Marriage "Under Siege": Violating Natural Law?

It wasn't just Presidential hopefuls who took to the podium at the Faith and Freedom Coalition convention in Washington, DC. It was also individuals like House of Represenatives member Michelle Bachmann.

Bachmann took to the FCC stage to declare that marriage is "under siege". Explaining the story of her opposition to court-mandated legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in the state of Minnesota. Bachmann's objection was a simple one: that citizens of Minnesota should have the opportunity to vote on whether or not the traditional definition of marriage -- one man and one woman -- will be enshrined in the state Constitution.

Bachmann notes the rising levels of divorce and family breakup. The key question social conservatives such as Bachmann need to answer is thus: how will excluding same-sex couples from marriage improve this?

Bachmann, and those who share her line of thinking on this matter, should understand that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is at odds with their notions of natural law -- the idea that rights, such as the right to equality before the law, and the right to pursue happiness -- are not granted by individuals or by governments; they are inalienable.

If same-sex couples have a natural law right to equality before the law, then the citizens of Minnesota technically do not actually have the right to vote to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage. (Nor could court justices claim the fight to order churches to perform same-sex marriages, something that courts have never considered anyway.) This would represent a tyranny of the majority in violation of the principles of natural law the United States constitution is based on.

Tyranny of a majority is no more permissable than tyranny of a minority. Michelle Bachmann and the FFC have a great deal more thinking to do on these issues; hopefully, they will do it.

America Should Turn to Values

Over the next seventeen months, various left-wing gladflies will tut relentlessly every time a Republican declares that the United States should turn toward God, as former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty recently did at a Faith and Freedom Coalition convention.

It will be heard, time and time again. Whether or not the United States should "turn back to God" is extremely debatable. Some will confuse it -- some even deliberately -- for a voiced preference for theocracy, declaring it to a violation of constituionally-mandated church and state.

(They're mistaken. It's the shariah-promoting radical Islamist groups they so often champion that are the threat to separation of church and state.)

Lingering just under the surface of that message is an idea that is not as debatable: America needs to turn to its values.

Naturally, what those values are is a matter of intense debate. It should be. The more smug anyone, conservative, liberal, progressive, or otherwise, is in declaring what America's values are, the more they should be questioned.

Pawlenty's ideas on abortion and same-sex marriage should be the subject of every bit as much debate. Pawlenty should better define his vision for proper abortion legislation. Moreover, it could be said that he lacks the imagination necessary to realize that adopted children could be raised just as well within a household based on same-sex marriage as within a traditional marriage.

But the wonderful thing about an election -- even something a little murkier as a primary election -- is that people have the opportunity to listen to political candidates explaio their views, and then vote according to what they deem their values to be.

America should turn to its values. Whether that means America turns to God, or even turns to Tim Pawlenty, will be up to American citizens to decide.

Some Things Just Aren't About Same-Sex Marriage

Carrie Prejean's teenaged sex life is one of them

As the political left continues to drag Carrie Prejean's kicking and screaming personal life into the spotlight, a somewhat surprising figure has entered the fray.

Writing on the Daily Beast, Meghan McCain complained that Sean Hannity didn't rake Prejean over the coals enough in regards to her sex tape.

"This was Prejean's first stop on her book publicity tour, and when the sex tape came up, he proceeded to ask her if she was 'in love with her boyfriend at the time that she made [it].' I'm sorry, why would being in love matter when it comes to filming yourself in a sexual context?" she asked.

Sadly, one would expect that the answer to this question wouldn't so elude a woman who describes herself as pro-sex.

The better question, for McCain and for those who intend to use the video in question for rhetorical advantage, is this:

What does Carrie Prejean's video have to do with same-sex marriage? Or even with her position on same-sex marriage?

The answer, or course, is simple: the answer is "absolutely nothing".

McCain's confusion over this topic became evident as she continued writing:

"The problem I have with my fellow Republicans is why gay marriage is the trump card in any situation," McCain continued. "It seems that as long as you are against gay marriage, any scandal in your life can be overlooked or overcome. When you are in favor of it, however -- and I have been very vocal about my support -- that position defines you."

Many conservatives understand what Meghan McCain evidently does not -- that while the Prejean tape certainly serves the purposes of the scandal-mongering attack machines of the political left, it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand: same-sex marriage.

McCain's support for same-sex marriage, however, very much is relevant to this issue (duh. -ed) and, rightly or wrongly, this is one of the issues that is causing McCain such difficulties within not only the Republican Party, but within conservative circles as well.

Meghan McCain certainly isn't obligated to agree with Carrie Prejean -- this author, in particlar, certainly doesn't.

But if anything, McCain ought to sympathize with Prejean. After all, it wasn't even that long ago that the left-wing hate machine heaped its vapid attentions upon her.

Moving Beyond Tolerance

Mere tolerance is not enough

When Kevin Smith directed Chasing Amy in 1997, his career had fallen on hard times.

His first movie, Clerks, had become a critically-acclaimed indie-cult hit. But the follow-up, Mallrats recieved a tepid response from critics, tickets sold poorly at the box-office, and it would take years for his film to find its audience.

If not for the presence of the iconic Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (Smith himself), it may never have had.

But Chasing Amy did more than simply revive Smith's flagging career. It imparted an important message for those preoccupied with the nature of the identity politics at the heart of relations between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

In the film, Holden McNeil (Ben Affleck) is a rising star in the comic book industry, courtesy of his popular Adventures of Bluntman and Chronic series. HIs partner in crime is Banky Edwards (Jason Lee), a spastic inker resentful of those who look down on his profession as "tracing".

McNeil has a tenuous relationship with the women in his life. When he meets Alyssa Jones (Joey Lauren Adams) he becomes instantly smitten with her. But this is a problem.

Alyssa, as it turns out, is a lesbian. Or at the very least bisexual.

McNeil embarks upon an awkward friendship with Alyssa in which he hammers out his own attitudes toward not merely homosexuality, but human sexuality in general. The relationship eventually blossoms into a romance, but eventually crashes and burns on the revelation that Alyssa had participated in some extremely "interesting" sex acts during high school.

The film eventually concludes that McNeil may not have really known and loved Alyssa for who -- or what -- she truly is. He sought out to change her, and then, having accomplished this task, became insensed when the illusory Alyssa he thought he had created turned out to be just that: an illusion.

McNeil was prepared to accept Alyssa's bisexuality, but never really accepted it. And therein lies the rub.

Many Canadians believe they can prove their tolerance for homosexuals by supporting token political causes like same-sex marriage. But tolerance alone isn't enough.

First off, the notion of tolerance has a dark undertone to it: that something may be wrong (in the numerous senses of the word) and should merely be tolerated or endured. It doesn't translate into any deeper acceptance of the individuals whom one is tolerating.

When many cities hold their annual Gay Pride festivities -- as Edmonton did today -- one can draw the distinction between acceptance and tolerance. Those who accept gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trannsexuals for who they are can be seen at these events (at the very least at the parade). Those who don't fully accept homosexuals are likely at home, merely tolerating them.

Perhaps they tolerate the presence of the LGBT crowd in their community. But given the opportunity, perhaps they would want to change them.

That is not acceptance. It's barely even tolerance. In producing a just society for Canada's LGBT community, Canadians must move beyond mere tolerance and accept the LGBT community for who they are.

It doesn't necessarily mean that one should show up to their local gay pride events. But it's a good symbolic start.

Loners, Losers and Canadian Multiculturalism

Speaking via ForaTv, former US President Bill Clinton explains how the adoption of the principle of majority rules in more and more countries around the world has a potential dark side -- the oppression of those who may not readily be considered part of that majority.

Clinton describes them bascially as "losers" and "loners", and says that the litmus test for any true democracy is whether or not a citizen has enough individual rights that they can potentially lose -- politically, economically, socially, culturally or otherwise -- and still be safe from oppression.

At its basest level, there does seem to be a key dilemma between majority rule and respect for the rights of minorities. As we see in many countries less enlightened than our own, in systems wherein majority rule is considered absolute minorities tend to not have many rights.

Multicultural societies should likely be considered less prone to this kind of absolutism. As Satya Das notes, because of the broad cultural variety of Canadian society Canadians have had to set aside our differences and respect the rights of groups that, if judged by a standard of ethnic -- as opposed to civil -- nationalism would themselves be minorities.

If Canadians continued to discriminate against groups such as Icelandic, Ukrainian or Irish Canadians there would be no shortage of people for those prone to such behaviour to discriminate against. What there would end up being a shortage of is Canadians among the so-called "majority".

This is one of the best reasons for Canadians who may not yet have come around to the idea of multiculturalism to acclimate themselves to it. Within the next thirty years caucasian Canadians will be a numeric minority in Canada. Those accustomed to enjoying a privileged position within Canada on account of being part of this so-called majority will find themselves in a rather uncomfortable position at that point.

But one also has to remember that there can also be a dark side to the group rights promoted by multiculturalism as well. As Benjamin Barber points out group rights -- particularly within minority groups -- can lead to a communitarian ethos in which minority groups demand absolute solidarity from its members, to the extent that members are forced to surrender individual rights in order to remain part of their community what eventually emerges is not a society that is more democratic, but in fact less.

Mixing the notions of majority rule with an overwhelmingly communitarian ethos leads to situations were people are not free, to the extent to which they are very literally enslaved by their communities.

Canada has, for the most part, passed the test of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Whether Canada has succeeded in protecting the majority from what Preston Manning termed "the tyranny of the minority" is another matter entirely.

Some would argue that legalizing same-sex marriage over what they deemed to be the opposition of the majority -- which was actually the agreement of a minority coupled with the comparable indifference of the majority of Canadians -- empowered same-sex couples at the expense of the majority of Canadians. Many Canadians -- including this author -- would disagree with them, but this case is nonetheless argued.

The case that individuals are subjected to the tyranny of community is much stronger. Consider the case of aboriginal women denied rights granted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- and, through it, Canada's Constitution -- because political elites within the aboriginal community oppose it.

These are merely two examples in which Canadian democracy has either failed, or is argued to fail, to amply balance the rights of majorities and minorities, and communities and individuals.

Although Canada has performed this balancing act better than many other countries, it's certainly been far from perfect, and there are many improvements that could be made.

The What the Fuck!? Files Vol. 7: Keith Olbermann Rips Me Off

Keith Olbermann recently debuted a regular segment on his show that seems to suggest that Olbermann may be a Nexus reader.

In a segment entitled the WTF!?! Moment -- which seems very similar to the Nexus' What the Fuck!? Files -- Olbermann takes some time out to complain about Carrie Prejean's recent complaints that her freedom of speech had been violated.

Olbermann rightly notes that the United States Bill of Rights, as entrenched in the United States Constitution via Ten Amendments, only provides decisive protection from governmental oppression of free speech.

Olbermann continues to argue that her employer could deny her the right to freedom of speech, noting that his own employer, CNBC, could deny him freedom of speech. As such, nothing Prejean said about same-sex marriage is actually subject to protection.

But Olbermann's argument fails on two key tenets.

First, Prejean made her comments in the course of a question asked by Perez Hilton, a question she was obligated to answer as part of the contest she was participating in. Olbermann's employer may be justified in taking him off the air if, indeed, he made comments that were deemed outside the realm of professionalism.

But the matter would be very different if Olbermann's producer asked him a question about a political issue and was given a question they decided they didn't like.

Second, Constitutional convention has treated the First Amendment very differently from the manner in which Olbermann describes it. There are countless cases of individuals suing for retaliation against them after the exercise of their free speech.

Amusingly, if asked, Olbermann would likely describe himself as a progressive, or at least as a liberal.

Yet Olbermann's depiction of freedom of expression as applicable to Prejean puts him distinctly at odds with the kind of free environment that is needed for liberal pluralism to survive. Robert B Talisse has noted that in order for liberalism to be truly viable, more is needed than simply legal protection of free speech. Rather, a culture of free speech -- in which public deliberation on matters of import, such as same-sex marriage -- is actively encouraged of people regardless of whatever opinion they may hold on the topic.

If Prejean were someone being censured for supporting same-sex marriage one can fully expect that Olbermann would react very differently to her plight. This is the base hypocrisy at the core of Olbermann's stance on this particular matter.

One should expect better from someone who is supposed to be a respected journalist, but Olbermann strays from the ill-conceived directly to the comical.

In addressing the recent "scandalous" photos of Prejean, Olbermann insists that the photos couldn't have been taken without Prejean's authorization because she's looking at the camera in each photo. Except, she isn't. In one of the photos -- the one with the clearly visible pre-implant breast -- Prejean is very clearly looking away from the camera.

She even has her hands up as if she's been adjusting her hair, for fuck's sake! For fuck's sake, Keith!

In the other photo, the exposure of the nipple is actually so slight that it's clearly more attributable to a Janet Jackson-esque "wardrobe malfunction" than to any willingness on Prejean's behalf to submit to a risque photo.

The utterly comical thing about that aspect of the entire affair is that very few people honestly consider the finished product of these photo shoots to be scandalous or risque. Aside from those milking these photos out of political motivations, one would have to travel to the most conservative depths of the Bible belt in order to find someone who would find them scandalous.

But it's amazing the extent to which Olbermann is willing to mortgage his journalistic credibility -- then default -- in order to contribute to the personal destruction of Carrie Prejean.

It's really the kind of thing that makes a person scratch their head and say "what the fuck" -- and we were doing that here first.

Opportunism Defined

American left out to crucify someone -- and they've chosen Carrie Prejean

For anyone who ever bought the myth that only the right-wing in America delights in destroying people who provoke their ire, the events that continue to swirl around Carrie Prejean prove differently. In this event the bloodthirstiness of the American left is on full display, and it seems very much equal to the non-mythical bloodthirstiness of the American right.

The Huffington Post rather gleefully jumped on a recent revelation that Prejean has had breast implants.

These people have slipped so deeply into folly that they've even managed to make one of America's perrenial wrong clocks, Laura Ingraham, right about something.

Substituting for Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham contronted feminist Gloria Feldt over the body image-oriented attacks on Prejean.

At issue was a segment of Keith Olbermann's Countdown in which a gay writer launched into a long tirade of personal and body-oriented attacks on Prejean.

"I am thinking to myself, where are the feminists?" Ingraham asked. "Are feminists not going to say, wait a second. You do not go there with a young woman."

"I think now she is fair game. She is now fair game because she is a national spokesperson for a group that opposes marriage equality," Feldt replied. She evidently failed to perceive the irony.

But Ingraham did.

"This is great!" Ingraham said. "A feminist is attacking a woman for how she looks. This is great. You guys have come full circle here in the United States of America. Now it is OK for feminists to ridicule women for the way they look."

Just as many American feminists threw thousands of pregnant teenagers under the bus in order to get at Sarah Palin through her daughter, many American feminists -- certainly not all and hopefully not even a majority of them -- are now throwing the thousands of women who are insecure enough about their body image to get breast implants under the bus.

But an even deeper irony seems to rest on the Miss California organization's inability to properly define "opportunism".

In an April 30 press release, Miss California spokespeople wrote: "We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her commitment to all Californians, and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the right to voice her beliefs and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda."

They may want to double-check the meaning of opportunism.

Levelling charges of opportunism against Prejean suggests that she went looking for this controversy. Yet those familiar with the overall story know the truth is very different. Prejean didn't go out of her way to find an opportunity to voice her opinion on same-sex marriage.

Rather, she was asked that question by Perez Hilton, who was looking for an opportunity to politicize the Miss USA proceedings.

While no one is obligated to agree with Prejean's opinion -- this author has previously expressed his disagreement -- one at the very least has to respect the fact that Prejean chose to answer the question honestly. She gave her true opinion, and has since been unflinching and unrepentant about that.

Certainly, one could raise the argument that Prejean could have offered the same "no comment" answer as she has used to respond to questions about her breast implants. Then again, one also has to keep in mind that one of Hilton's complaints is that Prejean allegedly didn't answer the question.

As soon as Hilton asked that question, there was no way that Prejean could escape the onslaught of public attack she's been subject to ever since with her integrity intact. She could either lie about her opinion and escape unattacked, or tell the truth and endure it.

She chose to do the former, and history has since largely spoken for itself.

Now that their elected representatives are firmly in control of the country, the American left is out to absolutely destroy someone. They've chosen Carrie Prejean.

The High Road is a Hard Road

Meghan McCain's same-sex marriage appeal likely to win few friends in GOP

In a recent post on the Daily Beast, Meghan McCain has issued some advice to the Republican party that some people in the GOP will almost certainly not like.

She insists that Repblicans need to support same-sex marriage.

"Of all the causes I believe in and speak publicly about, this is one of the ones closest to my heart," McCain writes.

She goes on to note how important the Log Cabin Republicans are to the GOP, re-connecting them with some of their most important values.

"The Log Cabin Republicans’ mission 'is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians,'" she continues. "The group is centered on core Republican values, such as limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, an economy based in free markets, and a strong national defense. And in the spirit of the GOP’s founding beliefs—personal freedom and liberty—they are dedicated to securing full equality for gays and lesbians in America to create a stronger, larger, and more-unified GOP."

Even Ronald Reagan, the United States' prototype arch-conservative, was wise enough to recognize how important organizations like the LCR are to the party.

"Yeah, you read that right," McCain continued. "The ultimate Republican rock star bucked the conventional wisdom of his advisers as they were planning his presidential campaign and helped fight the [California] anti-gay proposition because he knew it was wrong. Reagan’s argument centered around the idea that parents already had all the rights they needed to protect their children and that the government did not need to interfere. It was a perfect example of the Great Communicator doing what was right, but not in a way that further divided voters."

Few conservatives have made the case for conservative support for same-sex marriage quite as eloquently as Canadians Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin. In Rescuing Canada's Right Daifallah and Kheiriddin argue that conservatives should support same-sex marriage as well as adoption rights for same-sex couples precisely because they're pro-family policies.

Kheiriddin and Daifallah's appeal made them highly suspect to religious conservatives within Canada's conservative movement. Fortunately, religious conservatives have been comparatively marginal within Canadian conservatism.

However, Meghan McCain isn't as fortunate. Her pro-same-sex marriage appeal will likely draw the ire of American religious conservatives, and give her detractors -- individuals such as Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham -- more ammunition to usse against her.

It doesn't change the fact that supporting same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. Certainly, the Republicans could support same-sex marriage for political gain, but this is the wrong reason.

The right reason is to follow the example of Ronald Reagan and support the Log Cabin Republicans because it's right. It's precisely the kind of right thing that ideologues like Coulter, Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh will not allow the party to do, except over its own dead body.

"At the most basic level, sexual orientation should not be a factor in how you are treated," McCain writes. "If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric."

What Meghan McCain has done promises to make her life in the GOP extremely difficult. But the high road -- the right road -- is rarely an easy one to follow.

The high road is usually a hard road. Hopefully, Republicans share McCain's courage to walk it.

Gay Marriage Hardly "Canada's Biggest Mistake"

But it's not altogether unsurprising Michael Coren would think so

It hasn't taken Michael Coren very much effort to be one of Canada's most controversial media figures.

From managing to get blackballed by the CBC to suggsting we should drop a Nuclear weapon in Iran, Coren has proven to be a walking, talking controversy machine -- one only marginally more worrying than Peter Worthington.

As such, it's unsurprising that Coren would use the National Post's Canada's Biggest Mistake series to rock the boat on a very controversial topic: same-sex marriage.

Not-so-shockingly, he's not a fan. He does, however, have some lucid moments in the course of his ruminations:

"What makes the national mistake of legalizing same-sex marriage unique in Canadian history is that to even discuss the issue is considered by many, particularly our elites, to be at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. Although this is a valid and vital debate about social policy, anyone critiquing the status quo is likely to be marginalized as hateful, extreme or simply mad. Social conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re evil."

Social conservatives do indeed carry a demonstrable stigma. Labeled as selfish, uncaring and compassionless, social conservatives have often had to tiptoe around their own views.

Very recently, they represented a group that had largely been pushed to the margins of Canada's political discourse, and literally had to pull the rug out from under Canada's conservative elites in order to get their voices heard.

While Canada's social conservatives enjoy a more secure place in Canadian political discourse -- yet never quite as comfortable as they'd like -- the stigma remains, and that stigma has underscored the entire debate regarding same-sex marriage.

"The discussion, we are told, is over. Which is what triumphalist bullies have said for centuries after they win a battle. In this case, the intention is to marginalize anyone who dares to still speak out. In other words, to silence them."

Clearly, the discussion is not over. The fact that Coren is discussing the matter at all -- let alone under the heading of "Canada's biggest mistake" -- is evidence enough of that.

But one also remembers the Conservative party's controversial move to reopen the issue of same-sex marriage for debate in the House of Commons. One also remembers that Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself declared the issue closed, once the motion -- which was debated in the House -- was defeated. It had been both supported and opposed by members of both the Liberals and Conservatives.

Canadians have had plenty of opportunity to discuss same-sex marriage -- once while the same-sex marriage-supporting Liberals were in power, then again with the largely same-sex marriage-opposing Conservatives in power. And now, again in the pages of the National Post.

How much more discussion does Coren really want?

"It’s important to emphasize that this is not really about homosexuality at all, and has nothing to do with homosexual people living together. Opponents of same-sex marriage may have ethical and religious objections to homosexuality, but they are irrelevant to the central argument. Which is not about the rights of a sexual minority but the status and meaning of marriage.

Indeed, the deconstruction of marriage began not with the gay community asking for the right to marry but with the heterosexual world rejecting it. The term "common-law marriage" said it all. Marriage is many things, but it is never common. Yet with this semantic and legal revolution, desire and convenience replaced commitment and dedication. The qualifications, so to speak, were lowered."

Perhaps so, but it was done long in advance of the legalization of same-sex marriage.

And while common law marriage certainly represented a milestone in the eventual legal recognition of same-sex marriage -- same-sex couples were recognized as entitled to the benefits of common law marriage in 1999 -- the argument is largely moot.

Common law marriage, like same-sex marriage was a legal reaction to the need for individuals under many emerging familial models to be legally recognized. It was a recognition of the evolving nature of the Canadian family.

Certainly social conservatives can't be expected to appreciate that -- certainly not with any enthusiasm -- but the fact is that social conservatives aren't the only ones with a stake in the matter.

"And one does indeed have to qualify for marriage; just as one has, for example, to qualify for a pension or a military medal. People who have not reached the age of retirement don’t qualify for a pension, people who don’t serve in the armed forces don’t qualify for a military medal. It’s not a question of equality but requirement. A human right is intrinsic, a social institution is not.

The four great and historic qualifications for marriage always have been number, gender, age and blood. Two people, male and female, over a certain age and not closely related. Mainstream and responsible societies have sometimes changed the age of maturity, but incest has always been condemned and, by its nature, died out because of retardation."

Yet this doesn't change the number of people who live together under marriage-like conditions -- people who will continue to do so whether the law recognizes it or not.

It isn't the role of the state to rule which human relationships are legitimate and which ones aren't. Refusing to recognize common law or same-sex marriages is akin to precisely that.

"As for polygamy, it’s making something of a comeback — and here begin the objections."

In all reality, the nail-biting over polygamy in Canada is overrated. Then-Prime Minister Paul Martin commissioned a study into the legality of polygamy mere weeks after commissioning the study that culminated in the legalization of same-sex marriage, and polygamy hasn't been legalized yet.

Beyond that, any comeback for polygamy -- imagined, real, or otherwise -- has little to do with same-sex marriage. That is a recognition demand of an entirely different -- often religious -- nature.

"Whenever this is mentioned by critics of same-sex marriage we are accused of using the slippery-slope argument. Sorry, some slopes are slippery. Polygamy is an ancient tradition within Islam — and was in Sephardic Judaism and some Asian cultures. When the precedent of gay marriage is combined with the freedom of religion defence, the courts will have a difficult time rejecting it.

At the moment, the Muslim community is not sufficiently politically comfortable to pursue the issue; and the clearly deranged polygamous sects on the aesthetic as well as geographical fringes of Canadian society cloud any reasonable debate. But the argument will certainly come and the result is largely inevitable. If love is the only criterion for marriage who are we to judge the love between a man and his wives?

The state, though, should have a duty to judge and to do so based on its own interests. The most significant of which is its continued existence, meaning that we have to produce children. As procreation is the likely, if not essential, result of marriage between a man and a woman, it is in the interests of the state to encourage marriage."

But it's also important to mention that same-sex marriage and polygamy each present different dilemmas to society. Same-sex marriage effectively separates marriage from sexuality -- there's nothing in legislation to suggest that bisexuals couldn't get hitched under a same-sex marriage, for example.

But polygamy presents the dilemma of sexual abuse prevalent within many polygamist religious sects. Recent events in Texas only underscore this.

At least when domestic abuse arises within a same-sex relationship -- and often it's a good deal more brutal than within heterosexual relationships, according to sociological study -- it's between adults of consulting age. It's unlikely any eleven-year-olds will be forced to marry fifty-year-olds under Canada's same-sex marriage legislation.

Yet even in the case where physical abuse is being perpetrated between adult partners, the strongest remedy the law can legitimately -- or reasonably -- offer is the jailing of the offending partner.

The law has no ability to terminate a relationship against the wills of those within it. That should be deemed unacceptable to all Canadians -- social conservatives included -- on absolute terms.

On the flip side, it should be deemed unacceptable to all Canadians -- again, social conservatives included -- for the state to encourage (or coerce) legal marriage on anyone, as Coren seems to suggest. Again, this should be deemed unacceptable on absolute terms.

"Of course lesbian couples can have an obliging friend assist them in having a baby, and gay men can adopt or have an obliging friend have one for them, but this is hardly the norm and hardly going to guarantee the longevity of a stable society. Just as significant, it smashes the fundamental concept of a child being produced through an act of love. The donation of bodily fluid by an anonymous person, or that obliging friend again, is an act not of love but of lust, indifference, profit or a mere, well, helping hand."

Yet plenty of children are already born as a result of acts of lust, not love, and ironically, it's unlikely that Coren would object to those parents getting married. As a matter of fact, he thinks the state should encourage it.

"For the first time not only in Canadian but in world history we are purposefully creating and legitimizing families where there will be either no male or no female role model and parent. Anyone who speaks of uncles, aunts, communities and villages raising children has no real understanding of family life. Single-parent families exist and are sometimes excellent and, obviously, not every mother/father family is a success. But to consciously create unbalanced families where children can never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman, mother and father, is dangerous social engineering.

We made a terrible mistake, and may not appreciate the full consequences for a generation. We allowed emotion to obscure logic and belittled anyone who appeared out of step with the current fashion. To marry without good reason in regrettable, to divorce good reasoning from public policy is a disgrace."

Michael Coren is wrong. Our society made a terrible mistake when it outlawed interracial relationships (just think what repealing that has done for the porn industry -ed). Our society made a terrible mistake when it outlawed homosexuality. Our society has made plenty of mistakes in the name of social conservatism.

Our society has spent the last forty years fixing those mistakes. It was only a matter of time that we fixed the mistake -- made countless years ago -- of not recognizing homosexuals as full and equal members of our society.

And fortunately for Michael Coren, he's never lived with the consequences of those mistakes -- countless other people have.

Coren's objections aside, same-sex marriage is hardly "Canada's biggest mistake".

Chuck and Larry Raises Interesting Questions

Should a sham domestic partnership be considered any differently than a sham marriage?

To most intelligent movie goers it probably seems unfortunate that the Wayans brothers have managed to turn "gay jokes" into a movie genre.

Adam Sandler and Kevin James, however, have struck a blow against the Scary Movie writing crew's vapid garbage with I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, even managing to take down the once-omnipotent Harry Potter in the process.

More importantly, Chuck and Larry actually raises some very important questions regarding same-sex marriage.

In the film, Chuck Lavigne (Adam Sandler) finds himself in a very uncomfortable position when his best friend, Larry Valentine (Kevin James), asks him for an unwelcome favour in exchange for having saved his life. Larry, a widower with two children, has been having difficulty getting his children named as pension beneficiaries in the event of his potential death as a New York City fireman. Eventually, he cooks up a half-baked scheme: ask Chuck, who now owes him "anything, anywhere" as part of the fireman's code, to form a domestic partnership with him so that he can make Chuck his pension beneficiary, and responsible for the care of his children.

They quickly, however, find themselves subject to a witch hunt when the City of New York investigates the validity under their partnership. Under the advice of their "smokin' hot lawyer", Alex McDonough (Jessica Biel), they travel to Canada and get married in order to avoid being prosecuted for fraudulently abusing domestic partnership laws in order to reap the "legal benefits".

In the film, it is suggested that heterosexuals forming domestic partnerships (at least under the guise of being gay or lesbian partners) in order to do so are guilty of a fraudulent act. The City of New York then dispatch eccentric bloodhound Clint Fitzer (Steve Buscemi) to ascertain whether or not Chuck and Larry are a legitimate romantic couple.

They aren't. That's the entire premise of the movie. Yet, aside from its message of tolerance, the film provokes an interesting thought: since when do people have to be legitimate romantic partners to form a domestic partnership?

A domestic partnership could potentially be looked at as akin to marriage. In fact, in some jurisdictions (such as California) it is viewed as an equivalent to marriage.

In this sense, a domestic partnership is not a marriage, but is looked at as many as an attempt to satisfy the demands made by gays and lesbians for marriage rights (more properly described as a "privilege", but that's another story) that won't outrage conservative voters who are stringently against same-sex marriages.

Marriage, on one hand, requires some sort of romantic commitment at least in its popular definition, although there is no mention of this in the legal definition. Legally, a marriage is defined merely as a contract between two people of sufficient maturity to live jointly together, but is not necessarily invalid until it is consummated.

Domestic Partnerships, on the other hand, carry with them a seemingly more-stringent series of criteria, namely:

1. "The length of [partners'] relationship,
2. Nature and extent of common residence,
3. Whether or not [partners] have a sexual relationship,
4. How financially dependent [partners] are on each other and whether there are any arrangements between [them] for financial support,
5. [Partners'] ownership, use and acquisition of property,
6. [Partners'] degree of mutual commitment to a shared life,
7. The care and support of children,
8. The reputation and public aspects of the relationship"

As with a marriage, a domestic partnership may be consummated, though this is not necessarily a vital condition of the arrangement. If it's possible to have a marriage without a romantic involvement, it must be legal to have a domestic partnership without such an involvement as well.

In the case of Chuck and Larry, numerous criteria, namely, numbers one, four, seven and eight, are accounted for. Discrepencies related to numbers two, five and six could be immediately remedied.

As such, the witchhunt carried out against the two in the film could be construed as a grave injustice, and is portrayed as such in the film. It could also be seen as a double standard. After all, it isn't terribly likely that Anna Nicole Smith married J Howard Marshall for his sparkling good looks.

Yet, where was the witch hunt over Smith's marriage? She was even allowed to argue before the US Supreme court that she was entitled to an inheritance from Marshall's estate.

Simply put, there are plenty of sham marriages to be discussed. Yet, the film never addresses the potential validity of such relationships in the absence of a sexual relationship, instead defending it on the basis of whatever good it had done.

Whether or not sexual relations are an integral part of marriages or domestic partnerships remain as nebulous an issue as, say, same-sex marriage in regards to bisexuality.

But that's another issue.

Under all the layers of legal ambiguity, one thing becomes apparent: a domestic partnership could be used as a legal tool that meets needs that a marriage may not be necessary to meet. For example, in cases such as that posed by Chuck and Larry a domestic partnership could be used by two close friends to raise children as a joined domestic unit under extenuating circumstances.

One could even consider the plausibility of a member of this domestic partnership being elligible to marry outside the partnership. While seemingly an extremely complicating circumstance, the previous domestic partnership (not technically a marriage) would only be another financial matter that the partner's new spouse would, by necessity, be entering into.

Some would worry, however, that such arrangements would entail a defacto legalization of polygamy. And this is merely one more reason why clear distinctions need to be drawn between marriages (or civil unions) and domestic partnerships.

Otherwise, a simpler question could (and should) be asked: why bother separating the two at all?

It's in regards to the issue of domestic partnership that Chuck and Larry proves to be a good-deal more thought-provoking than any of Adam Sandler's other films, and it's highly worthwhile.

It may feature it's share of gay jokes, but at least the film is written around them, as opposed to exclusively consisting of them.

Homosexuals Turn Up the Heat on Harper Government

But may be missing the parade for the "dykes on bikes"

Believe it or not, there is a time and place for public dancing in crotchless leather pants. Believe it or not, there is a time and place for men to wear women's clothing in public. And there is even a time and place for members of the same sex to ride on floats together and kiss each other in public.

That's right, folks: it's gay pride time again.

Perhaps the most visible and recognizable tactic of those fighting for gay rights and acceptance, "freak parades" have become the centerpiece for gay pride holidays all across the world.

Some credit gay pride parades with helping advance the promotion of tolerance for gays and lesbians. Some claim these parades only increase tension between homosexuals and the rest of society. This is all entirely debatable. One thing that is certain is that gay pride parades are a commendable use of the constitutionally-entrenched right to freedom of expression that every Canadian possesses.

This year, gay pride activists in Toronto -- home to one of the largest gay pride parades in all of North America -- have mixed what some consider to be a healthy dose of politics in with their festivities, in particular taking aim at the governing Conservative party over a pledge to hold an open vote on re-opening the issue of same sex marriage for parliamentary debate.

But these activists -- while their hearts certainly seem to be in the right place -- may have their heads entirely in the wrong spot. Trying to turn homphobia into a political issue may be fair enough. But trying to turn it into a partisan political issue is simply a bad idea.

For one thing, if there is anything gay pride activists have failed to adequately address, it is homophobia among members of all Canada's political parties. For example, Mary Pollack, a former Liberal candidate for BC's Surrey riding, at one point, while serving as the Chairperson of the Surrey School Board, spent one million dollars trying to bar text books from school libraries. The books in question portrayed same-sex families in a positive manner. Courts eventually forced her to allow the books. Joe Borowski, a former Manitoba NDP cabinet minister, wrote a number of articles in the late 1980s that many people considered to be homophobic.

In other words, homophobia is not a blight that is restricted to the Conservative party. While more critics of the Conservative party take aim at them with these accusations, there has been, is, and will continue to be prevalence of this problem within Canada's other parties as well.

Another problem with the stance these people are taking regards the opinions of homophobes. " I think the message from the Prime Minister about reviewing marriage has given homophobes a feeling of power," said Kyle Rae, a co-founder of the Toronto gay pride parade. " It gives them a license."

But doesn't failing to have this debate at all give these "homophobes" (and not everyone who opposes same sex marriage can simply be dismissed as such) more power? It gives them the complaint that they are being ignored, and that homosexuals are being given preferential treatment by the government. Certainly the latter is not true, but what if the former were? It is certainly better to have the debate.

James Loney, the Canadian hostage recently freed in Iraq (who also happens to be gay himself) said, "I think Stephen Harper's intention to reopen the same-sex marriage debate is providing a forum for people to express what I think is a kind of intolerance and a very narrow view."

Loney, who, after his terrible ordeal, must have a full understanding of people with narrow views, must not think that it is also narrow to deny dissenters the opportunity to express their views. It is every bit as narrow as the bigotry that he is speaking against.

Like anyone else, homosexuals have the right to be politically active. Like anyone else, homosexuals have the right to lobby and influence their government.

But they must also recognize that even those who ignorantly hate them have these same rights, and must be allowed the same opportunities to do so. Most importantly, they must recognize that homophobia is not a partisan political issue.

When they do this, the time when they can wear their crotchless leather pants in public everyday will be that much closer.

Grudge Match: Religious Right vs. ...Conservative Partyt!?

Christian activists seek to crucify Garth Turner

It is safe to say that politics and religion are, more often than not, a volatile combination.

Sometimes politics and religion go hand-in-hand. When the need arises, religious

leaders of varying stripes can be effective organizers. Many would consider this to be mainly true of right-wing conservative parties. This isn't necessarily so. Tommy Douglas, the greatest leader ever offered by a Canadian left-wing party, drew his roots directly from Gospel Protestantism -- a socialist breed of Christianity.
But the opposite is just as often the case -- if not more so.

Lately, Conservative MP Garth Turner has had an interesting fight on his hands. At a time when many critics of the Conservative party want to accuse it of being too close to Christian fundamentalists (for the past ten years, in fact), Turner has seemingly incurred the wrath of Charles McVety.

McVety, who is active with a number of Canadian Christian advocacy groups -- including Defend Marriage Canada, the Canada Christian College and the Canada Family Action Coalition -- recently shared a disagreement with Turner over the role of a Christian activist. McVety believes that this role is to defeat "anti-Christian, anti-marriage, anti-life" Conservative MPs with "family-friendly" Christian candidates.

Naturally, with talk such as this, the subject was same-sex marriage. Naturally, it is safe to assume that McVety is opposed to it.

"[McVety's] group, as you can see in the post below, is after my political head since I trashed their stated plans to swamp nomination meetings of Tory MPs who support gay marriage and are otherwise morally deficient," Turner writes on his weblog, The Turner Report. " I said I disagree with any special interest candidates who are foisted on a party or a riding in a stacked nomination meeting, especially when a sitting MP – electable and experienced – is the victim of a one-night hijacking."

The one-night hijacking in question are schemes in which McVety organizes individuals sympathetic to his cause to purchase Conservative party memberships, and flood pre-election nomination meetings in order to help install a candidate who will support his agenda.

Hijacking isn't a new trick for McVety. He has been known to register online domains under the names of politicians, particularly those who oppose his views. Many critics consider this to be cybersquatting. However, because he uses these sites to express opinions regarding each particular politician's views, the law allows him to do so under tenets of acceptable use.

Charles McVety is not a man who believes in the separation of church and state. His plan to supplant the candidates of a political party with religious activists is chilling to those who believe in the secular state. This is precisely what Turner was alluding to when he wrote: "Faith-based politics is fine. It has a long tradition. It can accomplish a lot of good. But when one religious or cultural group engineers a coup, overwhelming existing political party members and workers, and replacing a politician elected by a plurality of people with a single-issue monochromatic militant, well, kiss democracy goodbye."

Supporters of McVety would later try to use this statement to paint him as an anti-religious zealot. Perhaps a person may suggest it would take a zealot to know one, and if this was true McVety would certainly know one if he saw it.

Along with his wife and children, McVety attended the 2005 Liberal party convention aboard his famed "Defend Marriage" tour bus. About the experience he wrote the following: "As in the days of Lot the penalty for the righteous was that they knocked on the doors of Lot and demanded his young men for their sexual pleasure. This was the penalty for the righteous being “wrong” in their eyes. As I stood on a rally platform outside the Convention Centre we prayed that marriage would be defended Canada protected. Hecklers cursed and swore at us and held up a sign displaying the word 'Immoral'."

This would certainly be a frightening bundle of rhetoric, if it didn't instead provoke one very simple response: what the fuck?

He noted that his daughter, confronted by the contempt and fury of the Liberal attendees, asked him: "daddy, why are they spitting at us?" He neglects to mention that he exposed his children to this behavior (as unacceptable as it may indeed be) knowingly and willingly. Which would make a certain amount of sense: his crusade against same-sex marriage is "for the children".

Let it also be known that this is a man who has organized boycotts against Famous Players theatres (for showing an advertisement supporting same-sex marriage) and the Da Vinci Code (apparently for being a fictional book about Christ).

If allowed to garner any significant amount of influence in the Conservative party, McVety would prove to be one of the greatest liabilities in the party's history. Those who suspiciously eye the Conservative party as crusaders aching to turn the clock back to the days when religion took a direct role in governance would suddenly have their poster boy -- a bigger, better poster boy than Stockwell Day ever could have been.

On the other hand, Turner is an absolute treasure for the Conservative party. He is an MP who defies the typical stereotype that critics of the party would like to promote. He may have a firey personality. He may love to get down and scrap with his opponents, but he stands for what he believes in. Most importantly, he is an indispensible voice of dissent within the party -- without such voices, the Conservatives risk becoming victim to that pitfall that has so entirely entrapped the Liberal party: groupthink.

In short, Turner is a Conservative who's not afraid to think outside that little conservative box. Consider this in comparison to McVety, who obviously believes it is some sort of grievous sin to think outside the pages of the Bible. This is like mixing Jedi and Sith: bad fucking idea.

The Conservative party needs to pull Turner in and hold him close, and push McVety as far away as it can. Only then can it step forth from the shadow of Christian fundamentalism, and get on with the business of being a secular political party.
After all, religion and politics can be a nasty mix.

The Legend of David Mainse and the Queen

No, not a drag queen... but imagine if it were!

How does one top claiming Paul Martin has been possessed by the devil, and that Bill C-38 is the work of said devil?

Apparently, one starts a letter-writing campaign urging Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II to order all of her government representatives world wide to refuse to ratify same-sex marriage.

“ Our beloved Queen Elizabeth II, I know that the refusal of the Governor General to give royal consent would precipitate a crisis. Millions have nowhere else to turn but you,'” Mainse wrote in a recent letter. Because apparently, broadway-themed weddings for gays and lesbians is the worst thing to happen since Hitler. Or ever. “ Please help humanity everywhere to begin a reversal of this morally and socially destructive trend,” Mainse pleads.

Wow… David Mainse really hates broadway. Or is it gays and lesbians? No matter.

Ever since the same sex marriage bill became a hot-hot-hot button issue for Canadians, Mainse and his Crossroads foundation cohorts have rarely missed an opportunity to show Canada ugly new (or, perhaps, old) sides of their character.
Take David’s latest gambit for example. He acknowledges that the refusal of royal assent would cause a “crisis”, but doesn’t seem to care much. He also begs her majesty to help “humanity” (hmmm… gays and lesbians are apparently no longer human, so says the book of God, as interpreted by our dear Davey) fight this “morally and socially destructive trend”.

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems to me that in the few weeks since Canada’s parliament passed Bill C-38 (which I rightfully heralded a triumph for Canada as a whole -- not just gays and lesbians), Canadian society has not collapsed in a puff of smoke. In fact, no frogs have fallen from the sky, no locusts have wiped out record numbers of crops, and the first-born of no MPs have been killed. Maybe god isn’t quite as pissed off about this as you assure us that he is, David. But I digress.

I think it’s actually kind of fun to watch rabid anti-same-sex-marriage activists squirm like a worm on a hook.

It’s almost as pitiful as David’s attempt at bartering with our dear Queen E.: “ Should you act in this, millions of us would surely become more fervent supporters of the monarchy than ever,” he wrote in his letter – received days before the recent Terror bombing. In the letter he also demonizes Paul Martin, claiming that he has divided the country over the issue – and that this division couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the issue itself. Nope, it’s all Paul’s fault. He also tries to play on old acquaintances, suggesting that she “probably remembers” Paul Martin Sr., who was an ambassador to the UK.

David, it’s time for you to give Ronald Reagan back his haircut and join the rest us in the 21st century. While you’re at it, wake up and smell the maple nut crunch.
Perhaps the saddest thing about religious conservatives is that they continue to assert that governments should rule, more or less, according to exclusively Christian beliefs. If some of them had their way, the Bible would be the only book of law in the land.

Which is just the answer we need: relying on religion, which at best provides us with incomplete and limited answers, to tell us how to carry on every aspect of our lives in the real world – a world of unlimited possibilities.

It seems that even as we take steps toward a new future, people like David Mainse would happily banish us back to the middle ages.

But there is one thing I do know: if David Mainse manages to defeat bill C-38, Broadway will be next.

Mark my words.

Alberta's Moment of Truth

To much of Canada, Alberta is not seen as a very nice place.

In fact, there are those in Canada who consider Alberta to be everything that is wrong with Canada. They consider Alberta to be a bastion of lassaiz-faire economics, bigotry, and that most despised of c-words, ‘conservatism’.

While this obviously overlooks how complex Alberta actually is, there is no question that many Canadians (many of them residing in Quebec) perceive Alberta this way. Now, to some, it might seem like a good idea to attempt to dispel these myths.
But apparently not to the Alberta government. Because even two days after the passing of Bill C-38, the government of Alberta still clings to a fight it acknowledges it cannot win – and does this simply for the principle of the fight.
Today’s tale takes us to the Provincial Legislature Building in Edmonton, where Alberta justice minister has promised (of course) to fight Canada’s new same-sex marriage law – even if the fighting is all for naught.

"The fact is that the definition of marriage appears en route to be changed in two weeks' time," acknowledged Justice Minister Ron Stevens. "It will then become law in Alberta. "There's no doubt in my view that the federal legislation is paramount."
However, this does not mean that the fight is over for those struggling for equal recognition before the law. The government of Alberta has come up with a truly insidious method of resisting the move toward equality for homosexuals.

In the name of protecting religious freedom, the government of Alberta is allegedly willing to cease performing civil marriages, leaving marriage as the exclusive domain of religious institutions. Which may almost seem all right. But there is a problem. If the only place to marry in Alberta will now be within the walls of a church, where will, say… atheists get married, should they choose? I guess they can’t.

So, then, in the name of protecting religious freedom, the government of Alberta is limiting religious freedom?

Doesn’t really make sense, does it?

Two days ago I wrote that the passage or failure of the same-sex marriage bill represented a moment of truth for Canada. Today, I believe that the tactics the government of Alberta is willing to resort to in order to oppose same sex marriage represent the same moment of truth.

Can Alberta honestly deny charges of bigotry so long as it continues to feed the homophobic hysteria? The answer is, simply, no. Because if the passing of Bill C-38 represents a triumph for equality in Canada, then the Alberta government certainly seems like a thief in the night, ready to snatch it away.

Political Scientist Kieth Brownsey suggests that the move is purely political in nature. "The Focus on the Family groups, the religious right, the fundamentalists of one sort or another, certainly need to see that this government is acting in what they perceive to be their best interests," he says.

However, there is hope. Out of 61 MPs expected to meet to discuss blocking same-sex marriage in Alberta, only eight actually showed, suggesting that perhaps there are those within the Alberta Progressive Conservative party who possess the courage to tread forward, instead of regressing into the past.

But perhaps most disturbing are the words of Alberta Alliance justice critic Marilyn Burns: “Alberta has the constitutional authority to legislate that unions only between a man and a woman be ... issued marriage licenses.”

Alberta’s moment of truth may turn out to be an ugly one yet.

Canada's Moment of Truth

For Canada, today (June 28, 2005) can be one of two things.

It can either be an affirmation of Canada’s commitment to freedom and equality for all of its citizens (regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation), or it can be a signal that we need to go back to the drawing board. Either way, a moment of truth is upon us.

Long before the issue began to works its way through the Supreme Court of Canada, this issue has been contentious and divisive. On one side of the debate are political and social progressives, who believe that same sex marriage represents an equality for gays and lesbians that they have never before possessed. On the other side are a collection of religious groups and political conservatives who oppose the “redefinition of traditional marriage”. They argue that changing the legal definition of marriage is a direct affront to the traditions this country was founded upon.

But in reality, what are the traditions this country was founded upon? Some people say “Christianity” and others say “freedom”. I can’t truthfully speak for anyone on this particular matter. I can, however, speak for myself.

In my opinion, Canada was founded under the principle of responsible government. Over time, however, we have added many traditions around this simple idea to create the “Canadian tradition”. With the advent of Canadian Multiculturalism, one of the traditions Canada was founded upon became the idea of a nation for all people. Inevitably, the time has come that we recognize that this moves beyond the simplicity of religion and ethnicity. In order to be a nation for all people, we must also recognize and legitimize the differences in people’s sexual orientation.
So, where in this does same sex marriage fit? That’s a bit of a complex question.
There are a number of issues at play with same sex marriage, and one of them certainly is money. There is no reason why homosexual couples should not be entitled to the same legal protections and benefits offered to heterosexual couples, and one of these ideas is the civil marriage – a marriage in the eyes of the state, as opposed to only the eyes of god.

Perhaps a greater issue at play with same sex marriage is the issue of legitimization. Until the government of Canada has allowed same sex marriage, it has not yet recognized the legitimacy of homosexual relationships, and thus has not yet recognized the legitimacy of homosexuals themselves.

Until this has happened, how can we claim that homosexuals are fully a part of Canadian society? It’s a simple answer: we can’t. And the very idea of trying to avoid this is preposterous – whether we like it or not, homosexuals are a part of Canadian society, and that isn’t going to change.

Critics can call same sex marriage whatever they want. They can call it “social engineering”, but other attempts at “social engineering” have historically been at least modest successes. Perhaps the most notable example of this is the struggle for black civil rights in the United States. Which also brings up the point that anyone who believes that same-sex marriage will miraculously usher in a new age of tolerance and harmony is incredibly naïve. However, everything has to start somewhere.

Critics can also claim that same sex marriage is “undemocratic”. However, even if they could demonstrate that a significant majority of Canadians were opposed to same sex marriage, they would still be wrong. One of the hallmarks of a democratic society is found in the way that it protects the rights and interests of all its citizens, regardless of whether or not they belong to a “minority”. Furthermore, anyone who doesn’t realize that the majority has become a mythical, nonexistent creature in Canada has failed to recognize the changing face of Canada.

Critics can also claim that same sex marriage poses a threat to religious freedom. While this argument may be the most compelling and most valid they have proposed, we must also realize that same sex marriage has provided us with a unique opportunity to separate church and state. After all, civil counselors are not religious officials. They have the capacity to marry couples in the eyes of the state, but not in the eyes of god – just as religious officials have the power to marry couples in the eyes of god, but not in the eyes of the state.

Today, Canada will make a choice. It will either take a step forward toward equality amongst all of its citizens, or it will take a step back. Either way, Canada’s journey will continue.

100 Huntley Street's Road to Hell

I'm too lazy to come up with a funny title today

Well, friends, it's been a while since I've written here, having been fairly busy for the last month or so. But here I am again, and I'm going to write about a subject that has actually become fairly dear to me.

I've been paying a lot of attention to 100 Huntley Street lately. Not because I would by any means consider myself a devoted viewer of this depraved little program, but rather because it happens to come on right about the time that I usually leave for class. Lately, the big issue on 100 Huntley Street has been, yep, you guessed it: Gay Marriage.

I have to admit that I am actually quite disturbed the recent content of this program. It seems an uncontrollable tidal wave of religious fundamentalism is threatening to sweep forth across the nation, and this program is right on the crest of it. This wave threatens to ruthlessly crush such evil and impious things such as "ration" and "tolerance" and it's very frightening to me.

The entire 100 Huntley Street platform regarding gay marriage revolves around two things: one is a Compass poll that allegedly demonstrates that a full two thirds of the Canadian population is opposed to gay marriage, and the other is a Bible tract: "If the foundation is destroyed, what can the righteous do?".

While that Bible tract could mean almost anything, these people have pushed a half-truth upon the Canadian public regarding the Compass poll. While indeed only one third of Canadians surveyed in said poll were flat out in favor of gay marriage, only one third was opposed to it. The other third was in favor of "civil unions" for gays and lesbians, which is basically a secular marriage. More or less the same fucking thing, except granted by the state and not the church. So, of course, the churches are getting bitchy on the subject.

Regilious zealots such as David Mainse of the Crossroads foundation want to continually drive home their theory: gay marriage will destroy marriage, which is the foundation of our society.

But when men such as Mainse and Stockwell Day (a man who I supported to become leader of the Canadian Alliance Party until I personally found out what a pig-headed dumbfuck he is) speak of "our" society, whose society is it of which they speak. Whose society is "our" society?

The continual use of such a possessive term is a little bit frightening. If our society refers to a society belonging to men such as Mainse or Day, then one would have to imagine it is a society within which homosexuals are not welcome. If "our society" refers to a society belonging to other groups that are fond of this term, than one would have to imagine it as a society within which not only homosexuals are not welcome, but also jews, blacks and other ethnic minorities.

Many refer to the battle over gay marriage as the "culture wars". Now, I may be alone in this, but doesn't it seem like this isn't a hell of a lot different from the "holy racial wars"? Same shit, same pile, it just happens to be a different color... like you see after spending St. Patrick's Day drinking green beer.

Which is why it is so disturbing to see 100 Huntley Street preaching this kind of garbage. Now, 100 Huntley Street claims to be a Christian telecast. Conversely, I also consider myself to be Christian. However, the message that 100 Huntley Street preaches (which smiles on their faces that make them look so sweet that they could make you go into a diabetic coma) is entirely contrary to my religious values. For a Christian program to suggest (and often outright state) that discrimination against Gays is acceptable because they aren't referred to in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an abomination that Christians should not tolerate.

And yet so many do. And why? Because they possess a certain amount of authority. However, this is a matter for a different rant. Let's get back to business.

Many of these people would also not consider prostitutes or those who choose to indulge in vice (wine, women and song) to be a part of their society. Yet, where did Jesus spend all of his time? Did he hobnob with the CEO of Halliburton or Enron? Fuck no! He was right down there in the gutter with the drunks, lepers and whores, ministering to the people that needed them most.

And, let's face it: who needs most to be not discriminated against in the world? You guessed it: homosexuals. Jesus would be in favor of same-sex marriage, or at the very least civil unions. But try to convince people like bishop Fredrick Henry of this. They have answers for everything. Well, not really answers: half-answers. But, apparently, half-answers (much like half-truths) are supposed to be good enough.

Bishop Henry recently noted that not only did Jesus teach about unconditional love, he also taught about uncompromising truth. In other words, Jesus loves you, but since it still matters what you do, he does love you less if you're gay. Sinner.

And of course, the same telecast that decries the biased and unfair journalistic coverage of the comments of men such as bishop Henry also tries its hand at journalistic coverage of the gay marriage issue... which is unquestionably biased and partisan to their side of the issue. Hypocrites.

Furthermore, describing a man who denies that discrimination against homosexuals as a great humanitarian is equally as ridiculous as pretending that Stockwell Day (who tends to provide half-answers on important issues and full-answers on more or less irrelevant issues) still possesses any relevance in Canadian politics.

One look into the eyes of these people reveals that they are afraid. And if they could admit that, I could respect that. But using religion as a shield behind which they can hide that fear is a farce.

An utter, utter farce.