Talk:Civil Marriage Act

Confidence Measure?

Is this bill going to be taken as a vote of confidence (i.e. if it doesn't pass, the government resigns)? ugen64 01:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. -The Tom 06:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Latest word was it would only be taking as a vote of confidence if it passes but using the notwithstanding clause to keep the current definition. --Spinboy 05:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Flyer

I gotz a flyer and was thinking of adding it to the chronology, but not sure if this is the right article, or if this is even notable.

• February 13, 2005 - A flyer is distributed by Concerned Canadian Parents in Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale urging people to contact their local politician to make their opposition to the "anti-marriage" bill known.

Just wondering, I could even take a picture of it for the commons or something. - RoyBoy [∞] 05:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't even hear about any flyer, so it doesn't seem important. But you might want to mention the Famous Players ads. --Spinboy 05:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which ads? Sawry haven't gone to the movies in a while, but it does sound notable so go ahead with that. As to the flyer, I get the impression they will be widely distributed in the weeks ahead; so it might yet be notable. At the very least its a marker of grass-roots opposition that should be chronicaled if this vote gets close. Is there any sense of how this is shaping up regarding undecided's (or uncommitted's). If so should that information go here or in the main article? - RoyBoy [∞] 06:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Click here for ad details Spinboy 06:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Change of name?

I find that the name of the article now is fairly useless. It conveys virtually nothing of the content of the article (other than that it is a government bill) and it is by no means permanent. I suggest a move to Civil Marriage Act or Civil Marriage Act (Canada). - Lucky13pjn 06:11, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but only as far as it is the actual name. Circeus 16:07, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree, for the time being. Two resaons: one, per Wikipedia guidelines, we go by the most commonly-used name, and that's C-38, regardless of how much content that might convey. Second, it only becomes the Civil Marriage Act if its passed. Now, if it is passed or if the order paper gets purged by a loss of confidence, then it will need a new title. But we haven't come to that stage yet. -The Tom 19:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree, per The Tom. It's not an Act yet, it's a Bill, named C-38. Radagast 19:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree, per Radagast. For the time being though, it might be okay to have a redirect from Civil Marriage Act --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree, as the others have said. If it is passed, then move it to Civil Marriage Act. Until then, keep it as a Bill. Ben Babcock 17:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I took Spinboy's advice and created a redirect from Civil Marriage Act. If the Senate passes the bill and the gov gen assents, there's no reason why we can't move Bill C-38's content to Civil Marriage Act using standard merging techniques. CanadianCaesar 29 June 2005 04:25 (UTC)

Neutrality

After reading the article, it seems rather harsh on NDP leader Jack Layton. By stating that he whipped his party into voting for the bill, it sounds slightly tyrranical and does not really touch on how he felt it to be a civil rights issue. I fail to see how the term relates to it's political counterpart (a vote ensurer), as instead of insuring votes it insinuates that the vote was forced.

That's the usual accepted term, see the Whip (politics) Pdefer | !! June 29, 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Maybe it should be rephrased for those who aren't familiar with the terms. Or maybe wikify whip_(politics)? Carson Talk 29 June 2005 20:40 (UTC)

Modernizing the Content of the Article

I move that I be authorized to make minor revisions to this article by way of replacing instances of C-38 with Civil Marriage Act (now that the legislation is enacted and in force), provided that I provide a note in an appropriate location that would mention that the Act had been known as C-38 during the legislative process, and making other minor revisions to reflect that the Act is now law rather than a bill. Is there consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiveParadox (talk • contribs)

• Sounds good to me. Wuzzy 10:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• While the idea in principle sounds good to me, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and the wording of your "motion" makes it sound like one. Ardenn 13:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, lol. Six hours of CPAC can do that to you!  :-S FiveParadox 15:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also make sure to use Canadian english in the article. Ardenn 13:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed a dead link from the article. This link: *Address by Prime Minister Paul Martin to the House of commons on Bill C-38 (pm.gc.ca), just now gets you a blank page. --BDWill Talk Contribs 02:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Is rainbow Canada flag better?

On April 11, 2006, NTK replaced the Canadian flag in the "Gay rights in Canada" template with a rainbow version of the Canadian flag.

Since this is only one of the articles affected, please give your comments at this central location: Template talk:GR-C Wuzzy 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Speech

I have deleted the long speech from Paul Martin as I don't think it's particularly useful in this article. If anywhere, it should go on Wikisource. - Montréalais