Monday, January 30, 2006

Maybe ssm is not so safe after all.

I did some quick calculations about same-sex marriage shortly after the vote and guestimated that the conservative motion to overturn it would fail by 20 votes (see here).

Clayton over at Marriage Vote does a much more meticulous calculation and comes up with same-sex marriage surviving by just two votes.

Update As commenter Nitangae points out, Clayton's numbers seem to be firming up towards the confirmation of ssm.

5 comments:

David said...

The Canadian Press has those numbers:

151: Yes to SSM
144: No to SSM

13 mp with an unknown opinion.

7 conservatives;
4 liberal;
1 bloc.

SSM need 4 votes out of those 13. It will be very close.

Budd Campbell said...

Having looked down the posts on your blog it seems like you're pretty much pre-occupied with sex and morality issues to the more or less complete exclusion of everything else.

buckets said...

Thanks for pointing that out, Budd. I'll see what I can do about expanding my repetoire.

Alison said...

The in-depth research and follow-up into each individual subject is what is so outstanding about this blog ; it's so much more interesting than getting a single opinion post on a subject that is never returned to.

But I've obviously walked into what must be a private joke.
When I followed the link to Budd's Blog to see what a more expanded repertoire looks like, I discovered that Budd has posted exactly three items since last June and they are all on the subject of his disagreement with "rabble".

nitangae said...

Dear Bouquets:

No doubt you have already checked, but Marriage Vote has updated its list, and has raised the number of 'certainly for' to 154, and 'certainly against' to 132. That would mean, I think, that the pro-ssm side would only need one more vote, or a few abstentions, to pass.

In so far as I can determine the reason for this change, it would seem to be in the fact that Giles Duceppe had suggested, at some point, that he would insist that all BQ members vote in favour of ssm. Thus, some likely 'yes' votes have been moved into the 'almost certainly yes' camp, and some likely 'no's have been put into the 'possibly yes' or 'posssibly no' camp. ( a number of western ' likely no's have been confirmed as 'no.')

The evidence upon which this is based is from a passage in the English (I think) debate, concerning which Duceppe probably didn't care much anyway. I thus don't feel that certain, and find Duceppe's language to be sufficiently ambiguous to allow him to wriggle out of his current position, if political expediency so demands.

To confess my biases, I personally wasn't all that pleased with some aspects of the pro-ssm camp, even though I am more or less pro-ssm myself, but I also consider the issue to be settled.

I have included the passage in question below. I hope that is fine.

Nitangae


Question: The question is, what's wrong with having a free vote and how will that issue be decided if there is a free vote on the issue? Mr. Duceppe?

Duceppe: Well, we already had a free vote on that, so I think we shouldn't have a free vote on a question that was resolved every six months. That was decided, and I think we have to live with that, and people I think will get used to that because it is now normal, and I don't want to live in a society where some people don't have the same kind of rights than other people.