Canadian Press moved a story late Sunday from Conservative MP Jason Kenney, who dispensed this bromide to a group of South Asian journalists last month: Gays and lesbians can marry whoever they want -- just so long as it's not someone of the same sex.

Here's the story posted on CTV.ca. And here's an excerpt:

"The fact is that homosexuals aren't barred from marrying under Canadian law,'' Kenney said at the meeting of the Punjabi Press Club last month in Brampton, Ont. The group represents more than a dozen Punjabi-language newspapers.

Former NDP MP Svend Robinson -- an outspoken gay rights advocate and Canada's first publicly declared gay MP -- was once married to a woman, noted Kenney. He also said that NDP MP Libby Davies was once married to a man.

"Marriage is open to everybody, as long as they're a man and a woman,'' said Kenney.

"It doesn't say you can't marry if you're a homosexual. The fact is that homosexuals have been married and do marry.''

Davies, the Vancouver MP who is openly lesbian, corrected the record Sunday to say she's never been married, but did live with her male partner for 24 years until he died of cancer in 1997.

"I thought I'd heard it all,'' said Davies. "I wouldn't expect too much out of Jason Kenney on this (subject), but this is absolutely absurd.

"If there was an award for making an idiotic statement, this guy would get it.''

Remembering Jack Shields

I don't believe Mr. Robinson acknowledged he was homosexual until the early winter of 1988. I believe his marriage was over before then.

I remember the time period because I was working in Fort McMurray, Alta. as a reporter for the local daily (the creatively named Fort McMurray Today).

I interviewed Jack Shields, the local Progressive Conservative MP (now deceased) about Mr. Robinson's revelation. "I've never understood why these people feel the need to shout it from the rooftops," was one quote I remember (and remember, I am going from memory).

That weekend was the winter festival (the formal name escapes me). Part of the festival was a trapper's competition to pick a King and Queen of the North, or something like that.

Anyway, I dropped in on the evening squirrel-skinning competition (I'm not making that up), and there was Jack -- in his cups. He suddenly hugged some aboriginal guy and bellowed to the crowd: "I just want to say that I like boys!"

A hearty laugh was had by all.

If memory also serves me correctly, his Reform Party successor in the Athabasca riding, David Chatters, was temporarily suspended from caucus in 1996. He had echoed the sentiments of Robert Ringma, the party's whip, who said he would fire a black or gay person or move them "to the back of the shop" if a bigoted customer was offended by their presence.

Chatters went on to say a private religious college would be justified in firing a gay employee (in the Vriend decision, the Supreme Court of Canada said actually, you wouldn't be).

After their suspensions ended, both were greated as heroes at their first public appearances at Reform meetings.

But that was two incarnations of the Conservative Party ago. I'm sure things have changed.

Tories intellectually dishonest

Anyways, the Conservatives are being less than intellectually honest in the same-sex marriage debate.

The courts in six provinces and one territory have said it violates the equality rights of gays and lesbians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples (is Mr. Kenney, a very intelligent man, not aware of that?).

It was open to those courts to uphold the traditional definition marriage under Section One of the Charter, to wit:

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In my layman's understanding of the Charter, that means the court could find the traditional definition of marriage to violate the Charter. But since the nature of the violation was justifiable in a country like Canada and achieved some greater social good, they were upholding it.

No court has done so.

No Conservative MP speaking on this issue against same-sex marriage has ever publicly acknowledged that, as near as I can tell.

It's true the Supreme Court declined to answer the following question in its reference decision on Dec. 9: Is the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman constitutional?

Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper described this at the time as a "huge victory" for supporters of traditional marriage.

Uh, why would he say that? The other courts have found that it was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court never said they were wrong to do so. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but read the decision and tell me in the comments area where you would realistically find comfort in the view that the court would uphold the constitutionality of traditional marriage if pushed?

For more on this, read this CTV.ca story: The politics and the law on same-sex marriage.

Harper hasn't said he's prepared to use the constitution's "not-withstanding clause"  to block same-sex marriage -- even though that appears to be the only too available now for legislators -- and insists his party's compromise of preserving marriage for heterosexuals and providing civil unions for homosexuals will pass constitutional muster.

One hundred and thirty-four law professors signed a letter telling him he was wrong. Harper brushed that off.

The Republican playbook

I think he's taken a lesson from the Republican playbook of Dubya: Never admit you're wrong. That way, people will believe you (see Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction). There's actually polling data to support that view.

Here is a quote from the PIPA.org survey The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters, released on Oct. 21, 2004:

Bush appears to assume that his support is fragile. He refuses to admit to making any mistakes. He admits that he was surprised that WMD were not found, but does not say that the most reasonable conclusion is that they were never there and continues to talk about "disarming" Iraq. He asserts that he never said that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, but maintains that there were contacts with al Qaeda in a way that implies that they were significant. Most telling, his supporters as well as his opponents overwhelmingly say that they hear him still saying that Iraq had WMD and supported al Qaeda. To remain loyal and bonded to him means to enter into this false reality.

Bush may be right. Admitting his mistakes may shatter his idealized image in a way that some supporters may not forgive. But there also risks in succeeding in getting elected based on false beliefs. The number of people in the public who see through the illusion will likely continue to grow, eating away at the implied mandate of an election. Further, the cohesion of society can be damaged by a persisting and fundamental division in the perception of what is real, undermining pathways to consensus and mutual sacrifice, and making the country increasingly difficult to govern.

Beside's Mr. Kenney's statements, there has been other intellectual twisting in the wind by the Conservatives to avoid reality on the same-sex marriage debate.

Vic Toews, the party's justice critic, claims that religious rights are being diminished by the Charter (uh, which one: The right to discriminate against those your faith has left you bigoted against?).

Harper has told ethnic audiences that same-sex marriage violates the spirit of multiculturalism. His old parties, the Reform and Alliance, wanted to do away with official multiculturalism.

A wedge issue

There are also the ad campaigns being targeted at ethnic communities which portray the issue as one of values.

The Liberals have tried fighting back by portraying the issue as one of minority rights under the Charter -- something they also hope will resonate with ethnic voters.

Politically, this is all fortuitous for Harper. Prime Minister Paul Martin had this issue foisted upon him. He has used the courts for cover, adding the fourth question in late January 2004 to delay the Supreme Court reference so that it couldn't hear the case and then deliver a ruling during the spring election.

As late as 1999, Parliament voted 216-55 to endorse the traditional definition (for a timeline of events, click here), so obviously a lot of Liberals supported it.

With the B.C.and Ontario appeal court decisions, the government realized by 2003 its hand was forced and asked the Supreme Court for a constitutional reference on its proposed legislation.

Now that they have it, the government -- from what I can see -- is merely putting into law what seven senior courts have found about the traditional definition.

The person who's been the most intellectually honest about this to me is Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic, who wrote an open letter to Martin on Jan. 19 calling for use of the not-withstanding clause, if only to provide a cooling-off period.

The Globe and Mail made the following observation in an editorial about something else the Cardinal said: The cardinal fears that the message of the law will be that "homosexual activity and heterosexual activity are morally equivalent." If he means that society will move beyond tolerating homosexuals to accepting them, this is something to be applauded, not feared. If he means that children will be taught that homosexuals are not to be pelted or mocked as they walk by, that's all to the good. Sexual orientation isn't an option children pick up in school as they might an academic course. What the law would signal is that those whose sexual orientation is gay have less to fear and more of a chance to fit into the mainstream. What could be more mainstream than the institution of marriage?

In the course of doing research on this issue, I've come across that same point on conservative Christian websites: Their private fear -- although it's one they don't base their public case on -- seems to be that extending marriage to homosexuals normalizes them.

Draw your own conclusions from that fear.

I don't know how the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage will come down. I'm a journalist. I sit on the sidelines. It's not my job to cheerlead one way or the other.

But it seems to me this is a classic (to use the Americanism) Red State-Blue State issue, and that the Liberals could be morally and legally right but politically wrong in putting forward this legislation.

There are signs the Liberals could lose support over this amongst the more conservative members of Canada's ethnic communities (see Saturday's Globe story and the Toronto Star polling story -- my blog postings on those respective topics are here and here) as the Conservatives try to use this as a wedge issue.

Political historians in the U.S. say the Democratic Party lost the South after it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Presidentially, the Dems have only done well in the South when they've run a white Southerner (Carter, 76-80; Clinton, 92-00). Al Gore ran a horrible campaign and still captured more votes than Dubya, but that's another story. :)

Anyway, I've often speculated that the conservative portions of some ethnic communities could be fertile ground for the Conservatives, given that both are socially conservative.

It would be ironic for the Liberals if, in the name of minority rights, they lose enough support from minorities to dislodge them from power.