![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 1st, 2005 09:41 pmSame-sex marriage bill introduced in Canada's Parliament today
What gets me from the article is this portion:
The Conservatives keep trying to tell themselves that because the Supreme Court refused to rule on whether the current definition of marriage was Constitutional, that means that it is. Seven provinces and one territory have ruled otherwise; the only reason the SC refused to rule on it was because there was no actual case that had been brought before them. Had the federal government appealed any of the provincial/territorial cases, I'm certain that the court would have upheld the rulings.
The new legislation doesn't take anything away from heterosexual married couples; why can't the Conservatives see that? The only possible thing that could be taken away would be their right to discriminate, but only on a secular level; churches would retain the right to determine who could get married within their institutions.
The latest poll of MPs is interesting in that a sufficient number of MPs are either undecided or refusing to say how they'll vote that it's not 100% clear whether or not the legislation will pass. However, polls taken over the past few weeks seem to indicate that many of the "undecided" MPs are actually going to support the government's bill as-is; perhaps they just don't want to tell the Globe and Mail just yet for whatever reason.
Given that the issue was well-known before our last federal election and the Liberals still won (albeit with a minority government), I think it's fairly clear that a plurality of voters either support same-sex marriage or don't really care either way. I don't believe that the Conservatives have nearly as much support on the issue as they think they do. Perhaps Stephen Harper ought to venture east of Alberta once in a while before he starts claiming that his party represents the majority of Canadians. Or at least go out on the streets instead of staying inside his church when he asks people what they think.
In other news: nothing much happened today. I still haven't gotten a return call from the headhunter I called yesterday afternoon to touch base about the TD job. I applied for another Bank of Montreal position last night, although not one I'm particularly well-qualified for; it's a mainframe developer position, but instead of COBOL, it's SAS. They still want someone with TSO/ISPF, CICS and DB2, which I have in spades, and I know I could learn SAS fairly easily (I've seen SAS code, and it doesn't look difficult), but I'm pessimistic about getting an interview. I modified my resume to remove most of the fannish activity (though I haven't uploaded the new one to my website yet), so perhaps that will unclutter it sufficiently to get a little more interest from potential employers.
I just got an automated email from Workopolis about a position with RBC. I don't quite understand why so many companies are putting "high level of ability with existing corporate systems" under their requirements and qualifications. How can I have any ability with their existing systems if I don't currently work for them? Why bother putting that into a job description being advertised externally?
What gets me from the article is this portion:
Tory justice critic Vic Toews said his party would like to introduce amendments that would allow for the the traditional definition of marriage to remain intact while not detracting from the rights and benefits of same-sex couples.
The Conservatives keep trying to tell themselves that because the Supreme Court refused to rule on whether the current definition of marriage was Constitutional, that means that it is. Seven provinces and one territory have ruled otherwise; the only reason the SC refused to rule on it was because there was no actual case that had been brought before them. Had the federal government appealed any of the provincial/territorial cases, I'm certain that the court would have upheld the rulings.
"Our amendments will ensure that those rights and benefits remain intact," [Toews said.]
The new legislation doesn't take anything away from heterosexual married couples; why can't the Conservatives see that? The only possible thing that could be taken away would be their right to discriminate, but only on a secular level; churches would retain the right to determine who could get married within their institutions.
The latest poll of MPs is interesting in that a sufficient number of MPs are either undecided or refusing to say how they'll vote that it's not 100% clear whether or not the legislation will pass. However, polls taken over the past few weeks seem to indicate that many of the "undecided" MPs are actually going to support the government's bill as-is; perhaps they just don't want to tell the Globe and Mail just yet for whatever reason.
Given that the issue was well-known before our last federal election and the Liberals still won (albeit with a minority government), I think it's fairly clear that a plurality of voters either support same-sex marriage or don't really care either way. I don't believe that the Conservatives have nearly as much support on the issue as they think they do. Perhaps Stephen Harper ought to venture east of Alberta once in a while before he starts claiming that his party represents the majority of Canadians. Or at least go out on the streets instead of staying inside his church when he asks people what they think.
In other news: nothing much happened today. I still haven't gotten a return call from the headhunter I called yesterday afternoon to touch base about the TD job. I applied for another Bank of Montreal position last night, although not one I'm particularly well-qualified for; it's a mainframe developer position, but instead of COBOL, it's SAS. They still want someone with TSO/ISPF, CICS and DB2, which I have in spades, and I know I could learn SAS fairly easily (I've seen SAS code, and it doesn't look difficult), but I'm pessimistic about getting an interview. I modified my resume to remove most of the fannish activity (though I haven't uploaded the new one to my website yet), so perhaps that will unclutter it sufficiently to get a little more interest from potential employers.
I just got an automated email from Workopolis about a position with RBC. I don't quite understand why so many companies are putting "high level of ability with existing corporate systems" under their requirements and qualifications. How can I have any ability with their existing systems if I don't currently work for them? Why bother putting that into a job description being advertised externally?
