Would referendum really make a difference on gay marriage?

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » 2004-12-13 10:58pm

As many of you know, Gay marriage was recently legalized throughout Canada. As a result, conservatives are all over the news demanding a national vote on the thing.

The thing is, would it really make a difference? I get the feeling that more Canadians wouldn't have a problem with gay marriage than those that do.

What do you think? Would referendum make any difference? Would it be a close call, or would one side win in a landslide?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-12-13 11:02pm

If voting is non-compulsory in Canada (I honestly have no idea), this is how I'd see it happening; those who are against it will vote, because they believe it will have ill effects on societu or some such. Most people who are cool with it, probably owuld not care enough to get out and vote.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-12-13 11:03pm

Actually its hard to say.

It shouldn't come down to a referendum anyway. The charter of rights explicitly protects gender, so it protects gays. It would be like voting against black people having rights, or voting for abortion.

Brian

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » 2004-12-13 11:12pm

Gandalf wrote:If voting is non-compulsory in Canada (I honestly have no idea), this is how I'd see it happening; those who are against it will vote, because they believe it will have ill effects on societu or some such. Most people who are cool with it, probably owuld not care enough to get out and vote.

You have a point there. I hadn't considered that. Even I probably wouldn't bother voting, despite being a strong supporter of gay marriage, and just in general being a person who would like to see laws that have no logic, besides religion, removed.

brianeyci wrote:Actually its hard to say.

It shouldn't come down to a referendum anyway. The charter of rights explicitly protects gender, so it protects gays. It would be like voting against black people having rights, or voting for abortion.

Brian

I know, I don't think it should be put to referendum either. I'm just wondering the conservatives are doing this because they think they'll win, or out of desperation.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-12-13 11:25pm

According to this, 55% of Canadians of adult age list their ethnic background as "Canadian". I can see a lot of first generation Canadians voting against gay marriage, but the majority of Canadians who live in cities and recieve a liberal education should have no problem easily intepreting gay marriage, especially if someone charismatic spells it out for them as a human rights issue.

This is a multicultural society after all, not the melting pot of the United States. I would be ashamed if Canadians sided with ignorance, how could you when you experience so many different cultures and have to learn tolerance and patience when dealing with someone outside of your culture?

Brian

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-12-13 11:29pm

Oh, and 46% of Canadians are Catholic. Only 13% of Canadians have "no religion". So, it would depend on how Canadians view their religion, and whether they see gay marrige conflicting with traditional values.

If there was a referendum, there would have to be a charismatic champion of gay rights to explain to Canadians what the referendum really was -- a referendum on the charter of rights and freedoms. I'm not sure Jack Layton would be up to the job. Martin might be, and has clearly stated his position.

Brian

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-14 09:20am

People should not be allowed to vote directly on specific policy issues, only in matters of general principles. This speaks to the heart of what it means to be a constitutional republic, in which the country is governed by a small number of general principles, from which specific laws are derived. It's all too easy to allow prejudice and stupidity to influence a decision when you don't have to worry about the general principle that might affect everyone (especially when you're the type of person who doesn't even think about general principles, or who feels no need to be consistent in your thinking).

In other words, voters should not be allowed to vote on the question of "should gay marriage be allowed". Instead, the referendum question (if the government wants to waste money on this, which I think they shouldn't) should be "should the Constitution be amended to allow the government to legally discriminate against citizens on the basis of gender".

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » 2004-12-14 11:55am

Darth Wong wrote:In other words, voters should not be allowed to vote on the question of "should gay marriage be allowed". Instead, the referendum question (if the government wants to waste money on this, which I think they shouldn't) should be "should the Constitution be amended to allow the government to legally discriminate against citizens on the basis of gender".

The scary thing is, I can see a lot of fundementalists voting yes on a bill like that. Remember, the Bible does preach misogyny.

And I wonder how many lunatics would vote yes, even if they aren't normally misogynists, just so they could be sure that gay marriage would never happen?

Scary to see how far some will go in the name if their religion...

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-14 12:38pm

Oh, and 46% of Canadians are Catholic. Only 13% of Canadians have "no religion". So, it would depend on how Canadians view their religion, and whether they see gay marrige conflicting with traditional values.

Actually, even statistics like these are meaningless. Do you realize the Catholic Church lists you as a "member" just because you are baptized there?

You could step into a church 5 times your whole life and not think a fiddler's fuck about Jesus, and they will still list you as "catholic". So those statistics are useless. Maybe 46% were baptized, but I'll wager less than a quarter (and I think I'm being generous), are even seriously following the religion.

In other words, voters should not be allowed to vote on the question of "should gay marriage be allowed". Instead, the referendum question (if the government wants to waste money on this, which I think they shouldn't) should be "should the Constitution be amended to allow the government to legally discriminate against citizens on the basis of gender".

The problem is if you read that question to most people, they would just go "huh"?

Sadly the average person is not taught well enough to even understand the question when phrased that way.

Would the referendum make a difference?

It's very very hard to say. This is one of those issues that emotions run high on, and even though its an appeal to tradition fallacy, many people have a sentimental view of marriage being mom and pop. If they asked about civil unions, I'd almost certainly say it would pass. Probably with at least 60% or more. But "marriage"?

Tough tough tough. Like the guy said up above too, getting the right percentage of people out is also the challenge. Too many people might be like "Oh we're enlightened enough here, It'll pass" and then wake up tomorrow and go "WHAT. Shit, I should have voted".

I've always wondered how different results would be on any voting issue if they had one vote, and then a week later held it again. My suspicion is that you would see a definite change over the numbers second time around.

I do believe that gay marriage isn't a big deal, it IS just a word, but the way many other countries are on the issue, and likely will be for a long time, it might prevent discrimination a little better if we just used the term "civil union". Of course the problem then is what do you refer to your partner as? Could you still use the words husband or wife?

People are more upset about those definitions being altered then anything I think.

But it would be immensely satisfying to have someone who annoyingly assumes I'm heterosexual have the response to their "Do you have a wife" question be answered with "No. a husband".