A rchive Date
[ 06-02-2005 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Linda_Williamson/2005/02/06/922307.html
What PM could say, but won't...
By Linda Williamson - For the Toronto Sun
Sun, February 6, 2005
One day in the future, proponents of same-sex marriage are fond of saying, we will look back on this time in our history with wonder - and perhaps shame.
We'll see the raging argument over gay marriage as incomprehensible and almost quaint, they predict, much as we now view the fight over giving women the vote less than a century ago. We'll find it hard to believe something so benign was ever controversial.
The big problem with this vision, if you ask me, is the part where Liberals like Paul Martin and Irwin Cotler will be seen as the great pioneers of equality for gay couples.
Please. If last week's introduction of the same-sex bill and the Grits' shameful handling of it is any indication, these guys are no more champions of same-sex relationships than several of Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
For Martin and Cotler, this is all about rights, period. "Rights are rights are rights," Cotler babbles.
The Liberals' strategy for keeping their divided caucus together has been to shift focus from the issue at hand to the Charter of Rights. Why? Sadly, because they figure the Charter is more acceptable to Canadians than, well, homosexuality.
Trouble is, neither the Charter nor our Supreme Court's recent interpretation of it specifically mandates same-sex marriage. Martin's solution? Just tell Canadians they do anyway.
The Grits' whole pitch that they have no choice but to redefine marriage because of the courts and the Charter is a sham. It's a slap in the face, not just for those trying to fight the bill but to same-sex couples themselves (not that they're complaining much - after all, they're focused on the end result).
No matter where you stand on this, you should be deeply concerned that the man who is supposed to be leading us can't seem to bring himself to discuss why gay marriage is a good thing, as many of us believe.
Here are just a few of the things he could say, but apparently won't:
- Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples will strengthen the institution of marriage itself. At a time when more and more Canadians are eschewing marriage and choosing just to live together instead, it's good to encourage more people to make this serious commitment. (It would help, though, if our laws hadn't been so watered down that marriage no longer involves any more legal privileges or incentives than living common-law.)
- While children may be the most valuable result of marriage (and the one on which the perpetuation of society depends), the ability to have children is clearly not a prerequisite to marriage. Before and after any children, marriage continues - its most enduring value is to the two participants in it. Married people are happier and live longer. They pledge to care for one another for life, which is in the best interests of a healthy society.
Not a new 'alternative'
- Allowing gays to marry isn't a new "alternative" to marriage, nor does it contribute to the deterioration of marriage. Traditional, heterosexual couples will not break up because of it, or suddenly enter into gay marriages because it's an "option."
- This is about civil marriage; i.e., for those Canadians who want to be married by a judge or at City Hall, i.e., people who aren't religious enough to want a religious wedding. Religions are free not to recognize or perform such marriages, just as they may already refuse to marry people who don't fit their criteria.
- The traditional nuclear family, in which a child's two biological parents are married to one another, will remain the ideal environment for raising children. But we already allow parents to divorce and marry other people; allowing them to marry a same-sex partner is no more threatening.
- Traditional marriage will continue to be the main family unit in Canada. Statistics Canada says 36% will end in divorce in the next 30 years, and about 14% of households are common-law, but a recent Vanier Institute study showed 80% of respondents felt it was "important" to get married; and 95% expected it to be "for life." (Again, the government could conceivably do more to make marriage, gay or straight, more attractive.)
If Martin & Co. truly believed in this cause, they'd be encouraging debate on these points. But they're not. Why?
Linda Williamson is the Toronto Sun Editorial Page Editor. She can be reached by e-mail at: Linda.williamson@tor.sunpub.com Letters to the editor should be sent to: editor@tor.sunpub.com Home Page
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|