Ban Marriage!
There is a large movement in Canada (and probably larger in the United States) to ban the legalization of same-sex marriage. The people pushing for this typically say that gays and lesbians already have most of the rights of opposite-sex couples, and that should be good enough. Give them civil-unions. We will tolerate that...Right... Well, I'd like to start the movement to ban marriage in its entirety on account that it violates the equality rights guaranteed to us by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thanks to my dad, I happen to have a copy of this charter in front of me. Under Equality Rights, it reads:
Now, I'm no lawyer, but my interpretation of this clause leads me to believe that in this country, every individual is to have equal rights. Not allowing one individual [of legal age] to marry another individual [also of legal age] is therefore in violation of the aforementioned right.
Marriage is defined by my Oxford Colour Dictionary (Second Edition) as "1. the formal union of a man and woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2. the relationship between a husband and wife." Interestingly enough, Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary (an American publication) is quite a bit more progressive in its definition: "1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage [same-sex marriage] b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union [the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross]."
I liken my views on marriage to those of the libertarians. They criticize government regulation of and the state's involvement in marriage because it was and still is a religious institution. "Marriage" as it were — that is, a legal union between two individuals — should be treated no differently than any other binding, legal contract between two consenting parties. Whatever "family values" these parties may wish to apply to this arrangement should be up to those parties, and should have no involvement with the state.
A while back, I coined the term, registered partnership. While it has been pointed out to me that this isn't exactly "romantic", I do feel it satisfies everything about which the state should be concerned. Just think: you may one day hear yourself saying, "Sorry, I can't go. Me and the registered partner are having a quiet night in." Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? :)
But seriously... The majority (if not all) of the people who oppose granting every Canadian that which is guaranteed (but not honoured) in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are religious. If the "traditional" definition of marriage is so bloody important to these religious types, I say we let them have it. Separate it completely out of our legal institutions, and let it prosper within the walls of churches, synagogs, temples, and whatever other godly structures are out there. Who needs it? And what would be the harm of doing this? I would be perfectly happy in a civil union or registered partnership, as I'm sure would the majority of other [sane] people like me.
Comments
As usual, Patrick kicks ass. - Ian Wojtowicz, Thursday, February 3, 2005 And How! - Meredith Archer, Wednesday, February 16, 2005 I am opposed same sex marriage or same sex regestered partnership on the bases that this is then a legal family in which a child can enter. Two mums or two dads in my opinion is not a healthy environment for any newcomer to the earth. - Patrick Gibson (Aust), Sunday, February 20, 2005 Gay, shmay. It's loving parents that make a difference in kids' lives - regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Any kid these days that actually has two parents at home is ahead of the game, whether it's a mom and a dad, two moms, two dads, or whatever variations thereof. - Joanna, Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Is Joanna a lesbian, because then i would agree that she would have a bias opinion, but otherwise a one parent home is better than two same sex parents. - Jamie Barnes, Sunday, February 27, 2005 Unless we start licensing the ability to be parents where the parents undergo a series of tests to make sure they are fit, it is not fair to say that two opposite sex parents are better than two same sex. I have seen plenty of examples of woman/man parents that are abusive and otherwise horrible parents. Yet, because they are of opposite gender, this is somehow better than two, loving same-sex parents who understand what it is like to be treated terribly by society and will instill tolerant and welcoming values into their children? What are you people afraid of?! That you might catch the "disease" of homosexuality? Move out of your hick-town and open your fucking eyes. - Patrick Gibson, Monday, February 28, 2005 Oh, and to Jamie Barnes: great reasoning! Let's have children growing up in poverty with hardly any proper parenting because that single parent is so busy working all of the time. That sounds a lot better than have two supportive, gay parents who will be able to provide a much better environment with two incomes and more time to spend with their kid. - Patrick Gibson, Monday, February 28, 2005 For a defense of gay marriage see the website. - Jim Andris, Monday, September 26, 2005 |  |
Post a comment |
