Same-Sex Marriage Debate to Re-open in Canada

evangelicalhumanist · #1 (**permalink**) 4th December 2006, 02:04 PM

On December 6, the Parliament of Canada will begin debate on whether to re-open the question of same-sex marriage. Marriage between members of the same-sex was made legal by Parliament in June, 2005, and since then, more than 10,000 people have been married who previously never had that opportunity.

I recently wrote to members of Parliament to voice my concerns at re-opening the issue. What follows is a response from one Member of Parliament, Rod Bruinooge, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians.

Quote:

Rod Bruinooge: "Marriage in its traditional form has been a time-tested institution that has always been at the very foundation of society, providing for its stability, ability to withstand trial, and for its future growth."

I would comment that if marriage is at the foundation of society and provides for what Mr. Bruinooge says it does, then surely it would be better for the country if more couples are able to marry, rather than fewer.

Quote:

It provides the only fruitful and stable union that can both give birth to children, and provide the best possible conditions for their growth and development.

It is in this light that we must understand that the rights of children are at the very heart of this debate, and that in order to protect these rights, we must protect the traditional definition of marriage.

It is my position that the rights of children, as the most vulnerable group in society, must be given the highest priority, even above and beyond the rights of adults.

Can anyone see the misdirection in this? I am sure that Mr. Bruinooge is quite sincere, and is not doing so deliberately, but certainly there is a concealed untruth in these statements. This concealed untruth is:

"If a gay couple gets married, some child somewhere is going to be in jeopardy of losing one or both parents."

To state, as Mr. Bruinooge does, that "the rights of children are at the very heart of this debate" makes a direct causal connection between the marriage of two men or two women and the parenting of children.

There is simply no basis in any kind of fact for such a claim. For the most part, gay men don't have children. Gay women are more likely to. However, even when gay men and women have children, this does not change their orientation. In almost all cases, they are operating as single parents, or living in same-sex relationships. The fact that they are not able to marry a partner of the same sex has not caused them to dash out and find a partner of the opposite sex.

So, in fact, allowing same-sex couples to marry would, even when there are children involved, do more to protect the rights of those children, even though it cannot fix the one thing that seems to be the biggest concern - that there isn't both a mommy and a daddy. But not allowing gays to marry won't solve that, and is in fact more likely to hurt any children that might be involved.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Lightkeeper · #2 (**permalink**) 4th December 2006, 07:49 PM

Many gay men adopt children and many of those are considered unadoptable children. I would call that looking out for the rights of children. I have never seen how same sex marriage effects anyone else's rights or is a threat to heterosexual marriage.

Why support rights for children when we don't give gay and lesbian adults rights? Some day the children we looked out for will be gay and lesbian adults. Why do rights stop at children?

Panth · #3 (**permalink**) 4th December 2006, 11:02 PM

I've always found this line of thought interesting - the equation of marriage to children.

Currently in the US, I believe the latest statistics are 27% of children born to unwed mothers (and I'll point out that these rates for teens have gone down; these are more in their 20's.) Also, where is it written that a marriage must produce children? Some straight couples marry and have no kids - whould this be banned too?

I personally have no problem with gay marriage, polygamy, or any of that. I fail to see how it affects any but those involved any more than any other marriage would.

Rev. Rex · #4 (**permalink**) 5th December 2006, 09:06 PM

I suspect that this is a debate that will continue for many more decades or possibly centuries. This year, though, there were for the first time more households of two or more individuals where they weren't married, including those where a couple had children, so it could very well become a moot point.

evangelicalhumanist · #5 (**permalink**) 6th December 2006, 01:50 PM

This week the Toronto Sun reports that the numbers in Parliament simply aren't there to vote to re-open the debate, so as the headline says, "Harper's bid to rescind same-sex marriage appears doomed." They report a "cushion" of about 13% of Members of Parliament who want to keep the current law intact.

But what's even better, in a poll (by "The Strategic Counsel," taken over the weekend immediately following our convention to select a new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada), one of the questions asked of Canadians is "Would you vote to keep or repeal the same-sex marriage law?"

The result, happily, is that 58% would vote to keep it, 36% would vote to repeal it, 5% didn't know.

Progress is being made in this ol' world!

Jaiket · #6 (**permalink**) 6th December 2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

Progress is being made in this ol' world!

And that is good news.

Astreja · #7 (**permalink**) 7th December 2006, 11:18 PM

It's official: The motion has been defeated.

Happy and relieved here.

evangelicalhumanist · #8 (**permalink**) 8th December 2006, 05:38 PM

Update, folks. Yesterday, Parliament voted, and I'm happy to say there was a clear victory for the GLBT community, and same-sex marriage, as an issue, has been put to bed. By a vote of 175 to 123, Parliament defeated a motion that would reopen the issue and attempt to revert to a definition of marriage as "between one man and one woman."

The most egregious remark I saw during the debate actually showed up on a petition submitted by MP Maurice Vellacott which contained the following statement:

"...the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act encourages adults to violate the equality rights enshrined in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by intentionally depriving, in the case of same sex marriage, certain children of the natural right to know and to be raised by both their mother and father, a right recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and ratified by Canada in 1991."

Now, it would seem to me that Mr. Vellacott, and the petitioners he was acting for, would recognize that the two things that most deprive children of the "natural right to know and be raised by both their mother and father" are divorce and death, in that order.

This was nothing but a deliberate attempt to try and make gays somehow accountable for disintegrating families they have absolutely nothing to do with.

In any case, as Prime Minister Harper noted after the vote, "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

Well, at least not until we get our very own Jerry Foulwill.

maggie · #9 (**permalink**) 8th December 2006, 05:50 PM

I've been watching this closely (as a Canadian) and am absolutely thrilled that this is the outcome. I actually expected this to be the outcome and I knew from the start that Harper was just posturing and pandering to his right-wing base. Now he can say he tried and failed and he'll expect them to keep quiet now, which they probably won't. But the deed is done and it's over. Yahoo!!!

Maggie

evangelicalhumanist · #10 (**permalink**) 9th December 2006, 04:56 PM

On December 5, a gay Member of Parliament addressed the House during the debate on whether to re-open the same-sex marriage debate, with a view to reverting to the previous definition of man/woman only.

I have posted the entire speech on my website but thought I would include a couple of quite eloquent excerpts here.

Quote:

Mr. Bill Siksay (MP, Burnaby-Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has put the following motion before the House:

That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

I am honoured to speak for the New Democratic Party in this debate.

[Mr. Siksay told 3 remarkable stories of marriages ...]

For me, these promises, these stories are what this debate is all about. It is about gay and lesbian couples making promises to each other, promises on the one hand that are not unusual because they are the same as couples have made to each other in marriage for years and years...

They are promises that provide a firm foundation for life-affirming relationships. They provide a firm foundation for families. These promises make our communities stronger by expanding the circle of intimate, justice seeking, loving relationships. These promises give security, security to couples, security to the children of these partnerships, security to our families and our communities. These promises lead to serious legal obligations and responsibilities that are willingly and enthusiastically engaged.

Building relationships, founding families, expanding intimacy in the pursuit of justice and love, providing security, assuming responsibility: all these are foundations of a strong society, all values that contribute to a strong society, all defining aspects of the institution of marriage in our society.

Twelve thousand five hundred couples, 25,000 individuals, have made the same kind of commitment in Canada since marriage became possible for gay and lesbian couples. These marriages were performed by clergypersons and by secular marriage commissioners, all of whom were licensed to solemnize marriages by their provincial governments and given the civil authority to legally marry couples as defined now by the federal Civil Marriage Act.

These couples who chose to be married are not people who want to change the institution of marriage, but instead are people who only seek to be included in this institution, because they believe in the values that it represents and that it supports. They are people who have been raised in families and communities that hold marriage in high regard.

Thousands more in Canada have stood with these couples as members of wedding parties, best men and maids of honour, as members of congregations, as family members and as witnesses. In doing so, we have pledged our support for these couples. We have witnessed their love and commitment and pledged to honour and respect those relationships. We have agreed to be part of their families.

Marriage is stronger in Canada for these thousands of commitments by gay and lesbian couples and by their witnesses. Often we have left these marriage ceremonies inspired with new respect for this institution. In so many ways, gay and lesbian couples are true marriage evangelicals in Canada. They are the people fervently advocating for this institution, an institution that has faced many challenges in recent decades. I believe that gay and lesbian couples who marry have breathed new life into this venerable institution.

...

As gay and lesbian Canadians, we recognized, whether or not we sought to be married ourselves, that it was not acceptable to be told that we could not walk through the front door of a key institution of our society. We also recognized that a lesser recognition of our relationships, such as civil union, cheapened our citizenship and made us less than full citizens. Entering a key institution of our society by a side or back door or creating a separate institution to recognize our relationships is not equality and not full citizenship.

...The witness of gay and lesbian married couples, the family, friends and co-workers who support them, and the Civil Marriage Act make that celebration possible. That is why New Democrats in the House will be voting against the Conservative government motion.

By the way, the motion was defeated. Same-sex couple can marry (not "civil union") in Canada.

This was a brief excerpt. Click on the link below to read the entire speech.

http://evangelicalhumanist.com/2006/...-same-sex.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode