Yeah, to his opponents it's grandstanding overreach. To me it seems like a codifying into law a statement about where society already is - much like marijuana laws, society was already there, but now it's acknowledging that, though in this instance it's banning and that was allowing. I'm not saying everything he's doing matches that, but in this instance, it would seem to be the case.

Getting political, but this is classic Liberal Party. It's smart politics. It allows the party to claim the mantle of progressiveness even though it wasn't really them that did any of the work.

See also: Gay Marriage legalization. The Liberals passed a bill legalizing it, but only after the courts of two provinces were set to make it legal anyway.

Gay Marriage was legalized nationally, not limited to 2 provinces, so it was actually significant and they did support it and pushed through the legislation.

Same with this bill. To downplay it because companies have already been adjusting to this expected reality quite petty, and they deserve full credit for the legislation of it.

It is not believable that rules restricting gay marriage would be struck down in some provinces but not others in Canada. Legalization was obviously inevitable.

A few years prior the Liberal government of the day was opposed to gay marriage and voted to confirm the status quo definition of marriage.

The Liberals of course deserve credit for seeing the obvious and not attempting any action to block gay marriage further, but they did not lift a finger to support gay marriage until the courts weighed in and forced the issue upon them.

>It is not believable that rules restricting gay marriage would be struck down in some provinces but not others in Canada. Legalization was obviously inevitable.

Long term the supreme court of Canada would have struck down provincial bans on gay marriage, but not all of the provincial courts would have. Inevitable could take 10 years, or 50.

Doing it nationally and at once reduced years of suffering and human rights issues, and thus was significant.

>The Liberals of course deserve credit for seeing the obvious and not attempting any action to block gay marriage further, but they did not lift a finger to support gay marriage until the courts weighed in and forced the issue upon them.

That's simply not true.

Even at that point the Conservatives voted against - they aren't great in a vacuum, but once you compare the two leading parties there's clearly a difference, one side going with social evolution as opposed to voting against. The Conservative's declared it a free vote as well, so it's not just the opposition filling its role as the opposition.