Beating a dead horse

The same-sex marriage debate, sadly, rages on

KERRI WOLOSZYN STAFF

Bringing up the same-sex marriage debate yet again in the comment section of a newspaper might seem like beating a dead horse. In 2005, Paul Martin’s Liberal government made marriage between gays and lesbians legal in Canada. And then Stephen Harper was elected. Harper promised that the Conservatives would once again dig up the horse (or get it back from the glue factory) and beat it some more by having a vote later this year to see whether or not this issue would be reopened. Many saw the likely result to be the clear rejection of the motion and a final and decisive burial for the Act. However, there is new speculation that, if the motion is lost, the Conservatives would find another way to bring up the issue again. And so beat I must.

The Defence of Religions Act is something that is being bandied about as a possible way for Conservatives to keep the issue alive. The Act would essentially allow public officials who oppose same-sex marriage to refuse taking part in a ceremony. The Act is also being thought of as a way to help religious leaders who openly discuss their

opposition to samesex marriages as further protection of free speech. Many worry that the free speech aspect of the Act could be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as hate speech) and thus these two aspects are being looked at separately.

As recently as Oct. 24, 2006, lobbyists for and against same-sex marriage were talking to MPs on Parliament Hill. The unfortunately named “Canada Family Action Coalition” (CFAC), led by Charles McVety, was there hoping to create a furor and spark controversy. The problem the group saw was that there might be public officials uncomfortable with performing samesex marriages. These public officials would be required by law to perform these marriages and would thus be in a moral dilemma. These would be the people that the Defence of Religions Act would seek to protect.

Clearly, this Defence of Religions Act gives a glimmer of hope to those among the religious Right that desperately want gay marriage abolished. It gives them something to cling to and therefore it is understandable why the Act would be seen as, for them, such a disturbingly appealing pipe-dream. In a way, however, the more media attention focuses on the Act as a possible reality, the more people will see it as such.

Two people who love each other should be allowed to do whatever they want. Marriage is not necessarily owned by religion and early in history it was simply and unequivocally a civil union. Historically marriage has meant a lot of things. It’s been a civil union, a celebration of love, an exchange of “goods.” Because marriage means and has meant so many things it cannot belong to any one religion or set of ideologies.

The truly ridiculous thing about the Defence of Religions Act is that its intent does not serve to protect religions. The goal, instead, is to protect those people who seek to use an aspect of their religion to get out of doing their jobs. Especially disconcerting is that the government would only be defending “religion” against one thing: same-sex marriage. Why would they not seek to protect religions against the many other “sinful” things that we do on a daily basis? Many of these things we are allowed to do because the government says we can.

The problem with the pipe-dream of something like the Defence of Religions Act is that certain people do indeed see it as a dream.

Kerri Woloszyn is the Manitoban’s roving reporter.