A rchive Date
[ 23-06-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/brodbeck.html
Don't insult my intelligence on same-sex issue
By TOM BRODBECK -- Winnipeg Sun
When somebody says to me they're against gays and lesbians getting married, adopting children and collecting same-sex benefits -- among other rights won by homosexuals in recent decades -- I kind of understand their position.
It's their personal opinion on a matter that is entirely subjective.
Many of those opposed to same-sex unions simply don't think gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals. They don't believe they should be eligible for the same benefits as opposite-sex couples. And they don't want gay couples adopting children. They maintain that marriage should be the exclusive domain of opposite-sex couples.
They don't mince words. With them, it's straightforward -- marriage and the rights and responsibilities that flow from that institution are for opposite-sex couples only, not for two guys or two gals.
They don't waver by approving of spousal benefits or adoption rights for gay couples on the one hand, while rejecting marriage rights on the other.
No, they don't insult your intelligence with that kind hypocrisy or with annoying political correctness about how "some of my best friends are gay" and how much they respect their relationships.
They're against it, lock, stock and barrel.
I disagree with those people, but at least they're consistent. I respect their right to have an opinion on the issue.
What I don't respect are people who try to rationalize their anti-same-sex marriage views and then turn around and say gay and lesbian couples should have some marital rights, but not marriage.
My favourite is the argument that legalizing gay marriages will harm society. If you sanction it, it will contribute to the unraveling of society's moral fabric, they say. They're not able to articulate how that will happen.
But what floors me is how so many of them then turn around and say it's OK for those same gay couples to get most of the legal rights afforded to married couples -- same-sex benefits, adoption rights, etc. Well, by extending those rights, you're sanctioning that union. You're legitimizing it. So the same argument about how that supposedly denigrates the moral fabric of society would apply. It's a gross contradiction.
If you subscribe to the argument that gay unions harm society, you should be demanding that all legal rights for homosexual couples be rescinded -- the same way you'd be opposed to somebody getting same-sex benefits for their mother, sister or friend.
Some argue you shouldn't legalize gay marriages because marriage is between a man and a woman for reasons of procreation. No good. Many opposite-sex couples choose not to have children and they can still get married. No logic there.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, some argue. Therefore you can't change it.
Well, the right to vote in modern democracies has always been the exclusive domain of a man, too. That's how voting rights were defined. It didn't stop us from changing that.
One guy tried to tell me last week that extending marital rights to gays was an infringement on his minority rights as a true Christian. How? I asked. Because it interferes with his beliefs that marriage is the exclusive domain of opposite-sex couples, even though he and his church will still be able to practise their beliefs unimpeded by the proposed legislation. Now there's some good ol' fashioned pretzel logic.
The truth is, this issue is completely subjective. There are no logical reasons to support or oppose same-sex unions. Even the court rulings are judgment calls. Under the Charter, the rights of gay couples -- and the rights of all people, for that matter -- are subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
What's a "reasonable limit" and how do you "demonstrably justify" it? Those are judgment calls.
And judgment calls belong in Parliament. That's why there will be a free vote on same-sex marriage. Contrary to much of the rhetoric, the courts aren't forcing Canadians to adopt gay marriages. Parliament will have the final say to approve it or turn it down by invoking the notwithstanding clause.
Unlike most of Parliament's business, democracy will actually prevail on this one.
Tom Brodbeck is the Sun's city columnist. He can be reached by e-mail at tbrodbeck@wpgsun.com. Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@wpgsun.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|