Martin Being a Weasel, Addendum

So, Paul Martin tells us that his stance on the definition of marriage (which is what, by the way?) is "an issue of rights". Fair enough. However, unlike Layton and Harper, he has failed to clearly articulate where he actually stands on the issue. Furthermore, he seems to be taking the upcoming reference for granted. While appellate courts in BC, Ontario and Quebec have all struck down the traditional definition of marriage, that's by no means a guarantee that the SCC will necessarily come to the same conclusion (or for the same reasons). If provincial courts of appeal were always the last word on these matters, no wouldn't always mean no, homosexuality wouldn't be considered an analogous ground of discrimination in Alberta Human Rights Legislation, and battered women's syndrome would not be recognised as a defence . The whole purpose of having a Supreme Court is that it offers the final answer. When that court has yet to render that answer (in part due to Martin's amending the question) then it is a bit presumptuous to assume what it is going to be in advance, regardless what some of the Appellate Courts have said at the provincial level (yet another reason why perhaps a better solution would have been for the government to appeal one of the original judgments, instead of declining to appeal and then launching a reference case). Furthermore, Martin doesn't really explain what he'll do if it comes back that both a change to the definition and the traditional definition pass constitutional muster. We know what Layton will do, he would change the definition. We also know what Harper would do: well, he'd actually withdraw the reference and have a free vote on it, but apparently he'd personally vote for the traditional definition. Martin's actual stance still remains unclear, however. And this all gets more interesting when we find out shortly who exactly is going to be appointing those two Ontario vacancies that are still outstanding...