blarg?

C-38

Bill C-38 passed yesterday, so homosexuals (“they”, in the parlance of the modern conservative) are now first-tier citizens and same-sex marriages are now a part of the community of communities. The vote was a free vote, supported by the great majority of the Liberal party, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, the latter also moving from “we” to “they” status in the process and eliciting this classic remark.

Here’s the quote I was looking for:

“True justice will never come until those who are not injured are just as indignant as those who are.”

- Kweisi Mfume, NAACP President

The converse, I think, is also true – when an injustice is lifted, it is not only victory for the injured; it is a victory for everyone.

A few months ago I said that I’d love to be able to vote Conservative, if only they’d drop the social-policy clown show and get down with some real, small-c fiscal-conservative, free-markety rhetoric. I was in error, not because these things are undesirable but because it’s clear that they’ll never, ever actually happen. Should any conservative party members come across this post I will note that if you’re going to burn your bridges you probably shouldn’t use your dignity and respectability as kindling.

Update: Mel! They’re playing your song!

3 Comments | Skip to comment form

  1. janice

    About Klein’s “solution” to his religious dilemma: would parties to civil unions have their “marital” rights recognized as equivalent to participants in “marriages” under family law? Such a stand may require changes to more laws than those under Alberta’s control methinks. (But just thinking, not really knowing ;-) Why I think this is that if there is no legal difference there is no need for two different types of unions of couples. For that matter there would now be three types – marriage, common-law, and civil. Sheesh!

  2. Mike Hoye

    It’s pretty clear that Klein hasn’t thought this all the way through, if at all. Of course, once somebody’s stepped right up and said “we have no legal foundation for it, but we want to keep discriminating against these people anyway”, you might as well be arguing with a door. You’re not dealing with a thinking reaction at that point, and like the line goes, you can’t reason somebody out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place.

    On the other hand, if your core constituency’s opinion on the subject is “Ick, I don’t want to catch the gay” then, well, he’s a politician and he wants to get reelected. It’s not like his target market was ever liberal progressives anyway.

  3. Anonymous

    As long as the government treats everyone the same regardless of what kind of religious sanction they have (if any), then yay!

    I would have prefered that it get proposed because someone thought it was intrisincally the right thing to do, not because they didn’t want to “get the gay” on them. But I’ll take what I can get.

    Meanwhile, back in backwater-land, we’re finding more and more creative ways to deny people basic human rights like the right to own property (our supreme court just ruled that local governments don’t have to have any kind of a good reason to seize someone’s home).