Some of those who support the traditional definition of marriage feel betrayed:
"I think there's going to be a lot of confusion and, when the smoke clears, a resentful attitude as well,'' said Mary Ellen Douglas of the Campaign Life Coalition, a socially conservative anti-abortion group.
Douglas said Prime Minister Stephen Harper has robbed voters of a fair chance to revisit same-sex marriage, which was legalized last year.
''It doesn't help anything,'' she said of a Conservative motion debated Wednesday that has little chance of passing when it goes to a vote Thursday.
After listening to some of the debate last night, I saw that the wording of the motion left some wiggle room for Liberal MP's who previously supported traditional marriage to decide to vote against the motion due to ambiguity and concerns of how "Charter-proof" the whole exercise would be anyway.
Some Liberal MP's such as John McKay will be supporting the government motion although he criticized the way the whole thing has been handled. Others such as Paul Szabo said they might have supported it if the motion was worded only to "re-open the debate" and nothing more.
So I suppose the question is, was the wording of the motion deliberately designed to engineer its own defeat and thus fulfill an election promise that the government hopes will quickly fade away from the public eye?
Personally, I don't feel that this has been a waste of time. There were some eloquent speeches given last night. I am still trying to access them on Hansard.
Harold Albrecht's was especially illuminating. He has a strong mandate from his constituents to preserve traditional marriage and delivered this message with passion. In an article in today's Record ("Same Marriage Debate; Same Stance"), he also exposes the way democracy was thwarted by the past government:
"I have received over 1,000 letters and e-mails and phone calls and overwhelming support for the traditional definition of marriage," he said.
In a speech in the Commons last night, he accused the previous Liberal government of rushing the same-sex marriage bill into law before the voices of Canadians were heard. He pointed to the committee on justice and human rights, which conducted hearings across Canada, but never presented a report of its findings to Parliament.
"I don't feel there was adequate closer of all the studies that were undertaken," Albrecht said.
He called the hearings "nothing more than a sham," which deceived Canadians into thinking they were part of the debate.
Has democracy been served now? I'm not sure. I do think we still need to examine the repercussions of Bill C-38 with respect to decisions of conscience concerning marriage commissioners in the West who are not public employees.
I also think we need to think about how early and how graphically we as parents want our children to be taught the facts of gay life in schools - if we still have a choice.
* * * *
UPDATE: Well, I don't have to tell you how this story ended, but some people seem to be looking for my reaction.
I am breathing a sigh of relief. This is closure. Dark Blue Tory mirrors my thoughts. "It's a done deal". Let's move on.