Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyCook
The way I see it, I'm not against gay marriage simply because I consider myself to be rational and tolerant of other people.
The fact that people oppose something like this so much appalls me. Who am I to say that two people love eachother can't get married because I don't agree with their lifestyles?
|
I'm not up for a debate, because I'm tired of the issue and I'm resigned to the fact that it's here to stay. However, I do need to say that your opinion of dissenters is based on your own assumptions, and not necessarily our beliefs. My beliefs are not religious...they're logical, tolerant, and they have been dismissed. So be it. It's over.
I personally don't have a problem with a gay lifestyle. If it makes two people happy, they should live that way. I don't have a problem with legal unions of two gay people...I think they should be entitled to all the legal benefits available to others. A system of allowing legal civil unions, equal in all respects to marriage, would have satisfied me. Undoubtedly, union-ed couples would have called themselves married anyhow, despite whatever the legal document said.
My problem was with the way the debate played out, including both the rationale and the tactics used.
1) Rationale: The demands for "marriage" as opposed to "legal unions" (or whatever name) were based on the tenet that a separate, but equal class of legal relationship would not in fact be equal if it couldn't be called the same thing. E.g., "equal but different is not equal at all!" I personally find that a weak argument when I consider all of the other minority/oppressed groups who have fought for equality, yet consciously chosen to maintain their original identities. I find it odd that a group with so much "pride" would want to be melded into the majority group, instead of fighting for their own, equal institution and then fighting to have it recognized as equal.
Many will agree with me that this was as much (or more) a fight about a word as it was about equality. That being the case, I find it disturbing that the views of a large constituency about this particular word were disregarded in favour of the demands of a much smaller group.
2) Tactics: As you're no doubt aware, while several provincial courts ruled on the unconstitutional nature of traditional marriage, the Supreme Court never ruled that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. In response to the reference question (paraphrased as): "is the opposite-sex requirement constitutional?", the SCC declined to make a decision on the grounds that the government had already stipulated the point by their refusal to appeal lower court rulings of unconstitutionality.
In short: the lower courts made a decision...the government executive (not parliament as a whole) decided that it agreed with their decision...and then claimed that it had no choice but to change the definition because the courts said so. That claim of "no choice" was used to influence public opinion as they repeatedly raised the "notwithstanding clause" issue. That was a lie, as any legislative body can attempt to defend its legislation all the way to the top. Personally, I think changes to the law should be made by the people and their elected representatives. Not by surreptitious decisions made by the governing executive, and blamed on unelected judges.
As for the court challenges themselves, I think they were based on a faulty premise: the Charter sets out individual rights, not "couple's rights." Every person previously had the right to marry...just not the right to marry certain people: close family members, people of the same sex, 2 people at the same time, horses, for example. Some of these restrictions are justified by the premise that such a marriage could cause harm, as in the production of children from an incestuous marriage or the abuse of wives by a polygamous husband. If that justification does not exist--e.g. a sterile brother & sister combination--then the prohibition on these marriages must also fall as unconstitutional under a Charter challenge. Regrettably, the provincial court judges failed to realize this point and have now inserted "couple's rights" into the Charter.
Court challenges based on Charter rights have a place. For example, a farmer's right to sell his grain as he pleases is a great example of a challenge that should succeed. However, I think the over-use of Charter challenges is dangerous to this country, as is the tendency of our current Supreme Court judges to "read-in" rights that aren't explicitly set out in the Charter. If a government allows provincial court of appeal judges to define Canadian law without any opposition, then I think we've already lost democracy.
So to summarize:
My opposition wasn't based on lifestyle or equality. It was based on what I perceived to be dangerous trends in Canadian democracy. So STOP CALLING ME INTOLERANT (as you did) unless you're willing to take the time to understand all the points of view!
Anyhow...I've given up, and the matter is settled.