Comment (17)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggSame-sex marriage: lessons from Canada
Where gay rights triumph, new rights battles begin.
In May this year the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22, which affirmed opposite-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. To date, only Massachusetts in the United States allows same-sex marriage. So what are the Canadian lessons for California and other states that will, in time, face a debate about the redefinition of marriage?
Firstly, where gay rights triumph, new rights battles begin. One example is over the rights of children. Another is over polygamy, which soon involves freedom of religion. A third battle is over freedom of speech -- the right to publicly advocate traditional marriage can be challenged as homophobic. Secondly, where marriage is not understood as an institution, it cannot be defended adequately in the public square. In short, if North Americans are not educated on what marriage is, they will not, in the long term, support an exclusive definition, one that will appear discriminatory even if this is not the case or the intention.
Marriage as an institution is meant to constrain human behaviour, not liberate or grant rights. Put differently, where individuals have both rights and responsibilities, marriage falls more in the latter category; it is a responsibility, not a right.
In his book, The Future of Marriage, American family scholar David Blankenhorn says that "a social institution creates and maintains rules, including rules for who is, and is not, a part of the institution… [A] social institution creates public meaning… [Such institutions] exist to solve basic problems and meet core needs.”
Blankenhorn goes on to say this: “In nearly all human societies marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are—and are understood by the society to be—emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents.”
Keeping this definition in mind, any culture which sanctions same-sex marriage will place children’s rights at odds with adult desires. The January 2007 Ontario court ruling that a child could have three parents was inevitable because with same-sex marriage the concept of biological parenthood is immediately displaced. Same-sex reproduction immediately involves a third party. The idea of a "legal parent" replaced the idea of a “natural parent.”
And from three parents to polygamy: to date, our legislators have ignored the fact, revealed in February, that polygamous Muslim families are living in Toronto and claiming multiple Canadian welfare benefits in many cases. The logical and legal grounds to resist polygamy have been removed, making it difficult to prosecute.
Canadians, we are told, are laid back. But mention polygamy, and precisely the same cultural elites who sanctioned same-sex marriage become a little anxious. Will they accept that? Or will they trample religious freedom to prosecute polygamous families?
The right to practice religion freely has not fared well against gay equality rights. We see this most clearly through the human rights tribunals. In British Columbia, the Catholic Knights of Columbus were fined for declining to host a lesbian couple’s wedding reception. Chris Kempling, a teacher, was disciplined by the teachers’ governing body for a letter to the editor about homosexuality and in Alberta, on May 30, 2008, a pastor, Stephen Boissoin, was fined for the same, and ordered never to speak “discriminatorily” on the topic of homosexuality again.
Certainly, this is not the result of legalizing same-sex marriage. Many factors have combined to create an atmosphere in which marriage looks to be amorphous -- the introduction of no-fault divorce and increasing rights for cohabiting couples changed how we view the institution. Marriage now looks to be strictly religious and strictly private. That it is not purely religious or private at all is lost as equality discourse prevails.
On August 16, 2008, presidential hopeful Barack Obama told a California church audience that marriage was between one man and one woman. California is not a conservative state, yet polls there show support for traditional marriage. But the law also acts as a kind of teacher, which means that, in time, Californians could vote differently, given the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Since same-sex marriage became law, Canadians have been quiet. This is largely self-censoring, led by the real possibility that speaking out will result in public maligning, or worse. California is at a crossroads that Canada has already passed. But both north and south of the border, we need to begin to learn about marriage as an institution, and let those lessons lead public policy in the future.
Andrea Mrozek and Peter Jon Mitchell are staff members of the Institute of Marriage and the Family Canada, a social policy think thank based in Ottawa. This article first appeared in the IMFC's bulletin eReview.
“Marriage as an institution is meant to constrain human behaviour, not liberate or grant rights. Put differently, where individuals have both rights and responsibilities, marriage falls more in the latter category; it is a responsibility, not a right. “
This absolutely sums up the argument. Marriage is NOT a right. It’s the destruction of this building block of our nation and society that has led us on this path to self destruction. Once we can realize what marriage is we can actually understand why Gay marriage can never work
Choose the redefiniton of Marriage and everything will go downhill, it has happened here so it will there.......
Actually, CarLos, I doubt whether your political representatives are expending much energy on the issue of same-sex “marriage.” They’re probably spending a lot more time thinking through how they’re going to survive the next vote.
As for Catholics, who individually may or may not “believe all sorts of nonsense,” the best thing we can probably do is ponder the words of Pope Benedict XVI, “at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord speaks of two ways of building the house of one’s life: on sand or on rock. Those who build on sand do so only on visible and tangible things: on success, career and money.” We might add other forms of egocentric wish-fulfillment to the list.
«Catholics, by and large, believe all sorts of nonsense» (...) So truthful! So painful! Here, in this small country, we are dealing with a economic and social wreck and our political representatives are discussing ... Guess what: same sex “marriage”!
David, your curiosity is well justified. Why should Catholics be so divergent from Catholicism? I think the answers are pretty complicated in their entirety, but my take on this is that our catechesis was abysmal in the decades following Vatican II. Catholics, by and large, believe all sorts of nonsense, and still think of themselves as Catholics, because they never learned what being Catholic actually meant. Instead, they were fed the equivalent of spiritual and philosophical pablum.
To understand why you need to get a little history lesson. There were three major forces at play. One was the liberal ferment in the universities that pervaded every aspect of life, and that infected not a few theologians who began to teach contrary to the tradition of the Church. Another major force was the widespread, and highly justified, revulsion against the War in Viet Nam, which played out on college campuses largely as a radical shift to the left. A third was the ongoing popularity of self-help pop psychology that was somewhat inspired by Eastern meditation techniques and perspectives. I remember attending a number of sensitivity sessions that were hastily arranged in the aftermath of the chaotic events of 1968 and the shootings at Kent State and Jackson State. College administrations all over the country bought into these quick fixes in an attempt to quell the unrest. These tendencies echoed and reechoed throughout Europe, Canada, etc.
It was out of this turmoil that catechists decided to drop the rote learning method and attempt to teach the faith through Socratic dialog. This might have worked if the catechists, themselves, actually understood the faith. Since they themselves could only rely on what they learned by rote, they were ill equipped for such a major undertaking. Along with this mix, they adopted countless fashions of the day, which tended to be at the radical left end of the spectrum.
Precisely the same thing happened in public school education.
David Page said:
“I’m curious why same sex marriage seems most popular in strongly Catholic areas. In Canada, for instance, gay marriage has a small margin of support, but Quebec is strongly in support of it. In Spain 3 out of 4 people support gay marriage. Brazil and Mexico also come to mind.”
What is your source for these figures, David? If you got them from the mainstream media, I wouldn’t put too much trust into them, they are almost certainly manipulated. Recently there have been several surveys done in Canada in regard to the award of the Order of Canada to the notorious Henry Morgentaler. Only one (out of six or seven) has shown a slight majority in favor of it, and this is the only survey constantly referred to by Canadian media… Also, see how gay marriage fares in the really “strongly Catholic” countries such as Poland or Malta.
I’m curious why same sex marriage seems most popular in strongly Catholic areas. In Canada, for instance, gay marriage has a small margin of support, but Quebec is strongly in support of it. In Spain 3 out of 4 people support gay marriage. Brazil and Mexico also come to mind.
A good summary of the average Canadian’s views on same-sex marriage is presented in a documentary called “C-38: The Search for Marriage” which can be watched (in several installments) on YouTube. It also freqjuently demonstrates the hypocrisy and intolerance of the most rabid supporters of this idea. Here is the link to part one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qdh0FvMiZQ .
The definition of marriage by Mr. Blackenhorn is very clear.
On and on and ON it goes . . . [we know the end of that bit of doggerel verse]
Charles+
One more comment re:
“Since same-sex marriage became law, Canadians have been quiet. This is largely self-censoring...”
This impression is due to the total censorship on this and similar issues (eg., abortion) by the left-leaning Canadian media (with the occasional exception of the National Post), as well as to opportunism and cowardice on part of all politicians - the so-called Conservative Party including. However, the silent majority of Canadians view these experiments with extreme and growing distrust; that’s one of the reasons why they have never been given a chance to hold a referendum on same-sex marriage.
any discussion of same-sex in Canada becomes a red herring unless the following is considered:
Same-sex marriage certificates in Canada, especially the first one issued in British Columbia was done without federal provincial agreement and in blunt terms was done illegally.
Canadian Citizens do not realize that the barrier between the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch has been broken under privy Council guidelines and that it can be proven quite easily by finding enhancer the words “sexual orientation” and the conditions of voting. For example was it done on a confidence vote or a non-conference vote so that would it could become subject to part three to the “National Gazette”. It is sitting at part one which is the Works Department of the National Gazette.
The second part of “National Gazette” is the Privy Council and when I checked at that level it could not be found. That is because it breaks the Privy Council guidelines.
The third part of the “National Gazette” is the Judicial part of the “National Gazette”. This is especially crucial because at this point it becomes subject To Our Canadian Charter of Rights and especially the syntax semantics of the Preamble Of the Canadian Charter of Rights 1982. It is not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights.
What our dis-Honorable members of Parliament are doing is relying on legal precedent and de facto law that we as Canadians do not realize is not subject to the Canadian charter of rights 1982.
The proof of the pudding when a marriage certificate was issued in British Columbia illegally between same-sex partners is that the very next day they applied for a divorce and there was not one law on the books in British Columbia that could do that.
While an introduction of same-sex marriage on the purely administrative and legal level was more or less inevitable in Canada, the idiotic change of the definition of marriage was not. We owe it to the corrupt understanding of democracy by the ruling liberal elites, which stresses equality at all cost, even at the cost of ignoring biological facts and common sense. Of course, it opened the door to the tacit approval of polygamy (which is, incidentally, of a much greater social benefit since it leads to natural procreation.) Historically speaking, traditional India offered a near-perfect solution to the whole problem by recognizing homosexuals as the “third nature” and assigning them a legitimate place in the order of things without messing with the inborn and humanly unchangeable laws governing the other two natures (i.e., male and female.) But our powers to be, especially in Canada, are too ignorant to recognize the wisdom of such approach.
I have linked to your post from Yes on Prop 8 with non-Californian’s help, prayer and fasting
Although, ostensibly, Proposition 8 has no effect beyond California’s borders, activists on both sides of the marriage debate say whatever happens in November will have profound ramifications on the rest of the country.
Lots of people knows someone in California, (family, friends) Call them let them know why this is an important issue. Let them know that this is an issue that is greater than themselves.
We continue to reap the benefits of the sexual revolution: the revolution that taught that marriage was not a covenant, but a contract, the revolution that taught that sex was not about procreation, but about recreation.
Rights that are not based in natural law are based solely in the eye of the beholder. When natural law is abrogated, civil law inevitably suffers.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >