Tackling Marriage in a Democracy
Claire Hoy
National Post - August 6, 2003

Historian Michael Bliss, normally a beacon of wisdom and an absolute stickler for accuracy, argued in Saturday's National Post that same-sex marriage "ought to be left to the courts to sort out."

Why? Apparently such an explosive issue is fraught with all sorts of dangers, including the potential of splitting society "on religious lines or on fundamental moral issues."

What then, should "sensitive" politicians do? "Search for compromises, prevaricate, be courageously cowardly if necessary," he writes. And most of all -- let the courts decide.

Never mind that as recently as June 8, 1999, Parliament voted 216 to 55 in favour of a motion defining marriage as "the union of one man and one woman." Never mind that public opinion polls show Canadians split about 50-50 on the issue, and a published survey of 79 sitting Liberal backbench MPs showed only 15 of them support their government's legislation legalizing same-sex marriages.

Ignore the fact nearly every elected legislature in Canada has debated the issue and voted against the notion that same-sex marriages and traditional marriages are moral equivalents.

Prof. Bliss writes that if the majority of Parliamentarians voted against the bill, "the symbolic slap in the face to gays would certainly be unfortunate." Apparently much more unfortunate than the symbolic slap in the face to the millions of Canadians who disagree.

In a page right out of the book of numerous unelected judges -- who ignored the specific exclusion of homosexual "rights" when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was written, and have simply "deemed" the charter be rewritten to conform with their own personal biases -- Prof. Bliss has deemed that homosexuality is not really a moral issue at all, but "a genetically driven predisposition, thus a natural and unavoidable human condition ..."

Really? Where is the scientific truth for this? And how do we account for the thousands of practising homosexuals who have been counselled into heterosexuality?

Then there's the ultimate red herring, that since marriage has already been debased by "easy divorce ... and the recognition of common law unions ..." what's another step down the abyss? Indeed. Why stop now? If marriage as an institution is to have no relevance, why not allow brothers to marry sisters and adults to marry children? Ridiculous, you say? Yes, it is. But no more so than arguing that because politicians and judges have undermined the sanctity of marriage in the past it's pointless to fight its further diminution.

As somebody who grew up a Presbyterian in deepest Eastern Ontario during the 1940s, when such distinctions really mattered, your correspondent is not in the habit of defending the Roman Catholic Church.

But on this issue, the Church is not only being true to its beliefs, but is performing a public service by speaking out, even in the face of a hateful campaign (not by Prof. Bliss, by the way) against it in the media and elsewhere. All major religions oppose same-sex marriage. So my question is not "why is the Church sticking its nose into matters of state?," but rather, "where are all the other religious leaders in this debate and why are they afraid to speak up?" With the notable exception of 100 Huntley Street's David Mainse -- who left his position at Crossroads Television Systems to campaign full-time for traditional marriage -- most religious leaders are hiding behind their half-empty pews.

Nobody questions the right of organized labour or women's groups to lobby politicians on matters of considerable importance to them. Yet when a Church speaks out, all Hell (if you'll pardon the expression) breaks lose. The widespread opposition is not proof, as many claim, of widespread hatred against homosexuals, although doubtless such hatreds exist both ways. It's because most people don't see homosexual and heterosexual marriages as moral
equivalents.

Critics cry that the "separation of Church and state" means the Church has no claim on the Charter rights of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech." There is no separation of Church and State in Canadian law. That's a Jeffersonian concept, first approved in Virginia, and then as the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And even there, it never meant that the churches must remain silent on issues of importance to them.

They have the same rights as you have to speak out.

That's what makes democracy so great.

© Copyright 2003 National Post