Before it becomes illegal for me to do so, I'm going to put out there a few reasons why I believe this bill is wrong, even if the amendments are adopted in order to give stronger protections to religions.
By using Section 15 of the Charter, and insisting marriage a 'human rights' issue, the government has not only opened the door for the definition to altered again and again as various groups argue their rights are being violated by exclusion, it has also opened the door for human rights complaints against individuals who continue to believe that marriage is the union of one man, one woman.
I don't believe marriage can be considered 'a human right' as Paul Martin and Jack Layton say. Some rights are subject to restrictions. These are rights bestowed by the state -- driving or voting for example. Other rights are natural rights, rights that exist as part of being human. The right to life and security of person fall into this catagory.
Marriage is a right bestowed by the state, and therefore it is subject to the restrictions of said state --- this makes it a right, but not a 'human rights' issue. The government has gone from saying: marriage is a right given to people who meet a certain criteria, to: marriage is a human right which cannot be withheld from anyone based on the Charter equality provision.
Those who don't believe this will eventually lead to such things as adult/child marriage, have not been paying attention to the evolution of sexual rights issues in western cultures.
The definition of marriage as we have known it, is discriminitory. . . and that's a good thing. Society teaches us that it is wrong to discriminate, but discrimination is a necessity. It allows us to pick and choose what is right for us as individuals and as a society based on certain criteria. Some discrimination is wrong. Discrimination based on race is wrong because there is nothing in any race of people which renders them so different from another race that a right should be denied them. Discrimination based on age is sometimes wrong. As a society, we have determined a fairly standard age at which the rights and responsibilities of adulthood are passed along to children because we conclude prior to that age a person hasn't sufficient maturity to make certain choices, or face certain responsibilities. The age varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but all societys use age as a basis on which to discriminate. We choose to discriminate against some people, for various reasons -- the protection of the individual or the protection of society.
One might argue that the love of a same-sex couple is as important, as strong, as meaningful, as the love of any opposite-sex couple -- and I've no doubt they would be correct. And that would matter if the definition of marriage, the true meaning and intention of marriage was to legally recognise the relationships of people who love each other.
There are all kinds of love relationships that are not given the special status of 'marriage'. That is because no matter the committment we make to another person, if we do not fit the criteria -- marriage is not an option. To suggest that marriage yield its definition in order to be inclusive, is like suggesting that motherhood should be redefined to remove the gender requirement. It just doesn't make sense.
In the case of marriage, same-sex couples were never excluded -- they were simply not included because they do not fit the criteria.
canadianna
8 comments:
A very thoughtful & well reasoned argument. Too bad we do not get arguments of a similar calibre from the other side of this issue.
Hear here.
Oh oh oh! I know! The true meaning of marriage (in the traditional sense) is to have children and propagate the species. So feel free to pepper me with your rhetorical "should barren people get married argument" when some actually get married to have children and find out that they cannot later (the potential of having children).
Love how QP minimizes the impact of creating families and perpetuating the human race. This is why SSM can never be marriage. For an SSM couple to procreate, they must perform an act of infidelity.
rhetoric - "slippery slope" is not a fallacy. Take a look at the slippery slope of our criminal justice system. Someone killing an innocent bystander through street racing gets "2 yrs less a day" of HOUSE ARREST? For vehicular homicide? Probably (I haven't looked it up) because it was a teenager and they didn't want to send him to jail for bad judgement.
The "slippery slope" argument also works on how this act will damage religious freedoms in Canada. SSM advocates are already calling for churches that speak out against SSM to lose their charitable status. What's next, other than throwing the priest in jail?
As for whether or not a marriage is recognized by the state if performed in a church, there are countries (France comes to mind) where it doesn't. People who want a church marriage first have a civil service performed by a JP.
Quebec does not have SSM, they have created a "civil union" for SSM and have not placed their churches in any jeopardy. Why can't SSM advocates live with that? It seems to work for them in Quebec, why not the ROC? Why does SSM have to be "blessed" in a church? By a priest that might not agree? Why does the wedding party have to take place in a hall built and owned by a religious organization? What's wrong with community halls or hotels?
If a same-sex couple wants a service to recognize their commitment to one another, go ahead. But don't force my church or my priest to perform the service if either my religion or priest does not agree.
You want tolerance? How about returning the favor? Or is it only a one-way street?
The phrase "without discrimination" in Section 15(1) of the Charter refers back to "every individual", not to "the law". The law can, should, and does morally discriminate.
Every individual (without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability) is equal before and under the law (which can morally discriminate) and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law (which can morally discriminate).
The Lawful Definition of Marriage in Canada
http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/marriage.htm
Excellent post, Canadi-anna!
"And that would matter if the definition of marriage, the true meaning and intention of marriage was to legally recognise the relationships of people who love each other."
Your statement, above, inspired me to tackle that particular part of the SSM argument in this post.
An excellent post. You understand this issue very clearly. I only wish our elder statesmen did also.
All the best.
Post a Comment