Back in February I wrote the following on the topic of same-sex marriage;
I have not found an argument to support the extension of legal marriage to include same-sex couples that I could not use in equal measure to demand the right to marry my sister.
Being of the same gender, society’s interest in the health of potential offspring is nullified – though it can also be argued that removing the ability to procreate as a defining property of marriage opens the door pretty wide. I don’t know how you can arbitrarily set aside something as fundamental as procreation to broaden the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships, but stick it back in to narrow that same definition to exclude incestuous ones.
If it is discriminatory to deny persons the right to legally marry on the basis of same-sex orientation (be it choice or chance), is it not equally discriminatory to deny persons the right to marry on the basis of sexual ambivilance? Being homosexual or heterosexual is not a product of having sex with a person of the same or opposite gender, or having sex at all! Celibacy, whether voluntary or involuntary, does not affect orientation.
[…]
This is not a frivolous suggestion. It’s not uncommon for siblings to live their entire adult lives together, to share incomes, property, to support, comfort, care for, love and commit to each other. Why should such a couple be denied the societal benefits afforded to other such couples – pension benefits, spousal deductions. That they may or may not be having sex is no one’s business but their own.
Today, Colby Cosh points out that Alberta is proposing new legislation that accomplishes just that.
Alberta: enemy of “traditional marriage”? In today’s National Post I assess an odd claim made earlier this week by Premier Ralph Klein that Canada’s stubborn right-wing province has “probably the most advanced and forward-thinking legislation in the country as it affects gays and lesbians”. Hey, even I can only be so contrarian–the statement is a clear exaggeration if you take “advanced and forward-thinking” in its typical formal meaning (“liberals like it”). But there’s a little-known fact here, squatting in the background of the national gay-marriage debate: Alberta’s mysteriously obscure new law creating civil- union-type arrangements is, in one important respect, more radical than proposed federal law–it extends access to “spousal” benefits to non-conjugal life partners, including unmarried relatives living together. Same-sex activists actually dislike this because it’s too inclusive–its effect is to lump them in with single people in platonic cohabitation. In that sense, they’re serving as defenders of “traditional marriage”, amended so as to cover them, against the country’s broadest regime of practical access to spousal privileges. You can find the details on page A21 of today’s paper.
Good on Ralphie. Serve up the “inclusiveness” they’ve been clamouring for and then stand back and watch the demands for exclusivity roll out.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the left.