Walking the tightrope on gay marriage II

It has now become clear that Harper would introduce a motion to the House asking them if they want to have a free vote on repealing the definition of marriage.

Regardless of whether or not you are pro- or anti-gay marriage, this is an issue that relates to Parliamentary supremacy over the courts. In other words, does the Charter trump everything, including the will of elected representatives? If you say yes, I would ask why did the drafters of the Charter include section 33, allowing for legislatures to use the notwithstanding clause to opt out? It should also be recognized that the Supreme Court refused to rule on whether or not the heterosexual definition of marriage is one which violates the Charter.

Now, in terms of the politics of it, Harper had to come out swinging. He has been clear since day one that his view of marriage is a traditional one, yet he would respect all of the legal rights and privileges of those who were in same-sex unions. His base is also counting on this issue because it is a mobilizing one for them. He couldn't say, if asked by a reporter, that "same-sex marriage is off the table" because if he did, he'd lose probably three-quarters of his campaign workers right then and there. This is also a big issue for recent immigrants to Canada, which is a voting bloc the Tories need to make inroads with. On the other hand, the Alex Munter/Libby Davies crowd was certainly not going to run over to Harper, no matter what his position on gay marriage was.

All that being said, I know there are a lot of progressive or libertarian Conservatives who are disappointed by Harper's belief in the supremacy of Parliament. I would suggest that if you fall into this category, you work to get a pro same-sex Tory elected, like John Baird, James Moore, Jim Prentice or Gerald Keddy, for example.

Let's also remember that there are a lot of fiscally conservative Liberals who are against altering the definition of marriage. I don't think this Charter argument is going to find traction with Canadians when up to a third of the backbench of the Liberal party (including every single Scarborough MP) voted against C-38. Martin could do better and I think he should tone down the rhetoric. Let the NDP take the moral high ground ... after all, that 's that party that boots people out if they don't support gay marriage. So much for tolerance, diversity and a big tent, huh, Jack?