The Flimsy Case Against Gay Marriage
By Michael Paré, Toronto ON
A specter is haunting
conservatives: gay marriage. A Canadian Parliamentary committee holding hearings
on sanctioning homosexual unions, and that prospect has induced something
approaching apoplexy on the right. Some opponents regard this as one of the
defining political issues of the day. Most on the committee want provinces
to refuse to recognize such marriages--a departure from the custom that a
marriage transacted in one province is accepted by all.
But why is there
such resistance? This is not a zero-sum game. If homosexuals win the right
to wed, the victory doesn't come at the expense of heterosexuals, who will
retain all the pleasures, prerogatives and duties that come with matrimony.
Much of the opposition
stems from religious objections. Rev. Ken Campbell insists "It
is patently illegal and I would never have given it that much attention except
for the concern that by default they were suggesting legitimacy," says the
leader of the Civilized Majority group.
It may come as a
revelation to Campbell that Canadian law and the 10 Commandments are two
different things. We call ourselves a free society partly because we permit
all sorts of things that "go against the Holy Scriptures"--blasphemy, fornication,
making graven images, Sabbath-breaking, coveting your neighbor's maidservant
and more.
The supposed moral offense that upsets conservatives is sexual relations between gays--which is already permitted nearly everywhere. If Canadians can tolerate gay sex, why not gay marriage?
The supposed moral offense that upsets conservatives is sexual relations between gays--which is already permitted nearly everywhere. If Canadians can tolerate gay sex, why not gay marriage?
Conservatives, of course, do not willingly tolerate gay sex. But some of
their thinkers have tried to come up with reasons to oppose gay marriage
that are somewhat more persuasive than invoking Leviticus. The effort only
demonstrates the emptiness of their cause. What they are engaged in is not
reasoning but rationalization.
The primary objection
from the Canada Family Action Coalition who are asking this Committee to
recommend to Parliament that it once again affirm the current definition
of marriage and use every means necessary to defend this definition, including
the Constitutional use of the Charter's Section 33 Notwithstanding law.
But not everyone who gets married has children, and not everyone who has children gets married. We allow unions between people who don't want children and people who can't have children.
Marriage, conservatives argue, provides a vital framework for raising children. But gay couples also raise children--either children one of them has produced or children they have adopted. There is no law to stop a lesbian mother from bringing up her own son in a household that includes her female partner.
But not everyone who gets married has children, and not everyone who has children gets married. We allow unions between people who don't want children and people who can't have children.
Marriage, conservatives argue, provides a vital framework for raising children. But gay couples also raise children--either children one of them has produced or children they have adopted. There is no law to stop a lesbian mother from bringing up her own son in a household that includes her female partner.
The Inter-Faith Coalition
ably argued how same-sex marriage would contradict the views of the major
world religions (most marriages in Canada are conducted in a religious ceremony).But
allowing gay marriage would advance the same interest by discouraging promiscuity
and encouraging commitment--the opposite of what current policy does. If
it's good for society when straight couples settle down in permanent, legally
sanctioned relationships, why is it bad when gay couples do likewise?
REAL Women of Canada
chooses to affirm, encourage and support, wherever possible, ways of maintaining
permanency and commitment in marriage. Our view is that the family, which
is now undergoing serious strain, is the most important unit in Canadian
society. We believe that the fragmentation of the Canadian family is on of
the major causes of disorder in society today. Here we have passed into outright hallucination.
Why do some think
legalizing gay marriage would lead to man-boy unions, any more than
allowing heterosexual marriage leads to man-girl unions? Children may not
marry for a simple reason that is irrelevant to gay marriage: They can't
give true consent.
As for incestuous
pairings, they would doubtless remain illegal because they undermine a taboo
that is crucial to the protection of children and because they carry health
risks for potential offspring.
Polygamy? If two women are happy to marry the same man and live together
in a family, subject to the same strictures as two-partner marriages, there
is no obvious reason to stop them. But such arrangements would be rare. There
are lots of unmarried gay couples in Canada but very few unmarried men cohabiting
with several women.
Comments
Post a Comment