Deconstructing Stephen Harper and Paul Martin on gay marriage

Over at Gay and Right, Fred says that since Harper stated last night that he would not use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, it is now safe in law, even if Parliament decides to bring the issue to a free vote and affirms the traditional definition of marriage.

In other words, the 2005 Charter ruling by the Court will trump any future parliamentary vote.

I think Fred's reasoning is correct here ... but if Parliament votes against same-sex marriage and even without using the notwithstanding clause, it will take yet another Charter challenge to have the Court re-affirm the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. This issue is still going to hang around for quite some time yet and it is still going to remain a pretty nasty debate.

What really pisses me off is the high-and-mighty attitude of Paul Martin towards all this.

First of all, if same-sex marriage is such a fundamental question of human rights, why did Martin only whip his cabinet into voting for it and not the entire Liberal caucus? (As I've pointed out, every MP from Scarborough voted against it, as did other MPs like John MacKay, Roy Cullen, and Dan McTeague, all who happen to be Privy Councillors because they are Parliamentary secretaries to the Ministers of Finance, Public Safety and Foreign Affairs ... all of which happen to be the three biggest portfolios in government. Plus, Andy Savoy, Liberal caucus chair, also voted against it.) Obviously Martin doesn't believe in it THAT strongly or he would have made every single Liberal MP toe the line.

Secondly, if Martin thinks using the notwithstanding clause is an unacceptable option for any federal leader, why doesn't Martin come out and say that he supports removing it entirely from the Constitution of Canada? (Answer: because then the province of Quebec would be found to be in contravention of the Charter because of their draconian language laws, and no Liberal would ever touch that.)

Finally, and closely related to the other two points is this: What does Mr. Democratic Deficit have to say about Parliamentary supremacy? Do judges make laws or does Parliament?