And So It Begins

Thanks for this. It puts into perfect perspective something I knew about John Kerry, but had trouble putting into words. To wit, re: his statements in one of the US presidential debates that he was a Catholic, but wouldn't try to force his beliefs on others (basically, that he wouldn't bother to let his beliefs stand in the way of effecting his political agenda), I loved this line:

"That winking tolerance of religion...is why the secular left sees no contradiction with public policy makers who claim to be devout followers of their faith, who also declare it is possible--even preferable--to 'set aside their own religious convictions' to enact legislation that is in flat contradiction to the teachings of their church."

Again, thanks.

Re: Religion.

Imagine Mr. Singh, he of the Pizza Scandal, walking from door to door handing out pizza menus with deep conviction, sincerity, piety, & etc. "Oh, here is Judy's house. Give her a free menu, son."

I agree with your premise that absolutes scare off the agendized-left, I would say their quibble would be with Bible-defined morality not God-defined. They tend to define God in their own image.

Kate, you really have a gift for putting profound thoughts down into writing. Excellent post with great analysis and perception. It's nice to see an atheist who understands religion re: "why the secular left sees no contradiction with public policy makers who claim to be devout followers of their faith, who also declare it is possible - even preferable - to "set aside their own religious convictions" to enact legislation that is in flat contradiction to the teachings of their church."
This is why I come back to SDA several times a day!

"I hold no particular religious beliefs. My support for preserving the traditional definition of marriage is rooted in basic anthropology and solidified by a suspicion that same-sex marriage has more to do with forwarding the agenda of the extreme left than it does with concern about minority rights. If minority rights were truly the issue at stake, there would be full-out legislative war between the Federal Government and province of Quebec over minority language rights."

Wow! And the rest too!

All I can say is "nail, meet hammer!"

Once again, your comments hit the heart
of the hypocrisy alive in the minds of the left.
Political opportunism works well when ones moral values can be changed from day to day.

If I remember correctly, lawyer babs findlay also represented the Little Sisters bookstore in their fight with Canada Customs to import lesbian pornography that was deemed "obscene" by customs agents. Again, from memory, I believe the bookstore won the case by arguing that obscene porn was a vital and integral part of the gay and lesbian lifestyle.
I was living out in the Vancouver area back then.

B.C. Human Rights Code, Section 8:
A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification, deny to any person or class of person any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public ... because of the... sexual orientation of that person.
The hall is customarily open to the public.
The hall was rented for a reception, not a wedding. Even if same-sex marriage was not legal in B.C. it would be a breach of the Human Rights Code to deny the couple the use of the hall. This issue has nothing to do with the federal proposed statute to allow same sex marriage. If you want to allow this type of discrimination, you need to pass a constitutional amendment stating that s.15 of the Charter does not apply to sexual orientation and no human right acts can have sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Not just a ban on same-sex marriage. Literally a law that the state is allowed to discriminate against homosexuals is the only way to prevent cases like this occuring.

IMHO, in renting that hall, Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith exhibited both huge gonadal fortitude and complete disregard for the Knights, as the Knights' religious affiliation isn't exactly a secret.

It's interesting how Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith apparently refused to respect that affiliation, yet demand the Knights to respect theirs ...

As for Findlay: first off, she's a lawyer -- strike one. The "no caps" matter adds two strikes: one for her first name and another for the last name. Batter out.

So much idiocy and so few bullets.

"you need to pass a constitutional amendment stating that s.15 of the Charter does not apply to sexual orientation"{

Except that Hansard makes clear Parliament specifically excluded sexual orientation from the enumerated grounds in the first place. And assuming this amendment occurred, Bob, are you seriously suggesting our sage appellate justices won't immediately read it right in again?

Again Kate, you show why SDA is a daily stop.

Bacardi, babs was not before the SCC in the Little Sisters case (IIRC). About babs, from her website:

"My name is spelled without capital letters ... I have always signed my name without capital letters ... I realized that I had a perfect illustration of how we react when someone moves even a tiny bit away from the norm, and even with respect to something that impacts no one else at all. So I have kept that spelling..."

Thanks Kate,
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Hi Bob Smith,

I don't know if its a straightforward as you see it. While I expect the complainants will make more or less the argument you've sketched out, I wonder if it really holds water.

The Knights say that they'd happily have rented the hall to the complainants for, say, a birthday party, and so they argue there's no discrimination against gays per se, just a legitimate refusal to associate themselves with an event that violates Church teaching.

Suppose the case involved Satanists holding a post-Black Mass coffee hour. Satanists have the same freedom of religion as anyone else, I guess, but would you really demand that Catholics make their facilities available to them? Well, no -- and not even if we replace "Satanist" and "Black Mass" with "Presbyterian" "Bible Study." To have any substantive meaning, freedom of religion must include a religious group's right to enforce its own religious teachings on its own property.

I see what you're saying Chris and I would expect the defence would be along those grounds (though I doubt that they would use that particular analogy).
IIRC the cermony itself was not being held on the Hall property. To use your example what if a bunch of Satanists had the black mass elsewhere and then rented the hall for an afterparty. Can you discriminate solely on the basis of what they did earlier.

Or to put it another way, I assmume the Knights do not restrict the Hall to only members or even co-religionists. They are operating a commercial enterprise which has to follow the same rules as other commercial enterprises. The fact that the business is run by people of a particular faith does not give them the right to deny services on one of the prohibited grounds.

And one further thought. All of you who believe that allowing SSM will eventually lead to this kind of case against a religion for failing to perform a SSM, consider this. Discrimination based on sex has been prohibited for over 20 years in Canada. And yet the Catholic church still does not have female priests.

Kate,

Thanks for picking this story up and offering another viewpoint; I've looked at it, as have a few of my regular reads, from a Catholic stand and have found it equally suspect. I appreciate that you are able to see that the issue of gay marriage and the promise of protection for religious groups is, as you say, a winking promise. I get sick to my stomach when I hear people say that gay marriage will not change things, that churches will be protected - how can we trust one word coming from the current goverment's mouth? I for one am not so stupid as to trust the govt with my religious freedom - I plan to fight for it and let them know about it.

Great post. Thank you!

PS: The whole no-capitalization of Findlay's name is just too fitting. I can't explain it.

I don't know if you've been following my posts about this topic (under the religion and politics categories on my blog), but I've been wrestling with these same issues over the past few months. You've sketched out some provocative points here, but I have to take issue with one of them:

"For the left, however, the question of religion is much more problematic, for it strikes at the heart of their own belief system. Freedom of religion acknowledges the possible existance of an authority higher than that of the state, and as far as the left is concerned, that's a notion dangerous to their own ideology."

The reality is that this issue strikes at belief systems on both sides, political ideology and religious belief systems alike. The sticky thing about belief systems and morality is that you can't get away from them. As soon as you step out of one, you're in another. Just as the far Left upholds the final authority of the state, the far Right upholds the final authority of God. People in the middle of these stances take varying positions depending on their own moral codes and allegiances. Some even believe in separation of church and state, although many who do that are quick to promote the idea that the state should retain authority over churches, belying the concept of "separation."

Also, acknowledging freedom of religion does not simultaneously acknowledge an authority higher than that of the state. On the contrary, acknowledging freedom of religion only recognizes that people have _a right to believe in_ a power higher than that of the state. That's one of the reasons why we can't, with any degree of fairness, say that the NDP party is communist, at least not at this point in time.

By the way, regarding John Kerry, the fundamental problem I see with his "I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone" is that, in actuality, he is. I think he'd willingly use tax-payer dollars to fund programs that a good percentage of the citizenry might be opposed to on a moral level, thereby supporting a particular moral stance. He's not imposing Catholicism, but he could be seen as imposing, perhaps, a form of secular humanism on the nation.

Therefore, his claim of moral neutrality could be described as an interesting form of prestidigitation: he won't impose Catholicism, but he might impose something else.

"Discrimination based on sex has been prohibited for over 20 years in Canada. And yet the Catholic church still does not have female priests.'

Oh, so the next step then is for the State to tell Roman Catholics what their religious doctrines and beliefs must be?

Question to Bob Smith: Are you a Roman Catholic?

Answer if you are not: Butt out.

Presumably, anyone wishing to become a Catholic priest accepts Church doctrine on the matter. So it stands to reason that a practising female Roman Catholic would not apply for the priesthood.

Unless of course, Bob, you are suggesting that anyone - even if they are a lesbian Wicca worshipper - MUST be admitted into the Roman Catholic priesthood whether the Church wants them or not...

Kate, a great posting.

In all your postings about same-sex marriage Kate, you've never really said what's wrong with it. I mean, you can talk about having feelings that are deeply based on "basic anthropology" and that it's rooted in "forwarding the agenda of the extreme left", but you haven't said how it will hurt you personally.

I will agree that it does forward the agenda of the left if that means treating gays and lesbians as equal in society. What I feel people who disagree with giving marriage to gays and lesbians are doing is forwarding the agenda of the right -- only giving basic rights to the majority and stamping on minorities.

What does what I do in my bedroom have to do with loving my partner? What does it have to do with being able to form a long-lasting committment which should be equal to anyone else's? I've been with my partner now for 10 years. That's impressive in anyone's estimation. I pay my taxes. I go to work. I don't drain off any social programs which I know you hate. So why can't I get married? Is it because I don't put part A in part B?

Tradition is never a good reason to be doing something. All traditions must be questioned for validity and to see if they meet current circumstances and demands. Otherwise you would still be without a vote (although you'd have your black servants to cook and clean for you). Times change, society changes and traditions must follow the times.

That time is now.

Hi Bob,

I'm not sure your about it being just the reception not the ceremony is so strong (though to tell the truth I can see the Commission drawing the line exactly there if they side with the complainants). A wedding reception is, after all, an endorsement of the associated wedding. One might ask if they could refuse to host a lecture series by a pro-same-sex-marriage advocate (or a talk by Henry Morgentaler, or a public rant by one of the "Pope = Antichrist" crowd).

Part of the issue may turn on whether the Knights are really a hall-rental outfit, or if the hall's primary purpose is lodge meetings, parochial activities, etc., with rentals a secondary activity.

Whether the couple mistook the Knights' hall for an ordinary (non-church-based) fraternity hall is an interesting question. Valpy accepts it as fact, but the Times Colonist (which covered the case a few days ago) printed some amusing comments from the defence lawyer. Didn't they notice the hall was on church property? Didn't they notice the priests in the office? Didn't they notice pictures of the Pope everywhere?

The whole thing may be setup, like that gay-prom-date controversy a couple of years ago. There's nothing wrong with that, really -- Rosa Parks was a setup -- that's how political activism works, but it's unpleasant to hear people lie about their genuine motivations.

The apparent aim of this strand of gay activism with regard to the RCs is to whittle down the scope the Church's religious freedom (which they see as nothing more than licenced bigotry). So the church building can remain a no-same-sex-wedding zone, but not the neighbouring hall. Presumably the wedding snaps can take place on the church's beautiful grounds (not that a church in the Vancouver suburbs is likely to have beautiful grounds).

JMM,

Even under the most pessimistic case I don't see churches (RC or other) being forced to perform gay weddings, accept female priests, etc. No, they'd simply have their right to perform legal marriages lifted and eventually their tax-exempt status abolished (they'd say, why subsidise bigotry?). The first of these seems pretty likely to me. I remember my French saying how shocked she was to find that in Canada the *priest* would sign the marriage licence, instead of the Church-City Hall division of labour they have in France. So this change could be defended as, ostensibly, a move reasonable alternative arrangement -- though the underlying motivation would be anti-religious, I think.

Pulling tax-exempt status is farther down the line, if it ever comes. One can imagine it being used selectively, just against "bad" churches like the Catholics and evangelicals, but in fact if it goes, it's likely to go for all the churches. From the point of view of a militant secularist, why would you subsidise people for believing in a giant ghost that controls the universe. Isn't there a mental health for people like that? At best, don't churches really amount to oddball social clubs? And since when do we give private clubs tax-exempt status?

The result would be to close a majority of Catholic and mainline Protestant churches, though not the hated evangelicals, pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. But they could live that.

Man, I sure leave out a lot words when I'm writing quickly. Think of it as intelligence test, which I'm sure you, Dear Reader, will pass brilliantly.

Todd wrote:

"I've been with my partner now for 10 years. That's impressive in anyone's estimation. I pay my taxes. I go to work. I don't drain off any social programs which I know you hate. So why can't I get married?"

Gee, Todd, you really don't give the impression of being the hapless victim of heinous discrimination such that our judges and parliamentarians should be moving heaven and earth to ameliorate. And given how prevalent "discrimination" is (and always will be) doesn't there have to be some sort of even minimal negative consequence of a particular form before we embark on a crusade to stamp it out.

So please enlighten us as to the gutwrenching social harm our civilization has endured these many centuries because gays can't get a marriage certificate from city hall. And I wouldn't go looking for examples in any of the weighty judgments of our insightful justices - they just take "judicial note" of it, the same way they take judicial note that the sky is blue.

tz,

It's true what you say about Kerry (and his ilk) imposing a "moral point of view"--I would say more precisely, "immoral point of view". But the problem is, of course, that so few *recognize* it as a moral point of view. They couch all their words in slimy ooze of secularist phraseology, and thus avoid all that "dirty religious business". What they would say, if they were honest, is "I claim to be a Catholic/Baptist/Satanist/Muslim/Whateverist, but I choose to ignore the moral/ethical structures and strictures of my alleged faith when dealing in any and all government and/or public matters, because I don't believe my faith's moral/ethical structures have any place whatsoever in the public square--even though the vast majority of people who hold to my alleged faith would beg to differ".

It's all about political expediency. And it's shameless--and shameful.

Certainly, I'll let you know what harm it causes. It makes gays and lesbians feel as though they are second class citizens. It contributes to society treating gays and lesbians as less worthy members of society. It doesn't allow gays and lesbians to formally 'tie the knot' that's engrained as desirable into every child by the media from childhood. That's the problem.

Unless you're gay or lesbian yourself, I'm not sure you can really imagine what it's like to be discriminated against simply for who you love. Imagine growing up in a small Saskatchewan rural town and having to hide that you're oriented another way. Imagine feeling as though you can't tell anyone about the way you are. Imagine finally having the guts to do it and having your parents stop talking to you or cutting you out of their lives completely. Imagine walking down the street and having "Fag" yelled at you or, worse yet, being beaten up for who you are.

Gay marriage is what society can do to civilly make people treat us the same as anyone else and help remove some of the stigma of being gay. If people can see gays and lesbians as being able to have long-term committed relationships, perhaps some of this will change. We don't want you to 'condone' us religiously but we demand that civilly you treat us as equal.

Todd, I have news for you. As a single, heterosexual woman, there are certain societal "discriminations" in my world as well.

I don't fit well into social situations that involved couples - so I don't get invited. My circle of friends is pretty much limited to other single women.

On occassion, other women will send pointed jibes your way, hinting that their lives are complete, and yours by definition, isn't. It doesn't matter if it's true, of course - but you know that other people think the same way. How does you think I _feel_.... ?

I do a lot of travelling alone. It is not easy to walk into a bar and order a drink, without someone wondering who you're picking up. There's no ring, you know....

Needless to say, there less respect from banking institutions, less respect from car salesmen, you name it...

And then of course, there's the matter of children. If you cannot convince someone to marry you the old fashioned way, your only choice remaining if you want to have children is to do so without the legitimacy conferred by marriage.

Perhaps the solution is for single, middle aged women to be allowed to qualify for "married status" in order to correct those societal injustices. Sure, it's not what the world "marriage" meant traditionally, but to have the right to display the symbolic trappings of marriage (rings, wedding pictures) the way that heterosexual and homosexual couples can - to allow your children the pride to answer "yes" when asked if their mother is married, cannot be underestimated.

We want to have the right to be "married", too, Todd, because of the way society looks at single people as "second class citizens". We didn't choose to be single, you know. Many of us have fought it all our lives. Why should we be discriminated against?

Equality. That's all we ask.

Kate, if you want to be married to yourself, odd as that may be to me, go ahead. It doesn't affect me in one single way so I can't imagine why it should matter to me whether or not you're married. Whether the other discriminations you talk about will be removed, well, I can't do anything about that by myself, but if calling yourself married helps, then I say you should be able to. After all -- it doesn't affect me, does it?

Todd wrote:

"It makes gays and lesbians feel as though they are second class citizens."

Statistics show gays and lesbians are better educated, are more likely to be professionals, earn higher incomes and generally enjoy more luxurious lifestyles than the average person. One of the factors that is supposed to convince us to embrace SSM is that Canada will be perceived of as a more "gay friendly" place, resulting in millions of new tourism dollars, since gays travel more often and spend more than the average person. If this is what it means to be a "second class citizen", where do I sign up for lesbian lessons?

"It contributes to society treating gays and lesbians as less worthy members of society."

If by "worth" you mean "ability to produce offspring so as to fend off the extinction of society", guilty as charged.

"if calling yourself married helps, then I say you should be able to. After all -- it doesn't affect me, does it?"

Then why stop at "marriage" - let's rid the world of all those hurtful gender-specific words! I've often thought it's high time to end the marginalization of childless men who want to be called "father" and childless women who want to be called "mother". As all progressives know, we're not slaves to our biology (unless we have the "gay gene") - why should society continue to be structured in any way along bloodlines? Given how generally crappy fathers and mothers are these days, surely welcoming the childless to their ranks will actually strengthen the institution.

Todd,

The does it affect me attitude is not prevalent in most areas of society. If a hermit who rarely leaves his or her home is murdered. This person has no relatives and no connection to the community. The evidence immediately leads to the killer. By your logic that person should not be convicted as what he or she did does not affect anyone else.

What are the effects of SSM? To you the effects of not being allowed to enter a married state is a discrimination. To those who do not wish to see SSM legalized, is that not a discrimination against their feelings if it is passed? Whose feelings are more important?

I think that the discrimination that you perceive is one of that ... perception. If I met you on the street, would I stare at you and utter the word "fag" as you mentioned? Not likely. Would any other person who had no knowledge of your lifestyle? Again not likely.

A person of color faces more discrimination every day than you or I could guess. They are easily identifiable. You or I would not use a racial slur, but there are many who would. Even of those who would not, many would make certain assumptions based on the person's skin color.

If you want to have a union with your significant other, I have no problem, but to me, a marriage is between a man and a woman.

I'd say Hobbes' hermit example is not a good example of the ramifications of Todd's statement. The murder did affect somebody: the hermit. I believe Todd's point, on the other hand, is that nobody but the two consenting adults involved would be affected by SSM.

A better argument would be to show that SSM would (negatively) affect people other than those involved. But this is an argument that I am not qualified (or knowledgeable enough) to make (if it is even possible).

Hobbes,

One day I was walking out of our local gay bar establishment. Since that identified me as being gay, a guy in a pickup truck chased me down the alley and nearly ran over me. He followed me around the city until I came to my senses and parked in front of the police department.

My parents reacted negatively when I came out to them. They came around but when I first told them about my partner, they got a look of disgust on their face. Did that happen to you when you took your girlfriend to meet the family?

And it's not a lifestyle. It's my life. I choose to be me. What it seems like you are advocating is for me to hide myself away from society and pretend that my partner and I are not together. No. If I want to walk hand-in-hand with my partner, I should be able to as much as you and your girlfriend/wife can. I will not pretend that I'm someone else just to save your feelings as much as I don't expect you to hide your relationship with her.

If marriage to you is between a man and a woman, I'd suggest you marry a woman instead of a man. For me marriage is between two people and I'll marry my partner and we'll both preserve our definitions, ok?

As for the hermit being murdered -- umm, you killed the hermit didn't you? It *did* affect someone else.

Having the legal definition of marriage expanded to include same sex couples will not change any of that, Todd, any more than lobbying the provincial government to alter the registration of your sports car to a classification of "farm vehicle" would turn it into a vehicle capable of towing a 4 horse trailer. People who view homosexual orientation as an abberation will continue to do so, regardless of what the government has to say about it.

Marriage is an institution more profound than legal definition. And I suspect, that even after the legal definition changes, homosexual couples will still feel their relationships "lack respect". In a sense, they'll be right - there is no ability of homosexual marriage to perpetuate itself. It's a dead end relationship, biologically speaking - the polar opposite of what marriage was initially intended to achieve.

For that reason, you'll never have the "whole meal deal". It's not the license that makes your relationship a marriage, Todd. It's the lack of essential ingredients in the relationship - and that's why I view the notion as absurd as suggesting that I should be able to declare myself married, so that I can "feel better" about myself.

Todd,

You are correct about the hermit being killed (this is only a hypothetical scenario, I have not killed anyone), in that it affects him directly, what my point is that the actions of the killer do not directly affect you, as you suggest your marriage to your partner would not affect me. But then the loss of the hermit would not either.

They say that in a championship boxing match to overcome the champion, the challenger must decidedly and definitely and unmitigatedly beat the champ.

(Incidentally, as Donny Lalonde was able to capture the light heavyweight championship without a left hand, I've always been curious about what he could have done if he had had one.)

My view is that for the desire on the part of some gays for society to change the definition of marriage that has been the standard for centuries, they must do a lot more than, "The challenger gave as good as he got." They must have an argument so compelling and so powerful, it sweeps counterarguments away in its wake.

This means my view is that it may not be impossible, but it is a staggeringly high mountain to climb. After all, we're not talking here about changing hair color.

Kate is indeed correct in saying that a government-sanctioned labelling of "marriage" upon homosexual couples will not change anyone's opinions regarding the validity of homosexuality in general. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if such actions caused more people to find homosexuality to be a bad thing. It is one thing to tolerate the odd behaviour of a neighbour, and entirely another to be expected to accept it as just as worthy as one's own.

This also raises something that I think is not understood by those who are not of a conservative mind. It is a distaste for the sheer hubris involved in arbitrarily renaming something so fundamental to society, simply to make a small number of people feel more happy for themselves. It is a rejection of the beliefs of our ancestors and a reckless disregard for the future of our descendents.

To summarize... I am agin' it.

Kate,

Having the legal definition of free men expanded to include blacks will not change any of that...

Having the legal definition of voters expanded to include women will not change any of that...

Times change. Society changes. And by allowing gays and lesbians to marry, it is an important mark towards that goal.

Kate, I heard you speak on the radio the other day about gays and lesbian friends (I think you used the word friends). How do they feel about you not wanting them to be allowed to be married? Or is this just a purposely avoided subject?

What a wonderful discussion. In regards to SSM, I believe marriage to be a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating families, the building blocks of our society. Certainly not everyone will agree with me, but I'm not going to change my mind because it's hurting someone's "feelings". My beliefs are based on my faith, my scriptures, and the teachings of my millenia old Church. That trumps the "feelings" of homosexuals, at least for me.

No one has the right to try to run another person over, but I do have the rights to my beliefs. And so do the KC. Their hall is not a public facility, but a private one. If they've refunded the money, paid for a new hall and even new invitations, what possible damages could there be? Pain and suffering? Welcome to the real world, where it's not all roses all the time, and sometimes it's even HARD! It sounds like a ridiculous argument, and one not worth the courts time.

Believe it or not, only one of my gay friends has even raised the issue. We agree to disagree.

To reiterate something I said on the radio - homosexuals have always been free to marry. I know too many who have children (from past or current marriages) to entertain that red herring.

There is no sexual orientation means test. The right has always existed and did so before the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, before women were granted the right to vote.

And equally, as a heterosexual, I too was prohibited from marrying a person of the same gender.

'There is no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, when it comes to marriage.

What we are talking about is not about allowing gays to "vote", but whether we are going to change the definition of voting. The better analogy would be to argue that because some people don't want to conform to established voting rules, that elections should be decided by merging the results from the ballot box with opinion polls conducted on the same day.

Todd seems fond of analogizing his plight to that of visible minorities - let's take him up on it. The SSM zealots are fond of comparing their plight to mixed-race couples during the anti-miscegenation era. Anti-miscegenation laws were pretty much the ultimate in social "disapproval" of mixed-race relationships.

We're now into the third generation since the repeal of those laws. Todd, why don't you head down to, say, Mississippi or Alabama and do a bit of a study as to how much more enlightened the citizenry down there is regarding mixed-race relationships since their repeal.

Does that mean the laws should have been left alone? Of course not, but the example illustrates the folly of thinking you can legislate morality. What motivates individuals to disapprove of mixed-race marriages is pure, unadulterated racism, yet no amount of legislative effort will ever extinguish it. Thinking that changing the meaning of a word is going to convince the legions of us who oppose the change for numerous substantive reasons to change our view is, frankly, imbecilic and belies a true agenda of social deconstruction.

I found it interesting Kate that one of your arguments was "It's a dead end relationship, biologically speaking - the polar opposite of what marriage was initially intended to achieve."

So, I assume, if you marry (or re-marry) in the future, and you've gone through menopause that you'll sign up for a civil union? Or perhaps people that can't, for whatever reason, have children will also say that they aren't allowed to have a marriage? We wouldn't want any of these 'dead end relationships' legitimized now, would we?

The biological basis for marriage is a red herring. People have gotten married throughout history and not had children. And if you haven't noticed, our population is now 6 billion and projected to grow to 9 billion by 2050. I don't think if 2%, 5% or even 10% of the population 'went gay' from being allowed a gay marriage, that the world would suddenly depopulate. So you may consider my relationship dead-ended, but civilly I'll always consider it equivalent.

No matter what is decided by parliament, people like me will keep poking with sticks until we get true equality.

This is not about, "give us this and we'll be happy". The extreme left position will not be happy until any opposing view on homosexuality is outlawed or severely repressed. Individuals who do not agree are on a collision course with this agenda. The true north strong and ....?
While we're on Canadian slogans, who's suppose to "keep our land glorious and free"?

This is not about, "give us this and we'll be happy". The extreme left position will not be happy until any opposing view on black people not being slaves is outlawed or severely repressed. Individuals who do not agree are on a collision course with this agenda. The true north strong and ....?
While we're on Canadian slogans, who's suppose to "keep our land glorious and free"?

Todd wrote:

"No matter what is decided by parliament, people like me will keep poking with sticks until we get true equality."

Then you and your arrogant ilk are dooming our society to endless and increasingly acrimonious culture wars, since your bizarre concept that "true equality" does not exist until the rest of us don't merely tolerate, but approve of your sexual proclivities is UNACHIEVABLE.

I suspect it's a safe assumption on my part you disapprove of my religious beliefs. You may "accept" them or "tolerate" them or "defend my right to have them" or acknowledge that the constitution protects them, but I highly doubt you will ever "approve" of them. It would be utter folly for me to try to sue you into approving of them - the harder I tried, the harder you would push back.

If I don't consider myself to be your equal in the absence of your approval of my religious beliefs, then my efforts to sue to achieve my own concept of equality are those of Sisyphus, except every time the stone rolls back, it crushes a few more people. I suspect that if you and your fellow "gay rights" zealots continue on your crusade, you will actually increase, not decrease the number of idiots who chase you down alleys.

Perhaps the way to end all of this psychological carnage is right under our noses - since language is, in your view, infinitely malleable, let's get the government to change the meaning of the word "approve"!

Hey Firewall,

If you haven't noticed, opinions towards gay people over the last few decades have changed completely. At one time we were to be put to death. At another we were to be treated as mental patients by psychiatrists. Today we have, for the most part, full rights enjoyed by all common law couples.

Opinions are changing, as much as you might not like it. No, you're right, I don't share your views on your religion. At the same time, I'm not going to go up to you in the street and try to be the *@#$ out of you because you belong to a certain religion. I don't think you need to look over your shoulder when you go into your church.

I never claimed that simply defining marriage to be between two people would completely resolve bigotry and hatred towards gay people. But it's a step. People won't be able to say, "Those disgusting fags. They just sleep around all the time and never have long lasting committments" when they see that there are gay people that are married and are in long-term relationships. And besides that, I simply want my right to join in a civil ceremony with my partner as much as you could with your fiance'. I want to be equal under the eyes of the law and it appears that courts across the land agree with me. So, I repeat, if your definition of marriage doesn't include same-sex coupling, I'd reccomend you marry a woman. My definition does and I will get married to my partner.

You ought to see an opthamologist about that myopia, Todd. No, gay "marriage" is NOT a "step" toward "completely resolv(ing) bigotry and hatred towards gay people" - it is the opposite. You cannot force, through court proceedings and politicians, other people to APPROVE something they may well accept/tolerate/understand to be constitutionally protected, but not necessarily approve of - you just MAKE PEOPLE MORE ENTRENCHED IN THEIR DISAPPROVAL.

Are you too dim to understand the difference between "tolerance" and "approval"? Are you so clueless as to interpret the fact a considerable segment of the Canadian population is, for whatever reason ("gay rights" fatigue, busy-ness with the rest of their lives, pre-occupation with the NHL lockout, fear of further browbeatings from the sacred bearers of Canadian virtue, the CBC and Globe and Mail) indifferent to SSM to be a sign that they approve it?

Do you fail to see the irony in your own examples? Have you ever asked a Sihk whether he is worried about people "try(ing) to be(at) the *@#$ out of (him) because he belongs to a certain religion"? Have you ever inquired of a Jew whether she "look(s) over her shoulder when (she) go(es) into (her) church"? Will you be recommending to both that they sue to entrench their particular religious viewpoints into the constitution because that will be a "step" toward resolving the bigotry and hatred they face?

And what about Kate's example of the disapproval she senses as a single woman. What fundamental restructuring of our society do you recommend to her as a "step" toward ending this disapproval? I'm getting the sense you actually AGREE with my suggestion, intended as farce, that we redefine all gender specific words. After all, surely that would be a "step" in the right direction.

It is a disturbing form of narcissim that thinks the only "disapprovals" faced by every race and creed worthy of attention are the ones suffered by my tribe.

Marriage is the term used to describe a formal coupling in law. It is, rather unfortunately, the same word used by religious institutions to describe a sanctified coupling that has met certain requirements described by their faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be the word "marriage" that strikes such a tender nerve. It carries such heavily religious/spiritual connotations which some people are incapable of separating from the secular, legal definition. They feel threatened by the possibility that this word will be applied to a relationship which does not measure up to the criteria of their beliefs.

To me, the word "marriage" has meaning only in the strictest legal sense. However, if the use of this word is such a lightning rod for people who interpret it differently, I would be willing to compromise. I would be perfectly happy if the government used the term "civil union" to describe the legal coupling between two persons, regardless of sexual orientation. "Marriage" would be reserved for religious organization to describe the blessing of the couple's union in their faith.

I do not believe in any organized religion; therefore I neither need nor want the validation of my relationship by any religious body. Just give me the same legal rights and responsibilities that an opposite-sex couple has, and we can all get along.

The courts have already spoken on this issue. Our country's laws our based upon a charter of rights enshrined in our constitution. They are the legal absolutes by which we are governed, public opinion notwithstanding. Whatever language is used in the end, legal equality must be realized.

I am not blind to the fact that some straight people will always be upset at this. Guided by the mistaken belief that sexual orientation is a choice, they view their relationships as being superior. They can think that all they like if it comforts them - just don't expect the state to enforce this exclusivity.

And in case anyone is interested, I am Todd's partner.

P.S. On a lighter note, what would you call a couple joined in a non-religious ceremony, if not "married"... united? Unified? Unionized?

Daryl,

That in fact is the issue. I accept that a state sanctioned union should be different than marriage. I personally equate marriage with a religious ceremony. Using a civil union, developing a term for that union, and using that term in all government documents is fine with me. The religious blessing conferred in a marriage ceremony could be recognized as that union by government as is currently the case.

At that point, you can be united, unionized, coupled, whatever it would be called, to your partner, as I would be to mine, but the term married would be reserved for the religious ceremony. If churches such as the United Church choose to marry gay people, that is their concern. Were I a member of that faith, I would be then in the position of contemplating where I fit in with that faith.

For that matter, the goverment considers unmarried people to have certain rights which are generally conferred to married persons. Common Law, which as I understand is a state of co-habitation for a period of time, allows the persons of that relationship to get the same tax breaks that married people qualify for.

The last thing that the changing of the term would allow is that the separation of church and state, which is the root of this issue, as I see it, would be further defined.

"Marriage is the term used to describe a formal coupling in law. It is, rather unfortunately, the same word used by religious institutions to describe a sanctified coupling that has met certain requirements described by their faith."

Daryl's makes an important point here. The issue is a little chicken-and-egg because we might argue that religion and civil law have, at times been truly separate and, at other times not separate at all. Nevertheless, in Canada religions lost the battle when the word "marriage" starting being used to describe civil unions.

Now, we can't paint with too broad a brush, here, in terms of describing marriage as a sacrament because not all faiths agree that marriage is a sacrament. Some Christian faiths, for example, see marriage as a point of civil law and not a sacrament at all. As I have written on my own blog, churches that see marriage as a sacrament should be opposed to any use of the word outside of sacramental vows.

In other words, for people who see marriage as a sacrament, ALL non-sacramental marriages would been seen as invalid, including those performed by other Christian churches, whether between same or opposite genders.

Those same churches, however, are also capable of admitting that the word "marriage" applies quite broadly in our society to non-sacramental marriages (whether performed by other churches or by the state) and that the state, in being able to "marry" people (which I'm not convinced it should be able to do anyway), must do so in accordance with its own laws.

Daryl, you seem to imply that marriage was a legal term first and that religions have co-opted it. This may explain why many of us seem to be arguing right past each other.

I would argue that marriage was a religious term first and that it was co-opted by government. At best, it was both religious and legal from the beginning.

Marc,

I didn't mean for that sentence to come across that way. You're right, the further back in history you go, the more religion and government were entwined - indistinguishable at some point. I see this debate over the meaning of the word "marriage" as just one of many after-effects of the gradual decoupling of religion and government.

How one reacts to the disapproval of others is up to the individual.

It doesn't matter if the disapproval is for being gay, being an unmarried woman or being 80 pounds over weight and enjoying a hot fudge Sunday.
It's not always easy but it's up to you to accept or reject the delivery.

Don't be surprised if getting the okee-dokee from Paul Martin to wed doesn't bring long term relief to your un-happy feelings.

Being comfortable in your own skin is up to you.

I'm totally comfortable with calling it a civil union as long as all people are united in civil unions and not just one group. To me it's all about equality.

And Hobbes, yes, I still do think making people under law equal makes them less likely to face discrimination. I am not blind, I understand what you say. But as generations come up and see that gay people can be married like anyone else and that they are just ordinary people who get married, I believe they will be more tolerated and accepted. I think the more you set people apart, and make them 'different', the more likely those who aren't the same will feel as though it's right to discriminate against them. It's not 100% foolproof and it's something accomplished over a long time, but it's a step. We agree to disagree on this point.