Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Prior to June court ruling that legalized gay marriage in Ontario, I was weary of supporting gay marriage. I felt that Canadian social conservatives were slowly but surely falling into a slumber for which they never awake and the legalization of gay marriage would simply delay the process. For this reason, I supported the idea that the state should simply get out of the marriage business altogether.
As it has turned out, I was right worry. The issue of gay marriage has galvanized social conservatives in Canada. As a result, the government has decided that it does not want to make it an election issue and so has asked the Supreme Court to clarify some issues. As the Courts decision will not be due until well after any election, the government will not have to show its hand.
Assuming that the current political scandal settles down and the Liberals go on to win their 4th straight majority, the issue of whether Canada will refer to legally joined gay couples as married couples, or use some euphemism will be discussed after the courts decision sometime this fall. Alberta will present some special difficulties, but with it legal in 2 provinces already, the courts behind it and with the major of the population supporting the notion, all Canadians will have the right to marry people of either sex shortly thereafter. (Alberta has very little leverage. It has to recognize already existing marriages. All it can do is refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples who want to get married there. Furthermore, given that there is consensus even in Alberta for granting gay couples the right to join in a legal union that would give them the same rights as married straight couples, it is likely that Klein will make a lot of noise, paint himself as the victim and then allow for gay marriage.)
Now, what I failed to consider in the lead up to the June ruling was the type of international attention this would garner. Indeed, I was not expecting the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg to voice his approval so loudly or for the Britain’s Economist pronounce Canada “cool”. “Good old Canada” Hertzberg wrote -- in the Independence issue no less. “It’s the kind of country that makes you proud to be a North American.” In the US alone, gay marriage and a plan to decriminalize pot, had gained Canada glowing reviews in the NY Times, Washington Post, San Jose Mercury, Pittsburg Gazette, the Christian Science Monitor and the aforementioned New Yorker. Such praise has not gone unnoticed by Canadians, especially young Canadians. 58% of Canadians say gay marriage and the plan decriminalize marijuana is a source of national pride.
Besides, propping up the egos of nationalistic liberally minded Canadians, the gay marriage ruling coupled with Canada’s decision to stay out of Iraq and the impending decriminalization of pot has oddly enough brought the country closer together. In 1995 Canada came within a hair splitting apart. The French language was then and will always be the main issue separating Quebec from the rest of Canada. However, many Quebecers also felt that English Canada did not share the same values as Quebecers and so they voted to separate. If the polls are an indication, what values gap there is shrinking rapidly and Quebecers are noticing this. 69% of Quebecers say that the way Canada is moving on social issues and is a source of pride. A staggering 90% of Quebecers approved of the government’s decision to stay out of the war.
So, where does all this relate to what is happening in the States? Well, first of all, although the issue has mobilized social conservatives there, the way it is playing out in the States can only benefit the Democrats in the long run. Specifically, whereas in Canada the only issue left on the table is whether the word “marriage” is already patented by heterosexuals, conservatives in the States are not conceding much at all and this has enabled proponents of gay marriage to frame their fight as akin to fight over civil rights in the sixties. Far from extending the life of social conservatism in the US, acts of SF like civil disobedience will only accentuate a values gap between old and young that will eventually break into the open. If Bush decides to go ahead with a plan to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution, things will happen even quicker. Once this happens, the Republicans will find themselves on the wrong side of the ledger demographically speaking (if I am not mistaken on 5 key questions relating to social mores America is becoming progressively more liberal) and so will be forced to make some difficult decisions concerning their relationship with the Christian Right.
Another thing gay marriage debate may do is that may help bring the US and rest of the West closer together a la Quebec and the rest of Canada. A prominent US politician who backed gay marriage would gain instant, for lack of a better word, street credibility in many other Western nations. Take Canada. Invariably, Canadians prefer democratic presidents to Republican ones. This holds true even if the Prime Minister and President are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be the best of pals. Socially conservative Republicans simply rub Canadians the wrong way. Quoted in the NY Times, McGill Economist Chris Regan puts it a little more bluntly. “You can be a social conservative in the United States and not be a wacko. Not in Canada.” This is unfortunate for Bush for not only do Canadians not like his policies, but they can not stand his straight talking down home manner that endures him to American voters. He is the least popular US president in Canadian history. The last I heard his approval rating was 15 %.
This is just an aside, but many of those commentators who wrote so positively about Canada’s plan to decriminalize marijuana have misinterpreted the situation. They have seemed to be sucked in by Chrétien’s remark that once he was retired he might take up smoking marijuana. “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” Indeed, between January of 2001 and December 2004, the very Constitutionality of Canada’s possession laws were in question. They were struck down in 4 Provinces and in Ontario last summer it was legal to possess 15 grams or less. If that was not enough, in September 2002 a special Canadian Senate Committee recommended in stark language that Canada legalize marijuana. “Marijuana they said is not illegal because it is dangerous; it is dangerous because it is illegal.” Viewed in this light, the marijuana bill is revealed as an attempt to gain some sort of parliamentary control over the whole process. This was particularly important for America’s drug Czar John Walters relayed in no uncertain terms that the US would radically slow down border traffic and thus hinder trade if Canada did not come up with a solution that worked for the US.
Although in many respects a welcome step forward, the proposed law, if it were to be enforced, would in many respects represent something of a crack down in certain quarters. In no place is this truer than in Vancouver. In commenting about possession being struck down by a BC court, police spokesperson, Anne Drennan noted that at the time the decision was not binding and that even if it had been it had been it would have be more or less irrelevant. "In Vancouver, we very rarely arrest for simple possession of marijuana. There would have to be exigent circumstances." In saying so, Drennan simply confirmed what every Vancouverite under 30 already knows. The police here do not write you up for possession charges; at worst they just take your pot. If the new law is enforced, young Vancouverites would have to pay anywhere from a $100 to $400 fine. (Naturally enough, Walters had singled out Vancouver for special treatment. The current mayor was elected on an overwhelming mandate to implement safe injection sites. Walters flew to a Vancouver to make his views on the subject clear. Safe injections sites he said would make the problem worse, not better. Not stopping there, he said that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin and cocaine. When asked about Walter’s contention that safe injection sites would make things worse, Mayor Campbell said his assertion was akin to saying that “flies cause garage”. His comments about marijuana were equally ill received by the public and by the local media. According to a 2001 poll, 56% of British Columbians favor legalization. Nationally, 46 percent do. In the meantime, 78 percent of Canadians are happy to support decriminalization.)
To be fair, this has not escaped the eye of all American Journalists. The NY Times reported the results of the 2001 poll and NY Times’ Clifford Krauss penned the following about what he earlier called “Vansterdam” in article about the supposed growing values gap between Canada and the US. “No Canadian city reveals the differences as much as Vancouver. It looks like any American city, except that the drug culture is abundantly open. The police rarely interfere with bars, store fronts and even offices were people can buy or smoke marijuana. A “compassion club” distributes marijuana legally to cancer patients and others who have doctors’ notes.”
As it has turned out, I was right worry. The issue of gay marriage has galvanized social conservatives in Canada. As a result, the government has decided that it does not want to make it an election issue and so has asked the Supreme Court to clarify some issues. As the Courts decision will not be due until well after any election, the government will not have to show its hand.
Assuming that the current political scandal settles down and the Liberals go on to win their 4th straight majority, the issue of whether Canada will refer to legally joined gay couples as married couples, or use some euphemism will be discussed after the courts decision sometime this fall. Alberta will present some special difficulties, but with it legal in 2 provinces already, the courts behind it and with the major of the population supporting the notion, all Canadians will have the right to marry people of either sex shortly thereafter. (Alberta has very little leverage. It has to recognize already existing marriages. All it can do is refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples who want to get married there. Furthermore, given that there is consensus even in Alberta for granting gay couples the right to join in a legal union that would give them the same rights as married straight couples, it is likely that Klein will make a lot of noise, paint himself as the victim and then allow for gay marriage.)
Now, what I failed to consider in the lead up to the June ruling was the type of international attention this would garner. Indeed, I was not expecting the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg to voice his approval so loudly or for the Britain’s Economist pronounce Canada “cool”. “Good old Canada” Hertzberg wrote -- in the Independence issue no less. “It’s the kind of country that makes you proud to be a North American.” In the US alone, gay marriage and a plan to decriminalize pot, had gained Canada glowing reviews in the NY Times, Washington Post, San Jose Mercury, Pittsburg Gazette, the Christian Science Monitor and the aforementioned New Yorker. Such praise has not gone unnoticed by Canadians, especially young Canadians. 58% of Canadians say gay marriage and the plan decriminalize marijuana is a source of national pride.
Besides, propping up the egos of nationalistic liberally minded Canadians, the gay marriage ruling coupled with Canada’s decision to stay out of Iraq and the impending decriminalization of pot has oddly enough brought the country closer together. In 1995 Canada came within a hair splitting apart. The French language was then and will always be the main issue separating Quebec from the rest of Canada. However, many Quebecers also felt that English Canada did not share the same values as Quebecers and so they voted to separate. If the polls are an indication, what values gap there is shrinking rapidly and Quebecers are noticing this. 69% of Quebecers say that the way Canada is moving on social issues and is a source of pride. A staggering 90% of Quebecers approved of the government’s decision to stay out of the war.
So, where does all this relate to what is happening in the States? Well, first of all, although the issue has mobilized social conservatives there, the way it is playing out in the States can only benefit the Democrats in the long run. Specifically, whereas in Canada the only issue left on the table is whether the word “marriage” is already patented by heterosexuals, conservatives in the States are not conceding much at all and this has enabled proponents of gay marriage to frame their fight as akin to fight over civil rights in the sixties. Far from extending the life of social conservatism in the US, acts of SF like civil disobedience will only accentuate a values gap between old and young that will eventually break into the open. If Bush decides to go ahead with a plan to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution, things will happen even quicker. Once this happens, the Republicans will find themselves on the wrong side of the ledger demographically speaking (if I am not mistaken on 5 key questions relating to social mores America is becoming progressively more liberal) and so will be forced to make some difficult decisions concerning their relationship with the Christian Right.
Another thing gay marriage debate may do is that may help bring the US and rest of the West closer together a la Quebec and the rest of Canada. A prominent US politician who backed gay marriage would gain instant, for lack of a better word, street credibility in many other Western nations. Take Canada. Invariably, Canadians prefer democratic presidents to Republican ones. This holds true even if the Prime Minister and President are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be the best of pals. Socially conservative Republicans simply rub Canadians the wrong way. Quoted in the NY Times, McGill Economist Chris Regan puts it a little more bluntly. “You can be a social conservative in the United States and not be a wacko. Not in Canada.” This is unfortunate for Bush for not only do Canadians not like his policies, but they can not stand his straight talking down home manner that endures him to American voters. He is the least popular US president in Canadian history. The last I heard his approval rating was 15 %.
This is just an aside, but many of those commentators who wrote so positively about Canada’s plan to decriminalize marijuana have misinterpreted the situation. They have seemed to be sucked in by Chrétien’s remark that once he was retired he might take up smoking marijuana. “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” Indeed, between January of 2001 and December 2004, the very Constitutionality of Canada’s possession laws were in question. They were struck down in 4 Provinces and in Ontario last summer it was legal to possess 15 grams or less. If that was not enough, in September 2002 a special Canadian Senate Committee recommended in stark language that Canada legalize marijuana. “Marijuana they said is not illegal because it is dangerous; it is dangerous because it is illegal.” Viewed in this light, the marijuana bill is revealed as an attempt to gain some sort of parliamentary control over the whole process. This was particularly important for America’s drug Czar John Walters relayed in no uncertain terms that the US would radically slow down border traffic and thus hinder trade if Canada did not come up with a solution that worked for the US.
Although in many respects a welcome step forward, the proposed law, if it were to be enforced, would in many respects represent something of a crack down in certain quarters. In no place is this truer than in Vancouver. In commenting about possession being struck down by a BC court, police spokesperson, Anne Drennan noted that at the time the decision was not binding and that even if it had been it had been it would have be more or less irrelevant. "In Vancouver, we very rarely arrest for simple possession of marijuana. There would have to be exigent circumstances." In saying so, Drennan simply confirmed what every Vancouverite under 30 already knows. The police here do not write you up for possession charges; at worst they just take your pot. If the new law is enforced, young Vancouverites would have to pay anywhere from a $100 to $400 fine. (Naturally enough, Walters had singled out Vancouver for special treatment. The current mayor was elected on an overwhelming mandate to implement safe injection sites. Walters flew to a Vancouver to make his views on the subject clear. Safe injections sites he said would make the problem worse, not better. Not stopping there, he said that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin and cocaine. When asked about Walter’s contention that safe injection sites would make things worse, Mayor Campbell said his assertion was akin to saying that “flies cause garage”. His comments about marijuana were equally ill received by the public and by the local media. According to a 2001 poll, 56% of British Columbians favor legalization. Nationally, 46 percent do. In the meantime, 78 percent of Canadians are happy to support decriminalization.)
To be fair, this has not escaped the eye of all American Journalists. The NY Times reported the results of the 2001 poll and NY Times’ Clifford Krauss penned the following about what he earlier called “Vansterdam” in article about the supposed growing values gap between Canada and the US. “No Canadian city reveals the differences as much as Vancouver. It looks like any American city, except that the drug culture is abundantly open. The police rarely interfere with bars, store fronts and even offices were people can buy or smoke marijuana. A “compassion club” distributes marijuana legally to cancer patients and others who have doctors’ notes.”
Comments:
Post a Comment
