knows it. Who hasn't discussed this issue at some point over the past four years? 98 Conservative MPs out of 99 in the last parliament spoke on the issue. (I believe James Moore was the only one who didn't speak.)

There has been debate about this. As Bill Siksay said, this wasn't steamrolled, especially from the perspective of a gay man. 32 years, he implored, does not seem like a "mad dash" (as Albrecht put it) to gay people who have been fighting for equality. 32 years is quite enough debate, thank you very much.

Also, to all Conservatives who think that a free vote is essential so that MPs can vote their conscience, and are attacking the NDP and the Bloc for not allowing such a vote... if you think that free votes are so sacred, then do you think that MPs should be allowed to vote their conscience on issues like, say, poverty, homelessness, the environment, international aid, and the like? I'd say that homeless people dying in the streets is far more of a moral crisis than whether or not gay people are getting married. Do you think MPs should be allowed to vote their conscience on an important moral question like that, even if it means voting against their party's position on the budget? Should Belinda have been able to vote in favour of the Liberal budget without crossing the floor?