Notwithstanding is limited by a sunset. All it does is defer the question, essentially. He actually prefer gay marriage, he'd have to change the Constitution.
Well, for one, it takes more than a simple HoC majority to change the Constitution. And any process to make such a change would likely be stuck in courts before and after a referendum. He'd have to take it to 'the people' lest he lose his populist credentials. Not like the original vote -- the unfree one, that is -- would have made a difference either way: it was a chance to air grievances against your own part and nothing else.
What I meant to say is that he does not need to actually overturn the law. I think Harper wants to use a new Commons vote, and even a rebtuall from the SCC, as a populist tool to whip Conservative fervour. I'm not sure it would be successful in that regard, and it might do more to bring out the liberal/NDP vote than the Conservative vote... I guess if I was to make a parallel, quite topical actually, I would use the gay marriage referenda in southern U.S. states that were used to bring out the conservative, church-going vote.
Gee, I hadn't even thought about that parallel before writing it down.
Anyway, I don't think Harper cares about SSM one way or another, except as a very potent electoral tool. He's smart enough to know that from a legal perspective, he's in the wrong, but we've already seen plenty of intellectual dishonesty from him so far to know that legality doesn't constrain his electoral rhetoric.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 05:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 05:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-06 06:07 pm (UTC)Gee, I hadn't even thought about that parallel before writing it down.
Anyway, I don't think Harper cares about SSM one way or another, except as a very potent electoral tool. He's smart enough to know that from a legal perspective, he's in the wrong, but we've already seen plenty of intellectual dishonesty from him so far to know that legality doesn't constrain his electoral rhetoric.