an equal marriage discussion
As mentioned, the Canadian House of Commons will be voting on Bill C-268 on November 26th. After sending a form letter to all MPs via the Canadians for Equal Marriage website, I got an automatically generated response from a Mister John G. Williams, Member of Parliament. Rather than let his ridiculous reasoning slide, I decided to answer his email. To read the full text of our conversation, click here.
The Discussion
I'm writing to express my opposition to Private Members' Bill C-268, which would restrict civil marriage to opposite-sex couples. This bill is unconstitutional and un-Canadian.
Canadians overwhelmingly support Charter values like inclusion, human dignity, mutual respect and freedom from political or social prejudice.
For many Canadians, both gay and straight, marriage is a profoundly meaningful way to demonstrate love and commitment. Denying anyone that choice is simply not fair. Same-sex couples should have the freedom to marry in a civil ceremony and to have that marriage legally recognized, and religious communities should have the freedom to perform or not perform such marriages.
Please let me know where you stand on this human rights issue.
Sincerely,
Chris Brown
Thank you for your email and I appreciate knowing your perspective regarding same-sex marriage.
Since time immemorial all societies have recognized the union of a man and a woman, celebrated the union and called it marriage. In modern society, where anything goes, a relationship does not need to be defined as a marriage. I believe, however, the institution of marriage should be preserved as the legal and religious union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, and if people want to enter into some other kind of relationship they can find some other name to call it, but it is not marriage.
The decisions of a number of provincial courts to re-define marriage to include gay and lesbian couples ignores a decision of Parliament in 1999, when Members of Parliament voted 216 - 55 in favour of a motion holding that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman. Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of the day, Martin Cauchon, the then Justice Minister, and Paul Martin all voted in favour of the motion at the time, although all three changed their position to endorse same sex marriage.
The Liberal Government made a grave error in judgment by choosing not to appeal recent court decisions that legalize same-sex marriage. As a result of the failure by the Liberals to appeal the court decisions redefining marriage to include homosexual couples, gay marriage is now already the law in Ontario and B.C., and may soon become the law in most of Canada.
The most recent proposal by the Liberal Government to refer draft legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada does not negate the fact that the Liberal Government has abandoned the democratic process and allowed an unelected, unaccountable court to define marriage, when that decision is the purview of Parliament alone. Any subsequent promise by the Liberals of a "free vote" in Parliament on that legislation, does not in any way change that reality. The proposal to hold a "free vote" in Parliament is only a communications exercise to try to hide the fact that they have allowed un-elected judges to make the laws of our country.
My Conservative colleagues and I are also disappointed that several months' worth of work done by the House of Commons Justice Committee on the issue of same sex marriage has been rendered irrelevant by the Liberal Government's failure to appeal the recent court rulings. Although the then Justice Minister, Martin Cauchon asked the Justice Committee to travel the country and hear representations on same-sex marriage from all walks of life, he did not wait for the committee to produce its report before making a decision on this matter. The voices of Canadians who submitted briefs and made oral representations to the committee have effectively been silenced by this un-democratic process.
Canadians should be outraged by the Liberal Government's slight against democracy, and the failure by this government to keep its promise to Canadians to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. The Conservative Party will continue to call upon the Liberal Government to keep its promise to Canadians to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
I appreciate your perspective that a majority in society should not trample upon the rights of a minority. However, I do not agree that it is an issue of human rights since a human right is an inalienable right for all people, at all times. For example, no one should be discriminated against because of their colour at any time, at any age, or under any circumstances. Protection from discrimination because of one's colour is a human right.
Marriage is not a human right, because there are many people in this country who would want to marry and who have no recourse to the law in order to do so. We also do not allow young people who are under the age of majority to marry. We do not allow siblings to marry. We do not allow parents and their children to marry. Therefore, marriage is not an inalienable right and therefore it is not a human right.
I believe that it is appropriate that we have some other words to define the relationships that are emerging and acquiesced to by our society, other than putting it all under an umbrella of marriage.
Yours truly,
John G. Williams
Member of Parliament
Dear Mr. Williams,
Although I am pretty sure your email was an automatically generated response (necessitated, perhaps, by the number of emails you must receive on this issue, and appreciated nonetheless), I would like to take a few moments to address some of the points it raises.
First of all, to claim that "since time immemorial all societies have recognized the union of a man and a woman and called it marriage" is not only wrong, it is almost totally irrelevant to this discussion. Slavery, misogyny, racism and xenophobia have also been practiced in most societies throughout most of history, but that lends them neither credibility nor moral goodness. These practices are also comparable to marriage in that their continuity is incomplete: unions between men and women have taken countless forms, and have been given countless names. Polygamy, for example, has been widely accepted throughout the
centuries, and is still practiced in some countries today, and yet it is illegal here in Canada. So even if your claim were true, it would still have no bearing on whether or not Canada should allow gay
marriage.
Secondly, I would like to address the comparisons you made between gay marriage and marriage between minors or family members. You might very well have brought up the fact that we do not allow people to marry goats: the reasons for one have no relation to the reasons for the other. We do not allow minors to marry because they would become legally bound to an agreement which our society believes they are too young to make decisions on; we do not allow family members (and goats) to marry because of genetics, societal taboos, etc.
Your arguments against gay marriage are weak, Mr. Williams, and they do not address the actual reasons you have for fighting against such a worthwhile cause. If two adult human beings are in love, why would you want to deny them the privilege of being recognized as "married" - a privilege they would hold if they were heterosexual?
As I said, I appreciate your response. I do not, however, appreciate the values you are fighting for when you oppose gay marriage: homophobia, discrimination, and intolerance.
Sincerely,
Chris Brown
Montreal, QC
The Discussion
I'm writing to express my opposition to Private Members' Bill C-268, which would restrict civil marriage to opposite-sex couples. This bill is unconstitutional and un-Canadian.
Canadians overwhelmingly support Charter values like inclusion, human dignity, mutual respect and freedom from political or social prejudice.
For many Canadians, both gay and straight, marriage is a profoundly meaningful way to demonstrate love and commitment. Denying anyone that choice is simply not fair. Same-sex couples should have the freedom to marry in a civil ceremony and to have that marriage legally recognized, and religious communities should have the freedom to perform or not perform such marriages.
Please let me know where you stand on this human rights issue.
Sincerely,
Chris Brown
Thank you for your email and I appreciate knowing your perspective regarding same-sex marriage.
Since time immemorial all societies have recognized the union of a man and a woman, celebrated the union and called it marriage. In modern society, where anything goes, a relationship does not need to be defined as a marriage. I believe, however, the institution of marriage should be preserved as the legal and religious union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, and if people want to enter into some other kind of relationship they can find some other name to call it, but it is not marriage.
The decisions of a number of provincial courts to re-define marriage to include gay and lesbian couples ignores a decision of Parliament in 1999, when Members of Parliament voted 216 - 55 in favour of a motion holding that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman. Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of the day, Martin Cauchon, the then Justice Minister, and Paul Martin all voted in favour of the motion at the time, although all three changed their position to endorse same sex marriage.
The Liberal Government made a grave error in judgment by choosing not to appeal recent court decisions that legalize same-sex marriage. As a result of the failure by the Liberals to appeal the court decisions redefining marriage to include homosexual couples, gay marriage is now already the law in Ontario and B.C., and may soon become the law in most of Canada.
The most recent proposal by the Liberal Government to refer draft legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada does not negate the fact that the Liberal Government has abandoned the democratic process and allowed an unelected, unaccountable court to define marriage, when that decision is the purview of Parliament alone. Any subsequent promise by the Liberals of a "free vote" in Parliament on that legislation, does not in any way change that reality. The proposal to hold a "free vote" in Parliament is only a communications exercise to try to hide the fact that they have allowed un-elected judges to make the laws of our country.
My Conservative colleagues and I are also disappointed that several months' worth of work done by the House of Commons Justice Committee on the issue of same sex marriage has been rendered irrelevant by the Liberal Government's failure to appeal the recent court rulings. Although the then Justice Minister, Martin Cauchon asked the Justice Committee to travel the country and hear representations on same-sex marriage from all walks of life, he did not wait for the committee to produce its report before making a decision on this matter. The voices of Canadians who submitted briefs and made oral representations to the committee have effectively been silenced by this un-democratic process.
Canadians should be outraged by the Liberal Government's slight against democracy, and the failure by this government to keep its promise to Canadians to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. The Conservative Party will continue to call upon the Liberal Government to keep its promise to Canadians to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
I appreciate your perspective that a majority in society should not trample upon the rights of a minority. However, I do not agree that it is an issue of human rights since a human right is an inalienable right for all people, at all times. For example, no one should be discriminated against because of their colour at any time, at any age, or under any circumstances. Protection from discrimination because of one's colour is a human right.
Marriage is not a human right, because there are many people in this country who would want to marry and who have no recourse to the law in order to do so. We also do not allow young people who are under the age of majority to marry. We do not allow siblings to marry. We do not allow parents and their children to marry. Therefore, marriage is not an inalienable right and therefore it is not a human right.
I believe that it is appropriate that we have some other words to define the relationships that are emerging and acquiesced to by our society, other than putting it all under an umbrella of marriage.
Yours truly,
John G. Williams
Member of Parliament
Dear Mr. Williams,
Although I am pretty sure your email was an automatically generated response (necessitated, perhaps, by the number of emails you must receive on this issue, and appreciated nonetheless), I would like to take a few moments to address some of the points it raises.
First of all, to claim that "since time immemorial all societies have recognized the union of a man and a woman and called it marriage" is not only wrong, it is almost totally irrelevant to this discussion. Slavery, misogyny, racism and xenophobia have also been practiced in most societies throughout most of history, but that lends them neither credibility nor moral goodness. These practices are also comparable to marriage in that their continuity is incomplete: unions between men and women have taken countless forms, and have been given countless names. Polygamy, for example, has been widely accepted throughout the
centuries, and is still practiced in some countries today, and yet it is illegal here in Canada. So even if your claim were true, it would still have no bearing on whether or not Canada should allow gay
marriage.
Secondly, I would like to address the comparisons you made between gay marriage and marriage between minors or family members. You might very well have brought up the fact that we do not allow people to marry goats: the reasons for one have no relation to the reasons for the other. We do not allow minors to marry because they would become legally bound to an agreement which our society believes they are too young to make decisions on; we do not allow family members (and goats) to marry because of genetics, societal taboos, etc.
Your arguments against gay marriage are weak, Mr. Williams, and they do not address the actual reasons you have for fighting against such a worthwhile cause. If two adult human beings are in love, why would you want to deny them the privilege of being recognized as "married" - a privilege they would hold if they were heterosexual?
As I said, I appreciate your response. I do not, however, appreciate the values you are fighting for when you oppose gay marriage: homophobia, discrimination, and intolerance.
Sincerely,
Chris Brown
Montreal, QC
