07-Dec-2006: Gay Marriage: the law and the church
Well, they did it. Tonight Canada's parliament voted not to reopen the gay marriage debate. Finally that issue
can be laid to rest, at least as far as Canadian secular society is concerned. The courts ruled that the right to
marry could not be denied people on the basis of their sex and about a year ago, parliament endorsed that decision. Naturally,
the right wing conservatives were up in arms about it, arguing that gay marriage takes something away from heterosexual
marriages. (???Hey, that's what they claim, not me!) "Traditional marriage" was under attack and so, riding on those emotions,
Stephan Harper promised in last spring's election that he would allow a "free vote" in the Commons on the issue.
He conveniently overlooked the fact that when the original vote was held on the bill to recognize same-sex marriages, some members
of the Conservative party voted for the bill and some Liberals voted against it.
A funny thing happens to political parties who have been out of office for a long time. They make wonderful revolutionary
promises, but, on assuming power they discover that their are little things—such as previous laws and the constitution—standing
between the promises and delivery. So, Harper was forced to back-peddle and then put forward a motion asking parliament to
revisit the issue, but not actually do anything about it. The reality that Harper ran into was that he would have to break the law
in order to change it. That is, he would have to put forward a bill that said, "Not withstanding what the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms says, we propose..." And that, dear friends, is the Canadian equivalent of committing political suicide. Canadians
are a mite proud of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and proposing to over-ride it with a "not withstanding" clause for a minor
issue would not be taken kindly to. That would mean that any government could ignore the Canadian Constitution and Charter any time
they felt like it—all they'd need is a majority vote—and the legal basis of our government would be gone.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is meant to be over-ridden only in extreme emergencies, such as a war or insurrection.
The fact that the law now recognizes same-sex couples on an equal legal footing with opposite-sex couples can hardly be
classified as a national emergency—though, perhaps there are some people who feel that it is an emergency. I know there
was at least one extreme religious sect that said God would rain down fire and brimstone on Canada, just like he did on Sodom and Gomorrah,
the day parliament voted to recognize the legality of same-sex marriage. I guess they were somewhat disappointed. I don't yet
know how the disappointment at not seeing "traditional marriages" fall apart is being dealt with. I know some couples were
worried that their partner would leave them for a gay or lesbian relationship when same-sex marriage was legalized, though what the
state of their marital relationship and sexual orientation has to do with the law is something I can't fathom.
No, the sky hasn't fallen and the world hasn't ended. No Horsemen of the Apocalypse on the horizon in Canada. But, though the issue
may be settled in the secular world, it has not been settled in the religious world.
I can talk only about one church, the Anglican Church of Canada, of which I have been a more or less active member all my adult life.
I've been a warden of the church and a representative at a few synods. A few years ago, when the question of "blessing" same-sex
unions came up, my initial thought was, "If I were gay, I wouldn't be asking for a blessing—which is something
we do for animals on St. Francis of Assisi’s feast day—I'd be demanding full marriage." And, why not? Why should a certain group
of Christians be denied some sacraments of the church? I was surprised to find the issue so divisive. The church I knew and grew with
was at the forefront of social change at one time. I clearly remember Anglican priests marching in Selma, Alabama; organizing anti-nuclear
war demonstrations; and generally being open to the changes young people were demanding in the 1960's.
And now we are in a church divided over such a minor issue. Blessing unions is not the same as actually performing the sacrament of marriage,
yet, many parts of the world
church have severed ties with the Canadian Anglican and American Episcopalian churches over just this issue. That, and the acceptance of an openly
gay bishop. (I suppose closeted gay clergy and bishops are okay.) And, yes Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopalians are divided on such issues.
It troubles me. So much so that I have been unable to attend church for almost a year now. How can I pray and celebrate with people
who believe in a god that divides Christians into certifiable and non-certifiable groups? It hurts me personally because I feel betrayed by a church
that taught that we are all God's children, and that all Christians were welcomed to receive the sacrament of communion. The very idea that
some sacraments are denied certain members—not based on their faith, charitable works, and participation in the Christian community—
but on the basis of who they are: their personality and sexual orientation, flies in the face of everything I felt I knew about the church and
my understanding of what it means to be a Christian. The New Testament is filled with stories about how Jesus accepted the outsiders and outcasts
of his society. How can we do any less?
"Blessings" instead of marriages; and acceptance of gay clergy as long as they remain celibate, are patronizing and condescending. Apparently
not all Christians are equal before God, according to the new and revised teachings of the church.
I am ashamed of my church. But, I am proud to be a citizen of one of the few nations that has reached out to expand and defend marriages
and families, no matter what some people might feel about certain kinds of unions. By denying the legality of same-sex marriage countries are
narrowing the definition of a life-long commitment to a partner and pushing families outside the social framework. We all lose in such a situation,
but we all win when all humans can participate fully and without fear of isolation and ridicule in all aspects of our society.