Stephen Harper made me cry ... twice
Because I've been in the thick of the application process, I haven't really blogged much on my thoughts and feelings in terms of motivations for this undertaking. I can get quite worked up and I will post my manifesto at some point when I can spare the energy. But I did want to share these episodes because they're somewhat timely.
On the first day of campaigning for the federal elections in Canada, the leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, declared that he would call for a free vote in Parliament in reference to same-sex marriage. Now, when he talks about it, he makes it seem that it is all about freedom of conscience and allowing MPs to vote what they really feel, rather than reigning them in, as apparently was done. And, he insists that what he wants is a vote -- almost that he doesn't feel one way or the other. Well, who can argue with that?
It sounds so rational, so democratic. But we're talking about people's lives and the equal rights of a very small minority. In a constitutional democracy (or republic, or monarchy, etc.), society is one of laws based on ideas (or ideals) set forth. One doesn't vote on everything: that's mob rule. People often confuse the two: democracy and mob rule. We also often forget that the rights of minorities are our rights because one day each of us may be on the other side of the mob. And, of course, I have yet to hear an argument about same-sex marriage that rationally explains how two people of the same sex having their marriage recognized harms any other marriage. (Key word: rationally)
Anyway, back to the crying. I was so disappointed; this is so "American." Why revisit this? Gays (LGBT, queers ...) certainly are bruised in the U.S. from being a political football, used to work people up over an emotional -- but really very small and largely inconsequential to most folks -- issue to get votes. It's hard to describe the feeling of being used in this manner. It's bullying writ large and I know a lot about being bullied ... but that's another story. So, in tears of frustration and flashbacks to near past and far past, I decried, "Why can't they just leave us alone?!" When can we just be people and not an issue?
And, maybe it was all for the best. I've taken to idolizing all things Canadian, and I really must stop it. There are asswipes everywhere and Canada will have its share, even in laid-back Vancouver.
OK, so that was the first time Stephen Harper made me cry and I guess that was about a month ago or so. The second time was last (Friday) night (or was it the night before?). I feel lucky that we get the CBC where we are, so I get to fantasize that I'm already there. But, seriously, I am learning a whole lot; let's face it, Americans know next to nothing about Canada except maybe hockey, "eh," and beer.
I tuned in and just missed the English debates of the party leaders, which I had wanted to see. But they did run some highlights on the news. (Canada Now?) Of course, one of the first questions to Mr. Harper was about same-sex marriage. And he repeated his very rational-sounding explanation. But I heard more this time: He made it clear that he was in favor of equal benefits/rights for "equivalent couples" to marriage, but he upheld the "traditional definition of 'marriage' as between one man and one woman." Well, this blew me away! And yes, my eyes welled up. Why?
THAT WAS KERRY'S STAND IN THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! The Democrat! So, get this: the "Conservative" stance in Canada is that of the Democrats in the U.S. Maybe Stephen Harper is the "compassionate conservative" W always claimed to be? Well, the Republicans here are in thrall to the theocrats, so I don't expect compassion any time soon. Don't get me wrong: I don't agree with this "separate but equal" stance and it pissed me off about Kerry. But when the conservatives in the U.S. not only want to bar the government from recognizing our marriage, but also want to invalidate any protections under the law we've made for ourselves (powers of attorney, wills, directives, etc. - at great personal cost, btw), and, by contrast, the Conservative Party in Canada cedes that all couples should have the same rights and protections, it is cause for tears of wonder. At least for me.
Oh, Canada!
On the first day of campaigning for the federal elections in Canada, the leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, declared that he would call for a free vote in Parliament in reference to same-sex marriage. Now, when he talks about it, he makes it seem that it is all about freedom of conscience and allowing MPs to vote what they really feel, rather than reigning them in, as apparently was done. And, he insists that what he wants is a vote -- almost that he doesn't feel one way or the other. Well, who can argue with that?
It sounds so rational, so democratic. But we're talking about people's lives and the equal rights of a very small minority. In a constitutional democracy (or republic, or monarchy, etc.), society is one of laws based on ideas (or ideals) set forth. One doesn't vote on everything: that's mob rule. People often confuse the two: democracy and mob rule. We also often forget that the rights of minorities are our rights because one day each of us may be on the other side of the mob. And, of course, I have yet to hear an argument about same-sex marriage that rationally explains how two people of the same sex having their marriage recognized harms any other marriage. (Key word: rationally)
Anyway, back to the crying. I was so disappointed; this is so "American." Why revisit this? Gays (LGBT, queers ...) certainly are bruised in the U.S. from being a political football, used to work people up over an emotional -- but really very small and largely inconsequential to most folks -- issue to get votes. It's hard to describe the feeling of being used in this manner. It's bullying writ large and I know a lot about being bullied ... but that's another story. So, in tears of frustration and flashbacks to near past and far past, I decried, "Why can't they just leave us alone?!" When can we just be people and not an issue?
And, maybe it was all for the best. I've taken to idolizing all things Canadian, and I really must stop it. There are asswipes everywhere and Canada will have its share, even in laid-back Vancouver.
OK, so that was the first time Stephen Harper made me cry and I guess that was about a month ago or so. The second time was last (Friday) night (or was it the night before?). I feel lucky that we get the CBC where we are, so I get to fantasize that I'm already there. But, seriously, I am learning a whole lot; let's face it, Americans know next to nothing about Canada except maybe hockey, "eh," and beer.
I tuned in and just missed the English debates of the party leaders, which I had wanted to see. But they did run some highlights on the news. (Canada Now?) Of course, one of the first questions to Mr. Harper was about same-sex marriage. And he repeated his very rational-sounding explanation. But I heard more this time: He made it clear that he was in favor of equal benefits/rights for "equivalent couples" to marriage, but he upheld the "traditional definition of 'marriage' as between one man and one woman." Well, this blew me away! And yes, my eyes welled up. Why?
THAT WAS KERRY'S STAND IN THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! The Democrat! So, get this: the "Conservative" stance in Canada is that of the Democrats in the U.S. Maybe Stephen Harper is the "compassionate conservative" W always claimed to be? Well, the Republicans here are in thrall to the theocrats, so I don't expect compassion any time soon. Don't get me wrong: I don't agree with this "separate but equal" stance and it pissed me off about Kerry. But when the conservatives in the U.S. not only want to bar the government from recognizing our marriage, but also want to invalidate any protections under the law we've made for ourselves (powers of attorney, wills, directives, etc. - at great personal cost, btw), and, by contrast, the Conservative Party in Canada cedes that all couples should have the same rights and protections, it is cause for tears of wonder. At least for me.
Oh, Canada!
posted by Daniel wbc at 9:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home