Return of the Gay Marriage Debate

Like a really bad movie that doesn't even quite make it on to the "B-grade" list, the Gay Marriage discussion is about to take over the headlines again.

The Globe and Mail, and the National Post both have very similar articles this morning, and there was mention of it on CBC's newscast at 06:00.

Basically, the "reference question" put before the Supreme Court last year sometime is up for consideration when the court sits this fall.

However, yet again, we will get to listen to the bleating of the various religious groups getting all up in arms because they don't want to acknowledge marriage between two men or two women.

So far, the arguments I have seen against gay marriage come down to a relatively small set:

1) Passage XXXX in the Bible (or the Q'ran or whatever) forbids homosexuality. Therefore, my religion doesn't allow me to accept a marriage between two homosexuals.

My point on this is as follows:

a. The passages you are referring to typically seem to refer to the sex act between two men. Ask yourself if your marriage is entirely based on sex - I doubt it is. Most marriages are built on a loving relationship.

b. Last I checked, the discussion at the level of the Federal Government is about the relationship between the state and a married couple. It makes absolutely NO demand whatsoever that a given religion acknowledge any marriage.

c. In the country, we guarantee freedom of religion. That same freedom that guarantees you the right to practice your faith also guarantees me a freedom _from_ religion. Not all of us are people of faith, and many are married outside of any recognizable church for a variety of reasons. Would you assert that those "civil marriages" are no longer marriages because they didn't follow some article of faith that you do?

2) Marriage is a fundamental structure of society, and shouldn't be tampered with.

Er - I hate to point this out, but society changes - as does the meaning of marriage.

In the last 100 years, we can trace an enormous amount of change in the definition applied to marriage. Prior to the WWII era, marriage often meant that women gave up their rights as individuals and lived under the whim of their husbands. Since that time, huge changes in "civil rights" have dramatically changed that structure. The husband is no longer the assumed head of the household; women often have careers of their own. At the turn of the 20th century in this country, women did not have the right to vote. Those that opposed it then claimed all sorts of "harm" would come to society - after all they saw women as "weaker" than men...I don't think anyone would raise such an argument today.

3) Marriage is about raising a family

Really? What about couples that cannot have children. Are their marriages now invalid? Are they any less a loving couple because of infertility - or choice? Not everyone can, or should be a parent. I will agree that _many_ married couples have children - but not all.

4) This is contributing to the breakdown in society's values

Frankly, this latter argument is a straw man. I could just as easily point to the tripe on television as a contributor to a breakdown in values. (and I'd probably be at least as correct)
5) The preamble to the constitution of Canada reads "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

Ah yes, the preamble. But since section 2 (fundamental freedoms) stipulates "(a) freedom of conscience and religion", I would have to ask you "whose God"? Is it the Christian 'God' as described in the new Testament; the God of the Old Testament; Allah? What about our Hindu and Sikh citizens? And just to add further mud to the waters - what of practitioners of Wicca; or those who do not acknowledge any one God?

Before you go off using that preamble to justify your position, ask yourself how clear that statement really is - especially in light of the fundamental freedoms section.

The simple fact is that at the moment, marriage exists in both a spiritual and civil sense. The Churches own the spiritual definition. If I choose to be married in a church, then I submit myself to the articles of faith that church imposes upon the notion of marriage.

The civil discussion describes two things - the legal definition of marriage as it pertains to the relationship between two people, and the relationship between that couple and the state. There are many places in our laws where particular status is conferred upon a married couple that is not conferred upon a single person. These are the domains in which the Federal Government is forced to act today.

In absolute terms, the Constitution puts the federal government between a rock and a hard place. Either the government rewrites a pile of legislation so that it doesn't confer special privileges to a married couple *or* it acknowledges the possibility of a homosexual union and treats it as legally identical to a heterosexual union. (The equality clauses in the charter are pretty absolute, and I don't believe that invoking the 'notwithstanding' clause is an appropriate tactic - this is not a "dire threat" - it is an issue to be worked through).

Let's get one thing right - this discussion is about the legal, secular notion of marriage. It is not about the religious notion of it.