July 16, 2003

Toronto’s been rather an exciting place to live lately, what with the whole legalizing gay marriage thing, SARS erupting again and pot becoming legal up here.   Too bad the tourists haven’t been around for the show.  Yonge Street, which would normally be thick with visitors, is looking more like the promenade deck of the Marie Celeste these days.

In fact, many of the tourists brave enough to visit lately are gay couples arriving to be married.  (One must assume that eventually the stoners will arrive to partake of our world famous B.C. marijuana.)

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you will be aware that a recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling held that reserving marriage for heterosexuals only is repugnant to the supreme law of Canada (otherwise known as a nifty little document called The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). 

I’ll spare you the constitutional law lecture and cut to the chase.  The Charter guarantees certain fundamental rights - legislation found to offend it is generally "struck down" and declared invalid.  Sometimes, the court will give the offending legislature (either provincial or federal, whatever the case may be), a certain amount of time to amend the impugned enactment so that it accords with the constitutional guarantees. (It may also be "read down" - i.e. construed in a way not to offend the Charter, or be subject to a s.1 -- the "but for"-- exception.  In this instance, however, the court baldly declared it unconstitutional.)

Needless to say, the religious groups are freaking out over the whole issue.  Their argument, if I understand it, goes something like this:  marriage is a union ordained by God and reserved ONLY for a man and a woman for the procreation of children.  Allowing homosexuals to marry would tear at the very fabric of Canadian society and threaten all that is good and pure about marriage and family here in the Great White North -- where the divorce rate approaches 60%, I might add.  Speaking strictly as a lawyer, if homosexuals are as bad at keeping marriages alive as we breeders are, opportunities for new business abound.  But I digress.) 

Ridiculous fundamentalist groups, homophobes and other assorted fugitives from the butterfly nets are coming out of the woodwork, frothing at the mouth over the evils of gay marriage.  Although irritating beyond belief, it has led to moments of unexpectedly riveting television. 

A "spokeswoman" from my personal favourite anti-feminist "think tank" called --*get this* -- "REAL Women" - was filmed getting herself all worked up into a frenzy of June Cleaverish outrage at this attack on what she called "family values".  Widespread snickering could be heard among the assembled journalists, though whether this was occasioned by her remarks or by the enormous camel toe she was sporting must remain a matter of speculation. (Little bit of free Canadiana:  up here we call ‘em "moose knuckles".)

Just as an aside, check out their website: http://www.realwomenca.com/  Although I’ve been acquainted with this unholy coterie of Stepford Wives since law school, anyone stumbling across their site could be forgiven for assuming that their aim was satirical.  Sadly, they appear to be serious.  Not everything they say is risible nonsense and to give them the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume their aims are noble - but far be it for me to put words into their perfectly lipsticked mouths, especially on an issue as controversial as homosexuality.  Let’s hear it from them, shall we?  And I quote:

The powerful homosexual lobby claims that homosexuality constitutes a healthy alternative to heterosexuality. Experts demonstrate, however, that many psychological troubles, illnesses and specific sexually transmitted diseases afflict this sexual minority. It is documented that almost one third of boys who adopt the homosexual lifestyle will be HIV positive or dead before the age of 30. They have the life span of a Canadian living in 1871. There is only 1% - 3% of the population which is homosexual, and a vast majority of AIDS sufferers in Canada are homosexual. The publisher and managing editor of the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra, in an article published in the September 27, 2002 issue, confirms that the homosexual lifestyle is much less healthy than that of straight men. The tragic health problems associated with the homosexual lifestyle were also acknowledged in an article in the March 2003 issue of the homosexual magazine, TO BE.

Let’s hope they don’t get it into their heads to untie their aprons long enough to start burning a few crosses!  That might mean that dinner wouldn’t be on the table when their husbands got home! 

(And before you start with the emails, let me make it clear that many women find it fulfilling to be stay at home wives and mothers.  Nothing wrong with that, if that’s your choice and you are lucky enough to have the economic wherewithal to make it a viable option.   Just don’t vilify the rest of us with children who must work in order to provide for our families.)

Parades of multi-denominational preachers are clogging the airwaves with fervent denunciations of gay marriage and appeals to God to smite everyone from the Canadian judiciary to the practitioners of this "unnatural lifestyle".  Only damnation will result from this horrible affront to decency, apparently. The nation has been repeatedly assured that God will make his displeasure known and that the day of reckoning is upon us.

Unwilling to wait for the intervention of the Almighty, the government has instead today submitted three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, along with the draft legislation it proposes.  This is known as "Charter-proofing" the legislation - making sure it gets the OK from the Supremes prior to its enactment.  This prevents it from being constitutionally challenged once it has become law.

The buzz is that the Supremes will accept the amendment to the Marriage Act which would change the definition of marriage from a union between "a man and a woman" to a union between "two persons".  I suspect however, that they will also rule that religious institutions can refuse to conduct gay ceremonies.  The Supremes are nothing if not even-handed and I would be surprised if they decided to take on entities like the Catholic Church.  The last question submitted deals with a constitutional "division of powers" issue regarding whether or not the feds have exclusive jurisdiction over the definition of marriage.  I suspect the court will assure us that they do. (It all goes back to the original constitutional division of powers they came up with in 1867 and in my opinion, is purely a question of law - and a moot one at that.)

Why are so many people getting so hepped up about this?  WHO CARES??  According to a recent opinion poll, two thirds of the nation favour recognizing same sex marriages, or at the very least, do not oppose it.    It seems absolutely self-evident to me that as long as partners consent and wish their relationship to be solemnized, who the hell gives a hoot whether both of them are male or both female?  Jeez, love is hard to find and it’s only natural that you’d want to celebrate it with family and friends should you be lucky and courageous enough to try to make it permanent.

Gay marriage?  I’m all for it. To deny homosexuals equality in this arena is to deny them their fundamental right to structure their lives to suit themselves and any law that prevents them from tying the knot is repugnant to me on about a billion levels.

Besides, why shouldn’t they suffer like the rest of us?

Till next time,

Morrigan