Liberals Table Same Sex Marriage Bill
February 1, 2005 · By H. Cameron
The Liberals have finally tabled their controversial bill to legalize same-sex marriages in Canada. While I haven’t read the bill yet, apparently there is a section of the bill that prevents same-sex couples who are closely related from marrying.
Which I find kind of silly.
What’s the point of criminalizing incest when it comes to gay marriage? If the state isn’t here to legislate morality, as many who champion gay marriage often say, then what is it going to hurt if we allow close consenting adults, who just happen to be relatives to jump into the sack and then officially tie the knot? In the case of heterosexual marriage and relationships, the root of the incest laws - if one is to ignore the immortal nature of such acts - are there to protect the health of the child that may be the result of the unnatural union.
The last time I checked, homosexuals are unable to procreate.
To compare the moral repugnance of incest to the union of a gay couple is far-reaching, if not ridiculous. The inherent difficulties of incest are not even comparable to the issue of gay unions, but I do see the point the right wing is trying to make because it is trying to do the same with polygamy. However it is a weak argument indeed, if the slippery slope is the only argument the right can muster against same sex unions. Just because gay marriage is legalized doesn’t mean society will morph into a polygamist, incestual freak show. To assume as much is naïve. Being gay is about as immoral as pre-marital sex or masturbation in today’s world. Hell, pornography is by far more destructive and even that has been received as acceptable.
It is also ignorant to assume that pro-gay marriage means lacking all moral conscience. The issue isn’t an all or nothing equation but like anything in real life, full of gray areas. Because I support gay marriage does not mean I am immoral and would support a complete deterioration of the moral fabric of society.
I didn’t know Bev Desjarlais, Pat O’Brien, Serge Cardin, Roger Gaudet and Tom Wappel were “right wing”?
I used to think the “slippery slope” argument on same-sex marriage is merely propaganda. But I’ve changed my mind because the category of same-sex marriage is a mirage and unsustainable, so what looks like the “slippery slope” argument is simply watching something unravel under the light of logic. I have to ask why the federal government included the prohibition against incestuous marriage in the first place unless they know that the logic of same-sex marriage leads to the requirement of having to legitimate other forms. If incest is bad because it produces genetic mutations, but if marriage is no longer defined primarily in terms of procreation, then I see no reason why, say, 2 brothers should not be allowed to marry. What business is it of the state what they do in their bedroom. Why is it important that they be of different families, from the state’s perspective? Just as these relations might be viewed as repugnant today, doesn’t mean that they won’t be viewed that way in the future.
Another way of considering “slippery slopes” is to consider the various unintended consequences that the law produces. Despite Irwin Cotler’s statements to the contrary, provincial marriage commissioners are being threatened with getting fired for not performing marrigage ceremonies. How could they not? This legislation is federal while solemnization of marriage is up to the provinces.
Even so, the feds and the BC government seem very worried about at least one other unintended consequence.
A couple of weeks ago Status of Women Canada sent out a call to university researchers, offering grant money to study polygamy and its harmful effects on women. The statement was a veiled call for social science data that will be used for possible future court cases, as a way of assisting the government to prove that polygamy is harmful to women.
However, in February 3rd’s National Post, we find a story that the BC Attorney-General has confidential legal opinions claiming federal anti-polygamy laws might not be able to withstand a Charter challenge. The article goes on to say that these documents have played a role in the refusal by the province and police not to lay charages against polygamists in Bountiful, BC, for fear that could spark a Charter challenge and that the polygamists could win. The article is on p. A8 of today’s paper, though I don’t think it made into their online edition.
Frankly, I’m a little skeptical that the SC would strike down the antipolygamy law on the grounds of religious freedom. Its “jurisprudence” (I use the term lightly) on religious freedoms cases has tended to preserve the “group rights” of established religious groups while narrowing the grounds on which they can discriminate against Charter minorities within those groups. For instance, Trinity Western University was allowed to keep its code of sexual ethics, not on principle, but because no discrimination was found. However, the SC never defined what constitutes discrimination. It would have been interesting to see how they would have dealt with the case of a sincere but politically incorrect attempt by someone at TWU to counsel someone to avoid homosexual activity.
The other case is an Ontario provincial decision where the Roman Catholic school board was required to permit a male student to take his boyfriend to the prom, on the dubious grounds that proms are inessential to Catholic identity while essential to a high school student’s sexual identity. Even so, I’d be surprised if the courts forced the RC Church to ordain female priests.
The trend of these cases (and others) is to narrow the ability of religious groups to define their doctrines and practices. Religious groups may preserve their beliefs, but the sphere in which they may act upon them is shrinking. Moreover, these two cases also involve 2 mainline churches. Minority religious groups - JWs come to mind - haven’t been so successful, and I highly doubt the LDS polygamists in Bountiful, BC, would find a sympathetic judge. I also doubt Clayton Ruby or any other high-priced “human rights” lawyer would take up their cause. No polygamists allowed in the Court Party, as the rights of postmaterialists outweigh those of those who lag behind in the course of progressive history.
To add even more skepticism that the SCC would overturn the antipolygamy law, one need only look at another example of how it has favored Charter minorities over religious groups. In Chamberlain v. Surry School District No. 36, 2002 SCC 86, it decided that the Surrey School Board had acted intolerantly in using religious justifications in removing books from elementary school libraries that showed homosexual couples with children. The court overturned the BC court decision, not because a single religion (e.g., Christianity) dominated the Surrey School Board, as the board included Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims.
Some Charter Canadians are more equal than others.
Back at it again, I see. So let’s clarify a few things. It is not a same sex marriage bill, it is a proposed Civil Marriage Act. For those of you who have bothered to read it (and the subsequent acts defining marriage) you will understand that this bill basically updates the definition of Marriage, and clarifies the role of religious institutions in the act of marrying people. Everything else remains pretty much the same, but still needs to be spelled out. That is how legislation works.
The old act mentions incest, and therefore the new act must also mention it, because it is still considered illegal, regardless of the proposed interpretation of marriage. It has nothing to do with procreation. Of course two men cannot have babies.
Quit trying to side swipe the issues with tangents about porn, family vaules, incest, polygamy and anal warts (I am surprised Hugo hasn’t said anything yet). It doesn’t add value to the discussion and ends up blocking the real issue behind the change (i.e. the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
Lyndon - explain to me again what’s so wrong with incest? If it’s between two consenting adults, what’s the problem?
Do you really need it explained or is this another misguided attempt at making a mute point? Read the legislation and regulations on the subject; there you will find the rationale for why Canadian legislators have not made incest legal in the past, and why they do not plan on making it legal in the future. It will also provide you with a pretty good explanation as to why the definition of marriage is being ammended to include couples of the same sex.
Stick to the topic. The slippery slope argument is getting really tired and old. The debate over including same sex couples in the Civil Marriage Act is about the balence between religious freedoms and human rights (both of which are important to Canadians). The legislation clearly outlines the seperation of these rights to the satisfaction of the highest courts in most provinces, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada.
Any other stupid questions?
Do that really require an answer? Or is it just another attempt to make a mute point? If you are interested in the answer to your “question” then I suggest you read the legislation and regulations that outline the Government of Canada’s rationale for why incest is not legal, why it has never been legal, and why they do not plan on making it legal in the future.
Please stick to the topic at hand. The proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act before the Parliament is an attempt to balance religious rights and human rights (both of which are important to Canadians). These ammendments have the support of most of the provincial courts as well as the Supreme Court of Canada.
The slippery slope argument is getting really old and tired. Put some faith in our legislative and judicial systems. We should be proud to live in a country that protects the rights of minorities as well as religious freedoms rather than complaining that we are too free.
Lyndon - Which legislation and regulations on the subject of incest? Are you not simply deferring to legislative intent, the very thing courts are supposed to question? Last time I checked the legislative intent of the Charter, the framers of the Charter explicitly avoided including listing homosexuals in the Charter as a section 15 protected group. Are you sure you want to go down the road of legislative intent? Why do hide behind legalistic reasons to assert your claims?