And a bit at home...

This week, the Liberal government in Ottawa put forward it's legislation on same-gender marriage in the House of Commons. Of course, this puts into motion the formal debate over this matter, and to be sure the Conservatives have put forward an amendment that would completely subvert the bill. While I had my suspicions before, this little gem just further convinces me that literacy - in the Conservative definition - does not include comprehension of the words they have read.

The surprise development today was the Hutterites weighing into the debate with a letter to Paul Martin that worries that Canada will suffer the same fate as the biblical Sodom and Gommorrah. (Which led me to this site - which is one of the more unique presentations of the Bible) On CBC, there was a series of interviews in one of the Hutterite colonies, with the expected horror/revulsion etc. referred to. Of course, when you have a social group that isolates itself from the knowledge and learning of the greater world around it, some ideas remain sadly stuck in the past. One of the people interviewed said something to the effect that "these people are sick, they need counselling".

If I thought it would do any good, I'd recommend anyone expressing such an opinion to go read this. It might just remove a few sadly held illusions that some people seem to hold.

The other common argument - and it's at least not based on scripture - is that marriage between a man and a woman must be given preferential legal treatment because both a man and a woman are required to procreate. Something of a logical truism, but it makes me wonder - what about the following cases:

- Single parent families
- Adoptive parents
- Infertility
- Same-gender couples raising children from past relationships
- Artificial fertility techniques (Artificial insemination, surrogate parents)

Do these situations all not form non-traditional families (but families nontheless)? Would the conservative elements in our country start demanding that couples prove their fertility within a certain period of time after marriage? Would they deny divorce for all but the most egregious of conditions?

If the single mom (or dad) down the street from me doesn't cause the world to end, how is a same-gender couple going to end the world? Nobody is asking for religions to like the notion - just as nobody has asked the churches to condone homosexuality. There is pressure on the churches to do so - not because of decriminalization in the late 1960s, but instead because people are starting to realize that the world hasn't stopped or ended because of that.

To argue that a referendum should be held on the issue of Same-Gender marriage is to submit a very visible minority to the tyranny of a majority that ill-understands them as a whole. To legislate based on the obvious outcome of such a referendum would be no more than a government's abdication of its duties to treat all citizens equally. Sometimes, the legislative process obligates our politicians to create legislation that is unpleasant. (I'm sure that no politician likes to write the legislation that introduces universal taxation...but it's still necessary)