Voted #3. Several years ago, pre-legislation, I argued here against re-definition for a couple of reasons:
1) I used the "slippery slope" type argument, that changing the definition of marriage would lead to all sorts of additional modifications including the legalization of polygamy.
2) I rejected the idea of using our flawed Charter of Rights to invent "group rights" (as opposed to individual rights). Gay people have always had the right to marry...just not each other.
While my overall opinion has changed, the background arguments have not changed. Society (not just religious society, but civil society too) assigned "marriage" a favoured place because it promoted a healthy family model with 2 parents. Expanding that "favoured position" to include couples who fundamentally cannot have children still, I believe, starts us down a slope where marriage is no longer about family and children, but about "love" alone. Even if we accept that these people can adopt children and form a healthy family, this is still an acknowledgement that the "traditional" models of family are open to being questioned, so why not believe that polygamous relationships can't be just as good?
As far as the "rights" arguments, my original problem remains. "Freedom of association" is the only fundamental Charter freedom that really applies to more than 1 person and I never advocated for refusing anybody the right to associate with anyone else. Do whatever, or whoever, you want! That does not mean, though, that your association has to be recognized under the same legal framework as another, fundamentally different association that is recognized for entirely different reasons.
All of the above said, from a pragmatic point of view I was willing to accept civil unions for all...leaving "marriage" as a cultural/religious (not legal) institution and a word free for the using by anyone who wanted to use it. However, in the intervening few years I've realized that the ship has sailed, the horses have left the barn, etc., and "new" marriage is here to stay...as basically an "I love you" contract unrelated to family.
I accept the new reality, and I think the North Carolinan amendment is silly.
|