by Rhyan Ringer
Wednesday May 15, 2002
Likely the most controversial area of equality for gays is the issue of same-sex marriage. Currently, the province of Ontario allows for common-law partnerships between two people of the same sex. The decision to allow this was given in the “M v. H. Case”, in which a woman sued her former partner for spousal support. However, this is far from equality. Ted Mouradain, a gay man in Toronto, sums of the arrangement perfectly. “We still don’t have the choice [to get married].” (Gill) Where as heterosexual couples do have the choice to be married. The federal Liberal government has made its position on same-sex marriage quite clear. When Bill C-23 was passed, which was to extend rights to same-sex couples, Justice Minister Anne McLellan, under pressure from the Reform Alliance, amended the bill to further reinforce the English common law definition of marriage as “a union for life of one man and one woman.” (Ko, 27-29) However, the government has no business in denying the right to marry to same-sex couples when the majority of Canadians support same-sex marriage. A 1999 Angus Reid poll shows that 53 percent of the Canadian people are in support of same-sex marriage. (Rebick) The government is also directly contradicting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits discrimination based on gender. Clearly, not allowing a man to marry a man simply because he is a man is discrimination based on gender, which is illegal under Canadian law. The same applies to a woman who wishes to marry a woman. Another Charter Right is abused in this case, which is the right to freedom from discrimination based on religion. While some Christians, Jews and Moslems oppose same-sex marriage, some sects of Buddhism celebrate it, and wish to marry same-sex couples. In this case, the rights of the Buddhists are being violated, as well as the rights of the people who wish to marry. No matter how the government defines it, a law that discriminates against someone because of sexual orientation or gender is prohibited by Canadian law, and the government must listen to the majority of the people in making this decision. The opposition to same-sex marriage is based on falsehoods, fear mongering, lies and ignorance. One of the most radical proposals of the religious far-right that opposes same-sex marriage is that it will lead to the collapse of the western world. This is clearly preposterous, as gay marriage has been legal in Denmark for thirteen years. (Bidstrup, 27) There, 72 percent of the Danish Clergy were opposed to same-sex marriage in 1989. Now that the benefits to society are clear, thirteen years later, 89 percent of the Danish Clergy support same-sex marriage. (Bidstrup, 27) Another of the baseless claims is that gays are incapable of forming loyal, monogamous relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted. What is ignored is that heterosexuals forms such relationships, too, but in both cases, such relationships are in the clear minority. A common argument is that marriage is simply a title and means nothing. This, however, is far from the truth. Because of discriminatory marriage laws, gays can not legally make medical decisions for their partners. This is left up to a family which may be estranged and homophobic, which has happened several times in the past. Gays can be forced to testify against their partners in court. Also, families of a deceased homosexual can deny the right of his or her partner to attend the funeral or even visit the grave. Gays are also denied the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples. Marriage is not a religious institution, either, which is symbolized by the fact that a Justice of the Peace can marry a couple, not just a minister. Also, the United Church of Canada, which is made up of Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists, supports same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage would have many benefits to society, however, this and the opinion of the majority of the people clearly does not matter in this case.
The benefits of gay marriage are quite obvious. When some think of homosexuals, promiscuity immediately appears in their minds. However, if same-sex marriage were legal, promiscuity would no doubt decrease. “Promiscuity in the gay community is the trade-off for being treated like second-class citizens by the straight majority.” (Gill) Others still claim that allowing for same-sex marriage destroys the institution of marriage, which is hypocritical in and of itself, as allowing people to marry clearly promotes the institution of marriage. As well, the argument that marriage is for procreation is clearly flawed. A respondent to an opinion on CBC News says, “I guess as a woman in her forties, the Catholics, evangelicals and Reformers would not give me the right to marry as it is highly doubtful I will produce any children.” (Rebick) This woman is allowed to marry, however, which completely defeats the argument that marriage is for procreation. Unfortunately, the government has time and again made its position clear. In 1983, 1985, 1986, 1989 and 1991, N.D.P. Member of Parliament Svend Robinson has put forth bills to change the definition of spouse to include, “or of the same sex.” All such bills were defeated. (Wood) This, along with McLellan’s amendment have made the federal government’s position clear: discrimination is acceptable in the case of homosexuality.
There are other areas of discrimination besides marriage rights. Fortunately, Pierre Trudeau in 1968 removed homosexuality from the criminal code, so Canada no longer has any laws prohibiting homosexual sex, though such laws exist in many areas of the United States. As Trudeau stated, “I think the view we take here is that there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I think what’s done in private between adults doesn’t concern the criminal code.” (Wood) It is a shame, however, that the Liberals have strayed so far from their once-leader’s stance on equality. Also, Alberta, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories have yet to pass anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation. As well, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan have yet to formally allow adoption rights to same-sex couples. (Wood) Adoption rights are an issue that the anti-gay lobby campaigns loudly against, citing such falsehoods as universal homosexual promiscuity and that children raised by same-sex parents will be molested and become homosexual themselves. These claims have been proven false time and again, and yet over half of Canada still does not formally recognize adoption rights. Children of same-sex parents are, as well, among the most planned-for type of child, since accidental pregnancy in such cases is impossible. Restricting gay adoption is pointless, and condemns children who would otherwise have loving homes to foster-care or institutions, at tax-payer expense of course. Despite the opposition to same-sex adoption rights, a study by the University of Virginia shows that children of same-sex parents adjust emotionally just as well as children of opposite-sex parents. As well, children raised by gay parents are no more or less likely to have a homosexual orientation, as such an orientation is inborn, not learned. Boys show no difference in masculinity and girls show no difference in femininity. Children with gay parents also did just as well academically, and were no more likely to experience bullying and harassment as other children. (Martin, 43) Also, only one of the five major political parties supports gay rights. Only the New Democratic Party voted unanimously for Bill C-23 to extend rights to same-sex couples. (“NDP On The Issues”)
The reason the fight for gay rights is so difficult is because of the huge opposition to homosexuality. This opposition is completely unjustified and often encourages hatred and discrimination. First, there are so-called “reputable” studies which “prove” that homosexuals are the way they are by choice, not by birth, and that they could change if they so wished. These studies are not conducted by reputable Universities, but by organizations funded by the religious far-right. The bias in these studies is obvious. Studies conducted by reputable Universities prove otherwise. The Christian far-right is next to impossible to reason with, as they continue to hold to their fairytales about gays and lesbians being child-molesters and “recruiters” of children, which they back up with their falsified “research studies.” There is much hateful rhetoric towards gays, as well. One respondent adds an unnecessary comment to his letter, saying, “I think it would be more appropriate to say that the lesbian and gay community, which appears to make up the majority of the CBC…” (Rebick) This comment was clearly an unwarranted attack on gays and lesbians, as well as the CBC for hosting a pro-gay opinion. Homosexuality is condemned as an “Unnatural and abnormal lifestyle,” (Rebick) and is openly condemned by the Canadian Alliance, which is currently the official opposition. Alberta has also passed Bill 202, which states that the government will enact the notwithstanding clause of the Charter if the federal government allows for same-sex marriage. While the Christian far-right may be impossible to reason with, average people who are simply ignorant of homosexuality can be enlightened. However, because of the stigma placed on homosexuality, many never are. Whatever the opinions of these people are, however, the fact remains that the stigma is based on myth, the common view of a gay man as an effeminate “fairy” is an unjustified stereotype, and promiscuity is not nearly as rampant in the gay community as the stereotypes and myths would have people believe.
Same-sex marriage is supported by over half the population of Canada. It is also supported by Canada’s largest Protestant denomination. Not allowing gays the right to marry violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on more levels than just discrimination based on sexual orientation. The hate and bigotry towards gays may not be nearly as severe in Canada as it is in the United States, but it does exist to an astonishing and frightening level. The Supreme Court in the United States had to force that country to give up its racist bigotry because all too often in a democracy, minority rights are ignored. It is time, in Canada, for the Supreme Court of this country to make such a stand. It is time to take Pierre Trudeau’s famous speech and move it one step further. “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” The state also has no place in restricting marital status to a couple based on gender, or sexual orientation.
Bidstrup, Scott. “Arguments Against Gay Marriage Are Baseless.” Gay Marriage. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 1998.
Gill, Alexandra. “The price of equality.” The Globe and Mail.
Graff, E.J. “Same-Sex Spouses in Canada.” The Nation. July 12, 1999. The Nation. Apr. 30, 2002. http://past.thenation.com/cgi-bin/framizer.cgi?url=http://past.thenation.com/issue/990712/0712graff.shtml
Ko, Marnie. “One man and one woman.” BC Edition. 5 Nov. 2001.
Martin, April. “Being Raised in a Gay Family Does Not Harm Children.” Gay Marriage. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 1998.
“NDP On The Issues.” New Democratic Party of Canada. May 8, 2002. http://www.ndp.ca/issues/default.asp?load=gayrights
Rebick, Judy. “Amendment defining marriage is a betrayal.” CBC News - Viewpoint. Mar. 23, 2000. CBC. Apr. 30, 2002 http://cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/columns/rebick/rebick000323.html
Wood, Owen. “Indepth Background: Gay Rights.” CBC News. CBC. Apr. 30, 2002. http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/gayrights.html