Today's Vote

Today, a motion by the Canadian Alliance Party was narrowly defeated by 5 votes. The motion was almost identical to one which passed 4 years ago, affirming the traditional definition of marriage and calling Parliament to take whatever steps necessary to defend that definition. That motion 4 years ago passed with a strong majority. Despite a watering down of the original motion (today's motion didn't use the "whatever steps" language because some felt that would force the use the "notwithstanding" clause), many MP's changes their votes from the last time.

Here is the text of a letter I sent to the CBC about this issue:

The press has not, to my knowledge, asked the Prime Minister one of the most important questions in this whole debate. He has consistently deferred to the courts, allowing them to make law. He has stated that he would "never" invoke the notwithstanding clause. And he has stated that religious groups would not be forced to go against their own principles and be forced to perform weddings for homosexuals. But what will he do if the courts decide that churches must perform wedding ceremonies irrespective of sexual orientation. If the past is any guide, he will tell us Parliament is helpless to make law because the Court has spoken. There is an element within the gay community that will certainly raise this challenge in court. I fear for the cause of religious liberty in Canada.