Revolutionary Moderation

Politics



Does anyone really think the Reform Party Canadian Alliance is trying to have a legal impact with their motion on the definition of marriage? Clearly, they're mostly attempting to make a point. And that point is: the Liberal party is gutless.



The point is accurate. But the motion will, I suspect, go down in flames. All of those Liberals who are on the fence or leaning toward voting against gay marriage must surely be considering that giving themselves a black eye is not going to be helpful to their party, and to their reelection chances.



If the Reform Party Canadian Alliance had been serious about this effort, the first step should have been to talk to the NDP, and have the motion come from that bench, and in favour of gay marriage. That motion would probably fail, given the current tally, and the tendency of government members to vote against opposition motions. Would Jack Layton be into exposing the Liberals as the unprincipled poll-followers they are? Probably. I like the election ads: "The Liberals are opposed to the Charter of Rights. But the New Democrats believe in Trudeau's vision. What's happened to Trudeau's party?" And in the meantime, Stephen Harper would have its evidence that the Liberals are split, and that the government was merely being opportunist when they voted in favour of "the traditional definition of marriage" in 1999.



The Liberals have some trouble because of today's motion. They would have had a lot more trouble with the other. And, as I've argued before, I don't think the right for gay couples to marry is actually at risk from any motion in the House, so I think this is all about politics, and very little about law.