[BRIEF NOTE] Notes on Gay Marriage
Dec. 9th, 2004 09:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldIt's finally happened: the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that, yes, same-sex marriage is permissible and that the federal government can introduce legislation into Parliament (which Justice Minister Cotler says he will do). Much can still go wrong before then, but inasmuch as the Northwest Territories and three out of the four Atlantic Canadian provinces are the only holdouts, and inasmuch as the provinces can't interfere in the exercise of federal prerogatives like that of marriage, it seems like formal recognition of same-sex marriage ad mare usque ad mare across Canada is only a matter of time.
The debate over same-sex marriage has been marked by a lot of incoherent and inconsistent arguments. For instance, the court also noted that religious denominations are free from any pressure to perform same-sex marriages; but then, as Ronalda Murphy noted this morning on CBC Radio 1's The Current, this decision wasn't particularly surprising considered that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically prevents the Canadian government from interfering in freedom of religion. Perhaps this reflects the profound confusion of religious conservatives concerning marriage generally: what marriage actually has constituted in the past, the role that this institution serves now, what this institution actually is as a legal act.
It goes without saying that I'm personally rather pleased by the decision. One thing that opponents of same-sex marriage don't seem to get is that non-heterosexuals aren't pod people, that they weren't switched at birth with heterosexual children, that we are human and that we do in fact belong to our communities of birth and that in turn we do have a right to expect our community to accomodate us. Yes, I am in fact a Prince Edward Islander and a Canadian; I have, in fact, desires for sexual intimacy and romantic companionship that are entirely comparable with those of heterosexuals and every bit as legitimate as those of heterosexuals. After all, aren't the lyrics of "How Soon Is Now?" universally relevant to us all? Officialdom's moral indifference to the reality of same-sex relationships, as Frederic Martel observed in The Pink and the Black, is far from being the same thing as studied official ignorance. What would be the best resolution to this issue? The simple and natural application of the institution of marriage. Why bother to invent a second-class "civil union" status when the institution of marriage is flexible enough to accomodate just a bit of change? That it is no longer "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others" defined in 1866 by Lord Penzance thanks to divorce is a rather bigger change.
Back in October, Jason Kuznicki noted that many conservatives, unable to completely exclude, seemed to settle upon the definition of non-heterosexuals as a permanent out-caste, inherently grotesque, necessarily and fortunately bracketed off from the rest of society:
My thanks to those many heterosexuals of Canada who treat me as a peer; you're the best, guys.
In the meantime, I'll be heading over to Church Street for a celebratory drink.
The debate over same-sex marriage has been marked by a lot of incoherent and inconsistent arguments. For instance, the court also noted that religious denominations are free from any pressure to perform same-sex marriages; but then, as Ronalda Murphy noted this morning on CBC Radio 1's The Current, this decision wasn't particularly surprising considered that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically prevents the Canadian government from interfering in freedom of religion. Perhaps this reflects the profound confusion of religious conservatives concerning marriage generally: what marriage actually has constituted in the past, the role that this institution serves now, what this institution actually is as a legal act.
It goes without saying that I'm personally rather pleased by the decision. One thing that opponents of same-sex marriage don't seem to get is that non-heterosexuals aren't pod people, that they weren't switched at birth with heterosexual children, that we are human and that we do in fact belong to our communities of birth and that in turn we do have a right to expect our community to accomodate us. Yes, I am in fact a Prince Edward Islander and a Canadian; I have, in fact, desires for sexual intimacy and romantic companionship that are entirely comparable with those of heterosexuals and every bit as legitimate as those of heterosexuals. After all, aren't the lyrics of "How Soon Is Now?" universally relevant to us all? Officialdom's moral indifference to the reality of same-sex relationships, as Frederic Martel observed in The Pink and the Black, is far from being the same thing as studied official ignorance. What would be the best resolution to this issue? The simple and natural application of the institution of marriage. Why bother to invent a second-class "civil union" status when the institution of marriage is flexible enough to accomodate just a bit of change? That it is no longer "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others" defined in 1866 by Lord Penzance thanks to divorce is a rather bigger change.
Back in October, Jason Kuznicki noted that many conservatives, unable to completely exclude, seemed to settle upon the definition of non-heterosexuals as a permanent out-caste, inherently grotesque, necessarily and fortunately bracketed off from the rest of society:
When Coors Brewing, an organization with a long and very poor record on gay issues, suddenly sponsors a raunch fetish party, they are valuing us for who we are. But when we ourselves demand to be treated as ordinary people--That's an attack on the traditional family.
In a sense, it's the hidden curse of diversity. For years, we insisted on the essential difference between gay and straight. We demanded that gays must be accepted as different.
Then some people apparently got the message: Gays are acceptable only if they are these strange, hypersexualized, fundamentally sub-human creatures. We can dance nude on stage or wet ourselves in public--but when we try to get married or raise a family, man, that's sick.
My thanks to those many heterosexuals of Canada who treat me as a peer; you're the best, guys.
In the meantime, I'll be heading over to Church Street for a celebratory drink.
