In reading a 'Letter to the Editor' in the December 16 Calgary Herald, it occurred to me that the discussion is going off without a common understanding of the terminology. As a result, there is a huge gap in the attempts to communicate between the 'pro' and 'anti' parts of this discussion.
This letter was particularly astonishing not only in the vitriol that it spewed forth, but also in the sheer misconceptions of the author about same-sex couples.
First and foremost, the author repeated an old saw about AIDS being essentially a gay disease; second, the author further perpetuated some decidedly questionable myths about gay sexuality (in particular promiscuity), but also about the 'purpose' of marriages. (Apparently, in this author's mind, marriage equals sex somehow - truthfully, successful marriages are not built around sex per se - those relationships that are tend not to last very long)
Anyhow, rather than spend my time debunking the mythology that seems to surround the behaviour of homosexual people (there seems to be rather a particular hang up over homosexual _male_ conduct floating around), I thought I might spend a bit of time at least trying to put forth the terminology of the debate as I understand it. So at least the readers of this space will have an understanding of what some of the terminology means to this writer.
1. Marriage
This is a two part discussion to me, and the two parts are discrete from each other. I divide it into secular and spiritual (or religious) components. The reason for this is quite simple. The government has long recognized marriages conducted outside of the sanctuary of religious institutions, and granted those marraiges the same recognition and privileges that a marriage conducted within a religious context enjoys.
1a) Secular Marriage
This is simply the legal relationship between two people. It allows them to enter into joint contracts as "one person"; it grants them a particular relationship with the government of the land, recognizing them as a 'family unit'; it grants both spouses legal rights to shared property; further it grants them (if needed) access to legal recourse through the courts should the relationship collapse.
1b) Spiritual Marriage
This is the ceremonial and religious aspect of marriage. It is the aspect of marriage that the churches and the married own in a most particularly personal way. It is the inner sense of the vows taken that hold the couple together. It also embodies the religious symbolism of the ceremony, and its consecration by a religious leader.
2. GLBT (or more confusingly, GLBTQQ)
This simply stands for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered. It's an umbrella term that brings four groups which share little else other than perhaps political cause with one another. (I don't want to get into the politics between these groups here - suffice it to say that beyond a degree of political common cause, they really are distinct and share relatively little with one another)
3. Same-Sex Marriage (or Gay Marriage)
This is the topic of debate. In my context, it is a legal debate, and therefore only covers Secular Marriage (1a above). The government has been very clear that it will not try to force religious organizations to marry a same-sex couple.
4. Freedom of Religion
As expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
- a) freedom of conscience and religion;
5. Freedom of Speech:
Again, taking the phrases from the Charter, is probably the clearest possible definition I can use. It is broad, and wide ranging. Please remember that various other statutes in Canada will temper the bounds of any freedom.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:6. Equality
- b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
This is at the crux of the whole discussion. The essential claim of the proponents of same-sex marriage is that without legal recognition of same-sex marriage, the equality guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being breached.
Again, the language of the Charter is fairly clear and easily understood even by a non-lawyer such as myself:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.Readers should note a few key points of the phrasing of this section:
a) The phrase 'equal protection and equal benefit' is very important in this conversation. To date, the courts have treated the word 'equal' as an absolute. Going so far as to state in a couple of cases, that 'separate but equal' is clearly _not_ 'equal' in their view.
b) The phrase 'without discrimination and, in particular,...' is also very important. The list following 'in particular' stipulates a number of absolute prohibitions regarding discrimination. It is also very important to recognize that the 'in particular' clause preceding the list implies that the following list is not deemed to be complete, and therefore, this clause should be interpreted inclusively, not exclusively by the courts. (The courts have heard this quite clearly.)
The legal discussion is best grounded in the various documents currently residing on the Canadian Department of Justice's web page on 'Civil Marriage and Legal Recognition of Same Sex Unions' (yes, I know its a mouthful - but what do you expect, lawyers and bureaucrats came up with it!) This page has links to the key documents on this subject - it's very enlightening reading - if you are willing to chew through the legalese.
2 comments:
The problem with using the Charter as an argument for anything is that the people who are usually against that something are also the same people who don't like the Charter to begin with. It started with Trudeau and gives those pesky judges a reason dont-ya-know. More than enough reason to get rid of it.
Us white, straight, Christian, males don't need no stinking Charter so the rest of you don't neither. belch grunt.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/quixote317/
Perhaps the fallacy lies in the mistaken theory that Marriage somehow 'legalizes' sex. "Them nasty white homo-sexuals are gonna go spreading more Aids if they are married than if we, as a society, do not condone their expression of sexuality in a physical form".
This is such a naieve viewpoint, as the sexual activities will take place regardless - married or not; yet, these "idealists" who lay claim to this fallacy would also believe in monogamy in marriage. How could THIS not be a good thing reducing the spread of STDs (which, don'tcha know are something that is limited to the Homosexual population...).
Perhaps our vitrol-spewing friend needs to further define the terms of marraige and sexuality, and take a few classes in remedial sexual education before he can be trusted with pen in hand - further perpetrating myth and misconception on the general population.
Post a Comment