The Shotgun Blog
« Do the right thing | Main | Funny how a little murder will ruin goodwill »
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Harper Adds Heat, Not Light, to Marriage Debate
I don't want to get into the polygamy debate, but I fear if we do this [legalize same-sex marriage], the next thing on the Liberal agenda will be polygamy, and who knows what else.
- Stephen Harper, quoted in the Globe and Mail, 21 Jan 05, p. A4
The argument that legalized gay marriage will lead inexorably to state-sanctioned polygamy should not be off limits in the current debate. And perhaps, like Colby Cosh and Andrew Coyne, Mr. Harper has an interesting theory on that subject. But we'll apparently never know. "I don't want to get into the... debate," Harper says. Fine, but if he refuses to participate, he should stop lobbing grenades into the middle of it as he passes by.
Even aside from his own unexpressed ideas on the slipperiness of the gay-marriage slope, it seems unlikely that Harper really fears that the Liberals will soon be rolling out pro-polygamy legislation, let alone "who knows what else." If he does, again, he should provide some evidence for that fear. In the absence of this, his comments are pretty clearly an attempt to gain support by pandering to voters who do have such fears. Just like the Conservatives' placing of anti-gay marriage ads only in ethnic newspapers, it seems to be a purely political ploy, and one intended to appeal to emotions, not minds.
Cynics will say that telling people what they want to hear, what will get them on your side, is necessary in politics today. I still have a naive hope, however, that integrity and principles are not completely irrelevant, at least in my own party.
[Thanks to Ezra Levant for the kind invitation to post at The Shotgun. A brief introduction: I'm an Objectivist from Toronto. I support getting the government out of the economy as well as every other area of consensual activity. In other words, for you Western Standard readers, I take the Karen Selick side, not the Michael Coren one. Being gay, I have a special interest in the same-sex marriage debate. My blog is at wickens.ca, where this entry has been cross-posted.]
Posted by Mark Wickens on January 22, 2005 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83439c83753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Harper Adds Heat, Not Light, to Marriage Debate:
Comments
Why criticize Harper? Has Paul Martin explained why he's discriminating against threesomes? Has he even addressed the substantive concerns expressed by the Catholic Church and others about marriage and the family?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-22 4:47:21 PM
The fear is hardly that the Liberals will come up with polygamy legislation and entirely that some judge will decide that since there's nothing sacred about man-woman marriage, there's nothing sacred about the number 2.
Posted by: Mike Jenkinson | 2005-01-22 4:59:34 PM
As Coyne correctly argues today, the slippery slope argument makes no sense.
Interestingly, however, in a Globe article headlined "Same-sex marriage won't open floodgates, lawyers say," the federal government's own lawyer confirms, in a more nuanced form, the essence of Harper's argument:
"But constitutional lawyers interviewed yesterday played down those fears.
Lawyer Peter Hogg said the impending same-sex marriage laws are the end result of a string of court cases in recent years that upheld equality rights for gay couples.
"Canada got to a point where marriage was extended to same-sex couples because there were homosexual couples living in stable relationships, some of them bringing up children," Mr. Hogg said in an interview.
Canada changed its marriage laws to reflect the way its society has evolved, he added.
By contrast, there is no groundswell of support for legalizing polygamy in 2005, he said. Although 100 years from now, that too could change.
"Just as same-sex marriage would have been unthinkable in 1867, it may be that other forms of marriage will be acceptable in years to come."
Ms. Findlay said any request to legalize polygamy would have to be argued from the ground up, the same way that the case for gay marriage wound though the Canadian courts.
Just because gay couples won the right to marry won't mean other combinations of people will automatically be allowed to tie the knot, she said.
"It's like saying, 'You gave him an orange, now give me a chocolate bar.' The court doesn't have to say yes."
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-22 5:06:17 PM
"Why criticize Harper?"
I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Canadians shouldn't criticize Canada, Conservatives shouldn't criticize the Conservative Party. Sorry, but blind patriotism and partisanship aren't attractive to me, nor to anyone who has a mind and knows what it's for.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-01-22 5:08:11 PM
From a report by Peter O'Neil in today's Vancouver Sun; after you've read it, I'd appreciate answers to my questions.
""Many of Mr. Harper's ridings are now vulnerable, and he has been nearly invisible in this province and said little about its problems," B.C. political commentator Gordon Gibson wrote in an e-mail to The Vancouver Sun.
"By contrast Mr. Martin has been following a very visible and popular ' Canada in the world' strategy and B.C's Liberal ministers are active on the ground. Local Liberals are talking of doubling their eight seats, or better."
Columnist Norman Spector, the former top bureaucrat in the Brian Mulroney Conservative government, wrote recently that Harper has shown insensitivity to B.C. by pandering to Quebec, advocating a form of senate reform that would be detrimental to the West Coast (a view on the Senate shared by Gibson), and supporting the Argos over the Lions.
"In seeking new friends, Harper runs the risk of losing the dance partners who brung him where he is," Spector wrote."
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-22 5:13:39 PM
"Why criticize Harper?"
Because part of his salary comes from my taxes, and I feel very strongly about making sure that all of my employees get performance reviews.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-22 5:47:05 PM
From an editorial in the Toronto Star today:
"If Prime Minister Paul Martin found himself winding down a poorly focused 10-day Asian tour yesterday by sputtering about polygamy, the Charter of Rights and an election, he has only himself to blame."
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-22 5:50:29 PM
Ping-pong by Harper in Vancouver; Kenney visits home of late Chinese leader,upstaging PM Martin ;PM Martin is somewhere. Is this the Conservative road to power in Ottawa?
Combine this with Gomery inquiry; ergo, a Conservative government headed by Stephen Harper with Jason Kenney as Minister of Foreign Affairs. A winning combination; a winning nation, at long last.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-01-22 5:53:01 PM
Well, it's a relief to know that criticism of the party is not off-limits, after all. As for the questions: for now, I'll leave it to others to criticize/defend Paul Martin. Not only is that a bigger job than I have time for, his alleged failures on this topic don't change my complaint about Harper's statement a bit.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-01-22 5:55:17 PM
In this country, outside Quebec, we have three main political parties to choose from.
Personally, I prefer Stephen Harper's position on this issue. I believe he's thought about it more than Martin has, and that he's worked his way to a principled position that is in the best interests of Canada.
I respect your right to prefer Paul Martin's position, but to me it seems to derive from polling and focus group testing.
I'd be most interested in reading a principled defense of his position--indcluding why it's in the interest of Canadians to change the existing definition and, if it is, why it's legitimate to discriminate against those Canadians who are not hard-wired for monogamy and would not like to spend the rest of their days in the closet.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-22 6:10:13 PM
"Why criticize Harper?"
Obviously no one is above critcism. As PM, Paul Martin has proven himself incapable of living up to his promise, Stephen Harper does not seem to have Type A personality to fill this vaccuum. As Jim Collins outlines in his business book, Good to Great, it is often the quiet leader is does the better job and the charismatic that fails. But alas, voters love charisma.
As the article you linked claimed, MP Harper seems to be loosing ground in BC. A Toronto Sun article also criticized MP Harper for spending time in Quebec instead of the GTA. If he can make inroads in Quebec it is worth the effort, but it is a bold gamble. But I think your point was why criticize him on SSM/Polygamy. It is a difficult position to carve out, but so far it seems to be working ok. On it's own SSM is a losing issue for the CPC but by coupling it to polygamy he may gain some votes. Another gamble, but it may be worth it.
"Has Paul Martin explained why he's discriminating against threesomes? Has he even addressed the substantive concerns expressed by the Catholic Church and others about marriage and the family?"
Has Paul Martin explained why he does anything? Has he ever lived up to his "come hell or high water" word. His position seems to be want can get me the most votes. As Jack Layton says if it a fundamental human right how could he possibly let his party vote against it? And if SSM is a fundamental human right why not marriages that fit with long standing cultural and religious institutions (even if they disagree with ours)? What is the first principle that they (he) falls back on when making such decisions?
You mention the concerns of the Catholic Church (not to mention other religions). When has the Liberal Party ever been concerned with this? There position (which is hardly unique) is that religion should play no role in decisions of the state, i.e. you can be religious one day a week, but on all others it should be ignored as a duty to your country.
Anyways, 'nuff said...for now.
Posted by: Greg Staples | 2005-01-22 6:16:06 PM
Beyond the church/state issue, as a non-Catholic I find the Church's writings on the role/function of marriage to be very well-thought out and argued. The burden of proof is on Martin to explain why he believes it's in Canada's interest to become the third country in the world to change the traditional definition--and is even prepared to impose his views on the cabinet.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-22 6:27:45 PM
"Being gay, I have a special interest in the same-sex marriage debate."
Frankly, I don't care whether your're gay or not (or at least I thought that was one of the points of SSM), but thanks for letting me know - it helps your argument tremendously.
Posted by: Pat C | 2005-01-22 6:30:21 PM
Indeed Norman.
Aren't we Canadians funny. This debate is occuring now (which is good) but the courts have already made the decision provincially. As you have mentioned previously is anyone really going to invoke the notwithstanding clause?
As a side question, you mention that MP Harper has carved out the better position. While I agree, I wonder how the concept of civil unions does not lead to polygamy as well.
Posted by: Greg Staples | 2005-01-22 6:32:30 PM
But to be serious for a second. Why do so few people attack the liberal's (and for that matter the supreme court's) attempt to characterize this as a right's issue on the one hand and a popular issue on the other.
What I mean, of course, is the highly questionable argument that (I'm paraphrasing here) "we've reached a point in our nation's history where gay marriage is socially acceptable." Apart from the idiocy of statements like this (which really just mean that as long as people support something it should be allowed to happen), it seems to lead the door wide open to an appeal to popular opinion. Of course this goes directly against the liberal's own argument that this is a right's issue that can only be decided by the charter (read judges.)
Posted by: Pat C | 2005-01-22 6:37:52 PM
Polygamy will remain a criminal offence until Parliament changes the law or the SCC strikes it down as discriminatory.
I believe Harper is winning the debate on s 33. No one can say for certain that the SCC would strike down the traditional definition if Parliament legislated it
As to the few thousand gays and lesbians who are already married, God bless them.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-22 6:40:11 PM
Pat: I didn't intend for my sexual orientation to bolster any arguments I might make. I mentioned it in introducing myself to provide some context. It's interesting that you would think my purpose was anything else. I wonder if you'd have reacted similarly if someone had introduced himself like this: "as a farmer, I have a special interest in agriculture policy."
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-01-22 6:42:53 PM
Pat C
You are absolutely right. This is a political issue. Here's my most recent column on the issue:
Same sex? Then why not legalize polygamy?
27 December 2004
The Globe and Mail
Page A17
In their shootout over who lacks courage on same-sex marriage, it's easy to overlook where Paul Martin and Stephen Harper agree. Since both are competitive politicians, it's likely they reflect a broad consensus on matters related to sexual orientation.
Twenty or even 10 years ago, our airwaves would have been filled with arguments over whether men and women are born homosexual, or learn to be homosexual. Not far beneath the surface of this nature-versus-nurture debate, many would have been thinking that gays and lesbians can be “cured.”
Canadians now take for granted that men and women can form stable, loving relationships with partners of the same gender. As the closet has emptied, we've readily accepted that everyone must be treated equally in housing and employment. Today, most Canadians agree that gay and lesbian couples should have the same legal advantages as Mr. Harper and his wife obtained when they said “I do.”
Messrs. Harper and Martin also agree on limiting the numbers who share the marital bed. No one can predict how the Supreme Court would rule on Mr. Martin's proposed discrimination against threesomes, just as no one can say for certain how the court would rule on current discrimination against homosexuals.
Mr. Martin insists that Mr. Harper would have to use the notwithstanding clause to preserve the existing definition of marriage. Yet, the Prime Minister has not declared whether he would use the clause to limit marriage to two persons. Is it that he lacks courage?
Perhaps. But Mr. Martin is also assuming that the court would not strike down his proposed redefinition — just as Mr. Harper assumes the court would not strike down the traditional definition of marriage. Both would argue that the discrimination they support is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” — the test in Section 1 of the Charter.
Where Mr. Harper and Mr. Martin substantively part company is over whether gay and lesbian unions should be called “marriage” or something else. With both sides dug in, one wag has suggested calling the latter “garriage.”
Aside from the label, the debate reflects two conceptions of equality. For many gays and lesbians, equality means being considered the same. You say tomato, I say to-mah-to. For others, being equal is not incompatible with rejoicing in one's difference. “Marriage” — a bourgeois institution for the straight and narrow — is the last thing that resonates in their mind.
As a conservative, I can think of several reasons it would not be in Canada's interest to become the third country to legalize same-sex marriage. However, if the Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, I can't think of a single additional reason to prohibit a woman from voluntarily choosing to become Paul Martin's second wife, assuming Sheila Martin also agreed.
I concede that a majority of Canadians would be disgusted with this arrangement. But isn't that how many felt about homosexuality only a few years ago? Don't many Canadians still feel that way when, turning on CBC, they see two top hats kissing on their screen? And isn't this why the majority would prefer not to call their marriages by the same name?
At their oral hearing, the Supreme Court judges allowed federal lawyer Peter Hogg to dodge defining the boundaries of marriage. In the decision, the justices described the Constitution as a living tree, thereby affirming that it is their business to make these highly personal value judgments, dressed up in the legalese of constitutionally justifiable discrimination.
Those who demand that Stephen Harper declare today whether he will use the notwithstanding clause would be the first to condemn an affirmative response. Yet, no one condemned Paul Martin a year ago when he said he'd use the clause to permit discrimination against gays and lesbians who want a religious wedding. Nor is anyone asking now whether Mr. Martin will use the notwithstanding clause to discriminate against Canadians who are not biologically hardwired for monogamy and would like to come out of the closet.
No one can predict whether what disgusts ordinary Canadians and what disgusts appointed Supreme Court judges will coincide. No one can predict, therefore, how the public would respond to the use of the notwithstanding clause by their elected MPs — if there were no other option after the courts had said their final word.
In the circumstances, Stephen Harper is right to demand a free vote for all MPs. He's also wise not to foreclose any legal or constitutionally valid option.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-22 6:43:04 PM
Here's a letter to the Globe today by McGill Anthropology professor Philip Carl Salzman:
“Enthusiastic advocates of multiculturalism, diversity and multiple family forms can now show their consistency by supporting plural marriage.
Polygamy is, after all, characteristic in the largest number of cultures by far: 147 allow polygamy, while only 40 are strictly monogamous. If all the world's cultural practices are to be honoured in Canada, polygamy should be high on the list.
It is puzzling that an agency of the federal government, Status of Women Canada, has put out a contract on polygamy, seeking academic rationale for ruling it evil. Does being multicultural mean that you can favour the people and customs you like, and reject the rest? Isn't that cultural genocide and racism?”
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-22 6:49:15 PM
"Pat: I didn't intend for my sexual orientation to bolster any arguments I might make. I mentioned it in introducing myself to provide some context. It's interesting that you would think my purpose was anything else. I wonder if you'd have reacted similarly if someone had introduced himself like this: "as a farmer, I have a special interest in agriculture policy.""
I'm always glad to be "interesting".
I just don't see how the "context" you speak of helps. Your argument is either good or it isn't.
And even if I accept your 'context' argument (which I don't) your farmer example doesn't work. He likely does have more knowledge of or interest in farming and farming legistlation than me (non-farmer.) Gay people do not have more knowledge of or interest in marriage and marriage legistlation than heterosexuals.
Posted by: Pat C | 2005-01-22 7:01:40 PM
Pat: I'll say it again: I mentioned being gay to explain why I'm particularly interested in the topic of gay marriage. Nothing else. Is your point that you think I should have no more interest in the topic of gay marriage than a heterosexual person? If so, then we're even. We've each volunteered a piece of information the other has no interest in.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-01-22 7:32:19 PM
I am pleased that Harper is taking a stand to defend traditional marriage.
Posted by: Joel | 2005-01-22 7:33:28 PM
Joel
As you say, Harper's doing very well. He's a smart guy, he's thought about the issue and he has a terrific opportunity to present himself as the embodiment of moderate, middle class Canadian values. He should not be shy about being seen with his adorable children and classy wife either.
In his long-distance spitting match with the PM over the weekend, he's effectively taken the notwithstanding bugaboo off the table. By repeating that he does not intend to use it and has no need to use it, he's neutralized Martin's attempt to divert the issue of marriage to the debate over the Charter. No one, Martin and the media included, can guarantee that the SCC would strike down the traditional definition, so Harper is standing on solid ground.
He must be careful, however, not to go down the Stockwell Day route to polygamy.
There is no such thing as a slippery slope in a free and democratic society like Canada--a country in which the constitution is supreme, but that constitution includes the notwithstanding clause, in addition to an amending formula.
There are three killer questions he should force Martin to respond to:
1. How will it strengthen our society for Canada to become the third country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage?
2. Second, if this is a human rights issue, how will he or his successors justify discriminating against groups and individuals who--for religious reasons or because they are not hard-wired biologically for monogamy--are interested in having more than one legal spouse?
What exactly is the principled reason to deny such people their right to marry and to live in a committed relationship with whomever they want?
Saying polygamy is a criminal offence is a tautology, since Parliament can change the laws and the courts can strike them down. What is his argument against either of these scenarios?
3. If this is a matter of conscience--and Martin himself had to struggle with his beliefs in coming to a decision--why is he imposing his views on his caucus and, through them, on Canadians? Why will he not give all his MPs a free vote on the issue, as Mr Mulroney did on the issue of capital punishment?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-23 7:50:38 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.