Same sex marriages: should they be condemned?

The Honourable Robert Nicholson, member of the Canadian Parliament for Niagara Falls, and who is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, introduced a motion ''to call on the Canadian government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.''

As he led the government's case, Nicholson spent little time arguing why the gay-marriage law should be revoked, focusing instead on the fact that the government made an election promise to revive the issue. He said in part;

''Given the importance of marriage in our society and its importance to Canadians, we made a commitment in the last election to ask parliamentarians whether they wished to revisit this issue,''

Liberal MP Bill Graham, leading the Liberal assault on the motion, dismissed it as a stunt that carries no weight and said that if the government was serious ''they would have introduced legislation.''

Graham said the only way for the government to restore the traditional definition is to use the Constitution's ''notwithstanding clause,'' which allows governments to override court decisions for up to five years.

The previous Liberal government, reacting to a string of court rulings, passed a law in June 2005 that rewrote the traditional definition of marriage. The vote in the Commons succeeded 158-133.

The group, Canadians for Equal Marriage says that 12,438 gay and lesbian couples have already been married in Canada since June 2003, when the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the federal ban as a violation of the equality rights of gays and lesbians.

Obviously, if parliament were to bring in a law that would prohibit gay and lesbian marriages, it would create a terrible dilemma with respect to those 12,438 gay and lesbian couples already married. Would they in effect, become unmarried?

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day told the Commons that ‘religious faith is being diminished’ in the wake of legalized gay marriage. For instance, marriage commissioners are being disciplined or losing their jobs for refusing to perform ceremonies.

The issue has become academic in Canada. On December 8th, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper officially declared the same-sex marriage issue settled the day before after MPs handily defeated a motion to revisit a 2005 law allowing gays and lesbians to wed. "The result was decisive," Harper told reporters only minutes after the Commons voted 175-123 against his minority government's bid to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage that the result was decisive and that he doesn’t see reopening this question in the future.

He’s right on that point. Thousands of more gays and lesbians will get married and if anyone in parliament tries to raise this issue again, he or she will face an onslaught of angry constituents, many whom may be gays and lesbians who are married and who will be demanding a pound of his or her flesh when he or she stumps through his or their riding.

The various political jurisdictions within the United States are making differential progress in adopting legislation that protects gays and lesbians. There have been a number of steps forward, but many governmental jurisdictions remain less than friendly to the concerns of gays and lesbians, for example, eleven states plus the District of Columbia have passed laws that provide some form of civil rights protection for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Of these, only Minnesota provides comprehensive civil rights protection for transgender individuals; California prohibits discrimination in schools based on transgender status and Maryland recently became the twelfth state. The best that one can say about the United States is that ‘progress is spotty and mixed’ although great progress is being made in some areas.

I won’t write about all the other countries where gay and lesbian relationships are approved or disapproved but rather get into the issue of whether or not, it is an acceptable way of life.

One aspect of diversity that rarely is addressed in most public schools in the United States and Canada is the topic of gay and lesbian families. The exact proportion of gay and lesbian people among the general population is difficult to determine. One often-cited estimate is that one in every 10 persons is homosexual or bisexual. Even if it were only one in 20, I believe that I can project that every classroom has at least one child who will, at some point, realize that he or she is gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Many teachers and parents have legitimate concerns about whether it is appropriate or necessary to teach young children about gay and lesbian issues. Furthermore, parents' beliefs on these topics may conflict with the teacher's, and teachers may feel torn between their personal beliefs and their responsibilities as educators. These conflicts need to be resolved in order to achieve a basic understanding of the issues surrounding the topic of homosexuality.

Gay and lesbian couples are a reality in modern society. Coming out of the closet puts a lot of pressure and social criticism on individuals and their family members. Some consider homosexuality and bisexuality to be a physical problem (i.e., an imbalance in body chemicals); others perceive it as a lifestyle choice. Whatever the underlying cause, gay and lesbian lifestyles are often considered to be morally wrong. Most leaders of churches, mosques and synagogues will tell you that having a gay or lesbian relationship is against the tenets of God albeit there are some churches who welcome gays and lesbians into their church and once in a while, we hear of such marriages being performed in those churches.

The kinds of relationships people enter into nowadays are changing. Some indication of this public acceptance of change is the willingness of newspapers such as the New York Times to record same-sex compacts (marriages, if you will). There has also been an increase in the number of gays and lesbians who have entered into such relationships.

The Government of the United Kingdom finished consulting on the draft regulations under the Equality Act that would make it illegal to refuse to provide goods or services to anyone on the grounds of sexual orientation. The ostensible aim of these provisions is to end discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. In Canada, it is illegal to deny services or goods or for that matter, even housing or a job to gays and lesbians. What this means is that gays and other sexual minorities should have full equality before the law. In effect, what it really means is that they should not be treated aggressively or unfairly by being singled out for different treatment in areas of life where they are playing the same part as everyone else.

It should go without saying that gay people and other sexual minorities should be free to practice their sexuality without being picked on in any way. What they do in private should be of no concern to anyone else. I have to admit however that seeing a grown man kissing another sort of turns me off but I don’t publicly show displeasure when I see them doing it. I have always believed in that old adage, ‘different strokes for different folks’.

But equally, others must be free to voice disapproval of their lifestyles, particularly where this is a key element of religious faith. Their disapproval however must be done without malice.
This is an issue that is currently tearing the Church of England apart; that is the belief that homosexual behavior is wrong and is a tenet that is fundamental to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

It seems to me that religious leaders should be able to preach in their houses of worship and in their religious schools that they believe that being gay or lesbian is contrary to God’s laws. To deny them this right is tantamount to curbing their rights to free speech. However, I am totally against such teachings being extended to public schools.

The equality argument breaks down when it insists that everyone is entitled to receive precisely the same treatment despite the fact that their lifestyles may be radically different. This is not equality, but what might be called 'identical posturing', or the enforcement of sameness even where circumstances are not the same at all.

For Catholics, ‘marriage is an institution sanctified by God through Jesus Christ whereby the union of husband and wife is blessed by their decision to be married in Christ’. No matter how you look at that statement, it clearly applies to a man and woman joined in marriage. I doubt that any of us alive today or in the far future will see a change of policy by the Catholic Church.

As far as the Church is concerned, man and woman are in, gays and lesbians are out. I find that reasoning unfair when you consider the problem the Church is already facing; offering forgiveness to priests guilty of child molestation.

It seems that many church leaders see no problem with gays and lesbians seeking inheritance, hospital visitation and other rights through civil unions. The problem they have is calling a gay or lesbian union a marriage. I suppose that is because they have a conviction that marriage is ordained by God and is not just a civil union.

The teachings of the church are that ‘from the beginning God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man put asunder.’

That comes from the same book that says that if you work on the Sabbath, you will be stoned to death.

As I see it, when two people are in love, regardless of their gender, that's something as a society that we should want. I just see this as a different kind of family. The idea of marriage is constantly evolving, and this is probably just one more evolution of our understanding of human relationships.

I have met many lesbians and gays in my life and some have lived together for over 30 years---which is more than can be said for heterosexual relationships.

We are in a new century and I think it is time for the tight-assed people to get with it. They don’t have to approve of gay and lesbian marriages but if they don’t approve of them, at least they should keep their mouths shut and let these people exercise their right to live their lives as they prefer.