The Shotgun Blog
« NORMAN'S SPECTATOR | Main | Same-sex marriage »
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Same-sex/Polygamy
Is there a slippery slope?
Over on his site, Colby Cosh takes on Andrew Coyne's column in yesterday's Post. After reading both, I'd have to say that Coyne is in no danger of losing his regular gig--notwithstanding the self-proclaimed creativity that runs through the blog entry.
Cosh's piece reads as though it was written late at night in another language and rendered into English by a translator who hadn't had a good night's sleep. Coyne presents a clearly written demolition of the slippery slope argument.
Perhaps the comparison is unfair, since Coyne had the benefit of the excellent editors at the Post. I suspect, however, that the difference is attributable to Coyne's legal training and his firm grounding in Canadian history and politics. (That also sets him apart from Mark Steyn, whose writings on this issue in the Canadian context have not been his best.)
I first wrote on this issue a year ago, and posted the most recent piece here yesterday. To me, the comparison between the two issues is important for one reason: to separate the legal and political arguments/strategies.
Few columnists grasp the distinction--and few understand the Charter--as well as Coyne. While we're on opposite sides of the same-sex issue (and in competing papers!), his columns have been among the most intelligent I have seen.
If you haven't read yesterday's, I suggest you run down to the corner store and pick up a copy, even if you have to pay more than the cover price. I certainly hope Stephen Harper and his Justice critic read it--before they go off again onto a wild tangent, in a fight that's eminently winnable.
Posted by Norman Spector on January 23, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83439cfc653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Same-sex/Polygamy:
Comments
For those of you who'd actually like to read Colby Cosh's post, it's at
http://www.colbycosh.com/#bwgm
Posted by: Kathy | 2005-01-23 7:14:58 AM
Norman when you say the fight is eminently winnable, do you mean Martins Liberals could lose in the House?? Most people think he has enough votes on his side to win.
Or do you mean he would back track and not table the legislation due to the opposition which seems to be growing??
In this case I dont think he has left himself with any wiggle room.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-23 8:09:22 AM
Mike
I believe that with enough time--national public hearings should be a must, for example--a vigorous ad campaign and a well-organized ground war involving the churches and other groups focussing in particular on cabinet ministers in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, enough Liberal MPs can be moved into the anti-camp to defeat the government bill.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-23 8:25:18 AM
Coyne’s right, inasmuch as a SC ruling in favour of gay marriage doesn’t make a pro-polygamy ruling inevitable. But it sure helps! Activist groups routinely pursue their jurisprudential goals one case at a time, and if I were a supporter of polygamy I’d much prefer having a pro-gay marriage ruling from the top Court than I would a rejection of the gay marriage constitutional claim. The former clearly helps; the latter would seem to stop any polygamy movement in its tracks.
This, of course, provides the answer to Coyne’s query on why polygamists don’t simply go to court right now if their constitutional claims are so strong. “Why should the two issues [gay marriage and polygamy] be linked in this way? What's the connection?,” he writes. “If anyone wanted to challenge the current ban on polygamy, after all, they could do so now. As they could have last year, or the year before that, or the year before that. There is no reason they have to wait for the courts, or Parliament, to pronounce on gay marriage.” No, there’s no reason at all, other than self-interest! Why not wait for a favourable ruling on gay marriage, and follow up at the right time with a propitious case (i.e., one that’ll appeal to the fashionable p.c. impulses of the Court)?
If Coyne’s so certain that the Court’s interpretation of the Charter doesn’t depend on prevailing political circumstances, that the text is all that matters, that the polygamist case today is just as strong as it’ll be any number of years down the road, how does he explain the evolution (that Cosh discusses) from the Egan decision to the gay marriage rulings in several provinces today? When the SC began reading gay rights into the Charter, there was nothing that mandated they continue through to gay marriage. Coyne could have argued then (maybe he did) that there was no slippery slope. But in retrospect, it does kinda look that way, doesn’t it?
Posted by: Taka | 2005-01-23 9:23:33 AM
Taka
Here's the key passage from Coyne--which distinguishes his thinking from many other analysts who aren't as well-grounded in Canadian law and politics:
"surely you must agree there is nothing in it that requires the courts to find that defining marriage in monogamous terms is also unconstitutional. They might rule that way: who knows? But there is nothing that obliges them to do so.
Suppose they did. Either that would be a terrible thing, or it wouldn't. If it would be -- that is, if there were reasonable grounds to ban polygamy, and the courts found otherwise -- and if enough people felt strongly enough about it, the ruling would be overturned: either by invoking the notwithstanding clause, or (preferably) by amending the constitution. And if we can't think of a good reason not to legalize polygamy, then what would be the problem if it was?
The slippery slope, in other words, is an illusion. Nothing connects gay marriage to polygamy. Nothing obliges the courts to overturn the ban on polygamy, and nothing would prevent the majority from reinstating it if they did. We are not prisoners of unreason, however much some might pretend we are."
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-23 10:22:59 AM
Yawwwwn.... zzzzzzzzzzz.......
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-01-23 12:14:18 PM
This whole debate is ridiculous...... Polygamy is not "on" so lets cut to the chase...... The nine superior beings in Ottawa have fewer brain cells in total than the average Canadian voter. Put it to a referandum and if the bulk of people think that same sex marriage is OK, then so be it.
For Canada to join the likes of Holland and Belgium in approving same sex marriage is an insult to me. Those two nations are quickly becoming the joke of the EU and Holland especially will be having such major difficulties in the next 20 years with a zillion other more pressing problems.
Homos getting married should certainly be at the bottom of their "to-do" list right now. Ditto for Canada!!!!!!
Posted by: themaj | 2005-01-23 3:26:33 PM
I would hate to have to love my brother, and his choice of a spouse, if he wanted to enter some sort of a union with a man, but my most deeply held convictions would force me to do so. I would, however, ask him not to call that union a "marriage", and I am sure his feelings toward me and the rest of our family would never allow him to do so. My apologies to my twin brother (who just mught read this), as he has been married to one woman, to the exclusion of all others for more than fifty years.
Posted by: Bob Wood | 2005-01-23 4:18:45 PM
Why exactly is polygamy objectionable? What's wrong with it?
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-01-23 4:50:46 PM
"I would, however, ask him not to call that union a "marriage", and I am sure his feelings toward me and the rest of our family would never allow him to do so."
So you want him to use the 'blacks' entrance instead of the 'whites only' entrance? Don't want him entering the building the same way you did as that might lower you, eh? That's awfully, um, 'white' of you.
"Polygamy is not "on" so lets cut to the chase"
It isn't yet, but if gay marriage becomes a go I imagine the good citizens of Bountiful B.C. will by asking themselves, 'why not us too'?
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-23 5:29:58 PM
Sean to use black segregation as an analogy in your crusade for gay marriage is indefensible. Presuming you are the Sean that labelled half the population of Canada last week as bigots if they didnt support gay marriage, I am not at all surprised that you did.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-23 5:53:19 PM
"Sean to use black segregation as an analogy in your crusade for gay marriage is indefensible."
Maybe, but if homosexuality turns out to have a genetic component, maybe not.
"Presuming you are the Sean that labelled half the population of Canada last week as bigots if they didnt support gay marriage, I am not at all surprised that you did."
I'm happy to have disappointed you.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-23 7:46:17 PM
"So you want him to use the 'blacks' entrance instead of the 'whites only' entrance? Don't want him entering the building the same way you did as that might lower you, eh? That's awfully, um, 'white' of you."
That's a quite ironic point when you consider that most polls show that visible minorities and immigrants tend to be much more opposed to gay marriage than 'lily-white' folks.
Posted by: Laurent | 2005-01-23 8:18:23 PM
I challenge any proponent of "gay marriage" who comments here to state clearly as to why the definition of marriage should not be changed to include polygamous marriages.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-01-23 9:10:45 PM
Or incestuous ones.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-23 9:19:05 PM
"So you want him to use the 'blacks' entrance instead of the 'whites only' entrance?"
Ah, yes, the inevitable analogy between blacks and gays - surprised it took this long! Well done, Sean!
Could Sean, or another one of the deeeeep thinkers that favours this analogy explain how the "plight" of Canadian gays who can't quite yet call their couplings "marriage" (even though they already enjoy every substantive legal right and entitlement of marriage) is one scintilla like that of segregation-era blacks? You know - those folks the Ku Klux Klan liked to lynch, whose churches would be firebombed, whose murderers no southern juries would ever convict, who even today make up a disproportionate percentage of persons living in the crime-ridden squalor of inner-city ghettos, whose unemployment rates are double or triple those of other minority groups, whose risk of being a victim of violence are many magnitudes higher than any other minority group?
Virtually every single one of the dozen or so Canadian gay persons I know are multiple degree holding professionals, earning much higher than average salaries with piles of disposable income, enjoying luxurious lifestyles, travelling frequently, etc. etc. I'm sure my personal experience is far from unique - there have been numerous research studies that confirm the average North American gay is better educated and earns a higher income than average and none that conclude the opposite (rest assured, if there were, the rights fetishists on our appellate courts would be citing them 'till the cows come home, but, instead, simply take "judicial note" of the fact of gay discrimination).
Of course, this sort of ignorance is not unexpected among persons who, in a world were young girls are mutilated by the males in their family or stoned if they fail to cover their ankles, where "untouchables" are treated as human garbage, where persons of faith are arrested and jailed or executed, where children are bought and sold as sex slaves, consider the most egregious "rights abuse" to be the continued reluctance of we unenlightened neandrathals to agree to change the meaning of a word.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-23 9:29:05 PM
"Could Sean, or another one of the deeeeep thinkers that favours this analogy explain how the "plight" of Canadian gays who can't quite yet call their couplings "marriage" (even though they already enjoy every substantive legal right and entitlement of marriage) is one scintilla like that of segregation-era blacks?"
The difference is that blacks are marked by the colour of their skin, not their behavior. A taxi will quite often drive past a black man trying to flag down a ride, but pick up a gay white male. It's a safe bet that the same cabbie would have also passed up the poofter if he had some way of knowing the guy's orientation.
My uncle died of AIDS many moons ago. He used to work for NovaTel. Things were good before they found out he was gay, and he regularly received recognition for doing outstanding work. One day his secret was out, and he was out of the company not much long after that. His bosses didn't like 'pooftahs', ya see.
Do you deny that the discrimination that I'm pointing to exists?
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-23 9:38:02 PM
Sorry about your uncle, Sean, but unless he and many others were the subject of research that unrefutably concluded the "discrmination" suffered by Canadian gays manifests itself in the sorts of measurable social maladies I noted in my previous post, I stand by it.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-23 10:12:49 PM
Sean wrote:
"Maybe, but if homosexuality turns out to have a genetic component, maybe not."
Opponents of legalizing SSM (among whom I include myself) argue that the nuclear family deserves special status in the law, because not only does traditional marriage play a unique role in bridging the social gap seperating men and women, it provides a more secure foundation for raising children than alternative domestic arrangements do. Now our argument may be unsound. If it is unsound, however, it has nothing to do with whether or not "homosexuality has a genetic component". It would be unsound for other reasons.
The relevant question before us is: should opposite-sex pairing be a defining characteristic of the concept of marriage? (e.g. a feature that the institution cannot do without and still be the institution we want it to be?). One could answer "no" (as you yourself have) without having to consider the issue of whether or not sexual orientation is biologically determined. One could also answer "yes" without having to consider the biological issue.
Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-01-23 11:00:57 PM
On a slightly different note, I continue to be puzzled by the graceless and crass invective hurled by Norman Spector at any variety of other writers. It's not enough for him to say "Coyne good, Cosh bad, and here's why"... instead he has to (a) insult the quality of Cosh's writing, (b) disparage his education, and (c) criticize by implication a "lack of grounding" in Canadianness.
Hell, Norman, why stop there? Why not say you think Cosh hates Canada?
Posted by: The Monger | 2005-01-23 11:18:27 PM
Clement Ng states the issue correctly. As a political matter, the onus is on those who want to change the definition to show that changing the opposite gender requirement is in Canada's interest. Gays already have the right to marry; the discrimination is that they do not have the right to marry one another, or several others--which is a discrimination that applies to straights as well. As a legal matter, the question is whether this discrimination is reasonable.
Sean draws an analogy to race, because he says there's a genetic component to both. There's a genetic component to gender, too, yet few people would suggest that telling Sean he can't attend an all-girls private school is unreasonable discrimination, notwithstanding the brouhaha over Larry Summers' remark. Nor would most people think it's unreasonable to tell Dabioch that he cannot compete for a spot on Canada's womens' Olympic basketball team.
I mention Dabioch, because it seems more than one woman would like to marry him, and if it's consensual I cannot think of a single reason other than Clement's very valid concerns why Dabioch should not be allowed to have double pleasure/double trouble. But if the courts throw Clement out of court on the first case, I want to hear from Paul Martin why it's reasonable to discriminate against poor/lucky Dabioch.
Kate says what about her dad who wants to marry her. I'sd say that most Courts would probably find that it is reasonable to discriminate in this situation (I won't get into all the reasons!), and that most Canadians would probably agree with the Court decision. As to the bestiality analogy that Doug Fisher raises today, I'd advise conservatives to stay away from that sort of objectionable stupidity.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-23 11:26:04 PM
Late to the party as usual...
Norman, it is somewhat disingenous to suggest that homosexuals have the right to marry - just not each other. Rather in the tradition of seperate but equal. ("Blacks can go to school, just not to good schools.") The question is whether or not Citzen "A" and Citizen "B" are entitled to partake of the governmentally sanctioned benefit of marriage. The SCC concluded they were and that any attempt to deny that benefit on the basis of gender is unconstitutional.
Don't like it. Fine, the Trudeaupian grand compromise of non obstante preserves the right of Parliament to define marriage any damn way it wants to. Irrespective of the equality rights of the individuals involved. However, with Harper's renuciation of that option the fight is over.
Now, have the floodgates of polygamy been opened? Have we stumbled upon the slippery slope of incest?
I think not. Or at least we haven't until a devout Muslim wants to marry just as many times as the Koran says he can. At which point an interesting legal argument, partially fueled by the SCC's demural on the fourth question of the reference, will break out.
At present marriage is a strictly two citizen proposition; the religious position of those individuals is not in issue. To make the Muslim (or the Mormon) argument for polygamy, you would have to argue that governmental benefits are to be doled out to citizens depending upon their professed faith. Four wives for Muslims, n+1 (where "n" is a truly silly number) for Mormons, one for we poor WASPs - except, of course, in seriatum.
As the Court explicitly stated that the government could not compel a Church to marry gays, there is every chance it would balk at a purely religious rationale for extending the marriage benefit further afield.
I would also note that there does not seem to be a particularily huge groundswell of activists demanding polygamy or married incest.
Finally, my own sense is that Harper has entirely mishandled the SSM file. He should have either said "We're agin' it and we will do everything, including invoking notwithstanding, to stop it." Which would have appealed to the yahoo brigade. Or he should have taken a position, call it nuanced if you will, that a) the government should get out of the marriage business and only register civil unions, b) that as long as the government was in the business a Conservative government would respect the individual rights of Canadians regardless of gender. Which would delight us libertarians. But Harper's current position, to mix a metaphor, is a toothless waffle.
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2005-01-24 5:01:50 AM
Jay
Welcome to the party. Not only are you late, but you haven't read the material. I don't dispute that prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying each other is discriminatory. If you want to re-read the thread carefully and re-post, I'll respond to what's left.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-24 5:12:45 AM
Norm wrote: "Kate says what about her dad who wants to marry her. I'sd say that most Courts would probably find that it is reasonable to discriminate in this situation (I won't get into all the reasons!), and that most Canadians would probably agree with the Court decision."
No, that's not what I said.
I personally know of a couple in a same sex relationship that has probably endured 15 or more years. It will be interesting if they decide to pick up a marriage license here in the province of Saskatchewan.
They are aunt and niece.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-24 8:51:36 AM
"Sean draws an analogy to race, because he says there's a genetic component to both"
Norm, buy some reading glasses. I said that my comparison would be appropriate "IF" homosexuality was discovered to have a genetic component. I did NOT claim that this is the case. In truth, I have no idea.
My objection is to those who feel that their marriage is somehow debased by two gay people also calling their relationship a marriage.
Perhaps a better analogy would be members of an upscale country club being upset that 'white trash' are able to obtain a membership, so they set out about creating a 'special' part of the club just for them. Appearances must be preserved, you know.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-24 9:55:57 AM
Sean
If you're not sure homosexuality has a genetic basis, then the analogy to race makes even less sense
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-24 9:58:07 AM
And when (not if) a genetic componant is discovered to be the basis for pedophilia?
What then?
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-24 10:08:52 AM
Kate
Why don't you tell us what you think would happen in that event.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-24 10:11:12 AM
Jay Currie wrote:
"As the Court explicitly stated that the government could not compel a Church to marry gays, there is every chance it would balk at a purely religious rationale for extending the marriage benefit further afield."
The two situations are not analogous. Compelling a church to disregard the tenents of its own faith is a violation of its freedom of religion. By contrast, the Muslim or Mormon party is not *compelled* to do anything (rather, they want to compel the state to yet again change the mariage law)
You bring up a relevant consideration, nonetheless. The Muslim or Mormon party can claim that its freedom of religion is also violated (although it would be a stretch to call it compulsion). Yet in Halpern v. Canada (http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10314.html), the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the Metropolitan Community Church's (Canada's queer-positive denomination) argument that the common-law definition of marriage impairs the freedom of religion, as enshrined in s. 2(a) of the Charter. Consider para. 57 of the judgement. In this instance, freedom of religion seem to be understood as a "negative liberty", not a "positive liberty" (I'm borrowing the disctintion from Isaiah Berlin).
The Metro Church further submitted that the common-law definition of marriage breached their right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion, as enshrined in s.15 of the Charter. The court dimissed the argument *in this case* because it felt that the real issue here was alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not religion. This appears to leave the door open to the Muslim or Mormon party to revive the Metro Church's second argument, since alleged discrimination on the basis of religion, not sexual orientation, would be the target in their case. The might get somewhere with this, I think.
Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-01-24 10:46:41 AM
Genetic predisposition is being used to elevate one sexual behavior to a status equal to that of race. It suggests that because a behavior is genetically based and beyond the control of the individual, that it is therefore "natural", and there should be equal protection from discrimination under the law.
If genetics renders homosexuals incapable of confining their sexual activity (and marriage prospects) to members of the opposite sex, then it surely can be argued that a gene that renders pedophiles incapable of confining their sexual activity to consenting adults, constitutes unequal treatment under the law.
(And here is food for thought - there is a pretty good chance that the same gene, or gene complex, may be responsible for both.)
I am not suggesting that this would lead to legalization of pedophilia, but I'm not sure that those convicted of pedophilia could not argue discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, and argue that their genetically based orientation should make them immune to criminal persecution.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-24 10:52:12 AM
"If you're not sure homosexuality has a genetic basis, then the analogy to race makes even less sense"
Granted, I could have chosen a better analogy. Still, it would be appreciated if you would stop incorrectly attributing things to people when they have said nothing of the sort. I am not the only one to have noticed this.
"And when (not if) a genetic componant is discovered to be the basis for pedophilia?
What then?"
Two words: gene therapy.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-24 10:55:22 AM
"not only does traditional marriage play a unique role in bridging the social gap seperating men and women, it provides a more secure foundation for raising children than alternative domestic arrangements do."
What is your proof of this?
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-24 10:57:34 AM
"...it provides a more secure foundation for raising children than alternative domestic arrangements do...
What is your proof of this?"
Let's turn this around, Sean. If you don't believe this statement to be true, you must regard ALL "alternative domestic arrangements" as providing equally secure foundations for raising children. In other words, whether a child is being raised by a single parent, by divorced parents who share joint custody, by same-sex "parents" (only one of whom can be biological parent) by uncles, aunts, wolves or Hill's "village" is irrelevant in terms of that arrangement being a "secure foundation" for the child's upbringing.
And please don't respond with anecdotes. Rest assured, we all know children raised in radically different environments who "turned out OK". Anecdotes aside, what matters is whether, when subjected to the cold, impartial processes of social science, it can be established beyond doubt that a "traditional family" arrangement tends to produce a proportionately higher number of well adjusted, well educated, fully-engaged and productive members of society.
I believe it can be (and, in fact, has been) established that this is the case, although I'd hazard a guess you're the type who won't find the sorts of studies engaged in by groups like "Focus on the Family", etc. particularly compelling. On the other hand, if you're waiting for "proof" in the form of an official Stats Canada report that studies what relative percentages of young offenders/high school dropouts/children living in poverty were raised in "alternative domestic arrangements", you'd better bring a good book or twenty.
And really, who cares about kids anyway?
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-24 11:23:45 AM
This is my last post on this thread. Sean wrote:
"What is your proof of this?".
You may be interested in browsing the material at (http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/pages/articles.htm) and purchasing the recent anthology edited by Douglas Farrow and Daniel Cere (http://www.mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1775), both which are relevant to the Canadian situtation. In any event, my intention here is not to argue against the legaliztion of SSM (as I alluded to in my post).
Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-01-24 11:36:27 AM
"If you don't believe this statement to be true, you must regard ALL "alternative domestic arrangements" as providing equally secure foundations for raising children."
I have no idea whether traditional couples provide a better home life for kids or not. Gay adoption hasn't been around long enough, nor is it widespread enough, for the proper research to have been done on a meaningful scale. This is why I regard all of the fuss about 'traditional parents are better!' as being somewhat premature.
I suspect that if and when the studies come out, gay couples will have a significant edge over single parents. Single parenting sucks, both for the kids and the parent.
One thing I *can* tell you is that I'm less worried about the threat posed to children by gay and polygamous parents than I am about the threat posed by radical Islamic parents like Elsamnah Khadr:
http://tinyurl.com/5rz5e
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-24 12:29:49 PM
"I have no idea whether traditional couples provide a better home life for kids or not."
Well, you're in good company - neither do the appellate justices who have foisted SSM on us. Not (to repeat) that kids actually matter when the latest inviolable gay "right" is at stake.
"Gay adoption hasn't been around long enough, nor is it widespread enough, for the proper research to have been done on a meaningful scale."
What about "hetero" adoption - it's certainly been around a while and, as praiseworthy an "alternative domestic arrangement" adoption is, it still falls short of traditional marriage in terms of "sterling citizenry" success rates. Is there something about gay adoption that will bridge this gap?
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-24 1:24:59 PM
"As a political matter, the onus is on those who want to change the definition to show that changing the opposite gender requirement is in Canada's interest."
That's a pretty heavy burden, considering the fact that "Canada's interest" is such a nebulous concept. Does anyone on any side of the SSM debate think their position is opposed to Canada's interest?
My questions for those involved in the debate on either side would be:
1. What is the proper function of government?
2. How is that function furthered by prohibiting/allowing same-sex marriage?
Posted by: Mark | 2005-01-24 2:03:35 PM
I'm holding my breath waiting for the guardians of traditional marriage to call for a national law banning divorce.
Think of the children.
(turning blue now)
Posted by: Jay Jardine | 2005-01-24 2:22:28 PM
"Well, you're in good company - neither do the appellate justices who have foisted SSM on us. Not (to repeat) that kids actually matter when the latest inviolable gay "right" is at stake."
Let me ruffle a few more feathers here and point out that my kid doesn't always come first in my marriage. I love my wife and I love my kid, but if my daughter ever wants me to choose between them, Mrs. McCormick is going to win.
If my marriage was about nothing other than my daughter, I would not have purchased 'The Forgotten' on DVD this weekend and would have put the $24 into her college fund instead.
Except that my marriage isn't *only* about my kid. My wife and I love her, but she doesn't come first in a lot of the decisions -- we do. Quite frankly, most of the families I have met where they put the kids first turn out the most spoiled children you'll ever see.
Contrary to what you see and read these days, parents are allowed to be selfish, too.
"What about "hetero" adoption - it's certainly been around a while and, as praiseworthy an "alternative domestic arrangement" adoption is, it still falls short of traditional marriage in terms of "sterling citizenry" success rates. Is there something about gay adoption that will bridge this gap?"
If nothing else, the fabled gay 'fashion sense'. The adopted children of gay parents will probably never get teased for wearing tacky hand-me-down clothing to school. ;-)
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-24 2:43:25 PM
Quick, head to Nealenews, check out the headline "BC Lesbians Fight To Get Married in Catholic Hall"... but of course we all know that they won't be allowed to, because religious people are allowed to follow their religious guidelines. Right?
Posted by: ld | 2005-01-24 3:14:52 PM
Jay wrote:
"I'm holding my breath waiting for the guardians of traditional marriage to call for a national law banning divorce."
Ah yes, liberalized divorce, the last time our elites plunged headfirst into social engineering of the matrimonial type without reflecting on the consequences ("Single parenting sucks, both for the kids and the parent" - Sean). This being an example of hypocrisy, the left's favourite debating tool, I'll assume, Jay, you're a SSM proponent - can we conclude your point to be that the failure of we opponents to forestall the harm to children that resulted from liberalized divorce means we are forever prohibited from attempting to forestall future harm?
Sean wrote:
"Quite frankly, most of the families I have met where they put the kids first turn out the most spoiled children you'll ever see."
Just can't resist the anecdotes, can you Sean? To use your venacular, I'm less worried about the threat to society from the spoiled kids of overindulgent biological parents than the threat posed by kids who endure years of confusion, sorrow and angst as their two "dads" bicker with their mom over visitation rights.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-24 3:17:12 PM
"Just can't resist the anecdotes, can you Sean?"
I've heard that the Liberals will be bringing in a National Anecdote Registry later this year so I'm trying to get my fun in while I still can.
"To use your venacular, I'm less worried about the threat to society from the spoiled kids of overindulgent biological parents than the threat posed by kids who endure years of confusion, sorrow and angst as their two "dads" bicker with their mom over visitation rights."
Divorce is just damn ugly when there are kids involved (straight, gay, or otherwise). That's probably something we can both agree on.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-24 3:46:18 PM
"I've heard that the Liberals will be bringing in a National Anecdote Registry later this year so I'm trying to get my fun in while I still can."
That's because anecdotes are what passes for "evidence" in "rights" litigation these days and the Lieberals want anecdotes registered to ensure their control of the courts is total:>
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-24 3:55:42 PM
"If the Conservatives come out swinging against same sex marriage, it will cost them my vote. I will not tolerate that sort of bigotry from a party I support." ( Sean)
"To not support gay marriage is bigotry??" (mike)
To deny homosexual couples the same legal convenants enjoyed by heterosexual couples? It is in my book. (Sean)
"Presuming you are the Sean that labelled half the population of Canada last week as bigots if they didnt support gay marriage" ( Mike)
Fifty percent of Canadians or thereabouts are against gay marriage and so half the population want, as you put it, to deny homosexual couples the same legal convenants etc. etc.
You are not the Sean who said this??
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-24 4:17:19 PM
"You are not the Sean who said this??"
I am. Thought it was obvious.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-24 6:00:49 PM
I wanted to hear from the horses mouth that he considers half the population of Canada to be bigoted.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-24 6:18:31 PM
>What is your proof of this?
What is your proof otherwise? Strangely, despite many centuries of human history over which various societies have shown tolerance or even downright institutionalization of homosexual behaviour, there don't seem to have been any which regulated homosexual marriage. Now we are confident we know all the answers. Of course we do.
Posted by: lrC | 2005-01-24 6:55:37 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/24/lesbian-wedding-050124.html
Any bets on this one??
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-24 7:13:24 PM
The only answer given to the question "why is polygamy objectionable?" thus far seems to be that it would be unfair because of the government benefits bestowed upon married people. A marriage of three or five people would therefore enjoy more privileges than a married couple. Interesting. I think this could be used by the feds to counter a court challenge but it doesn't seem strong enough to overcome charges of discrimination on the grounds of religion and sexual orientation. Yes, sexual orientation, it will be argued, also includes alternative family arrangements such as three wives or two husbands, etc. The numbers argument can be easily refuted by clever polygamous legal minds. "They get more because there's more of them. So what?"
Kate is right about incest. On what grounds is incest illegal? Isn't this equivalent to banning sodomy? And what about the aunt/niece marriage? What possible arguments can be used against it now? I suppose we could wait for Paul Martin to answer this but we'll be waiting for quite a while.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-01-24 8:03:49 PM
"I wanted to hear from the horses mouth that he considers half the population of Canada to be bigoted."
I consider those who oppose same sex marriage to be bigoted -- I'll leave you to work out what percentage of Canadians that is.
Let me qualify this by saying that while I strenuously disagree with your opinion on gay marriage, I respect your right to it. I feel we should both have the freedom to state our opinions on the matter without having to worry about the Nanny State's jack-booted thugs arresting us for thinking 'wrong thoughts'.
I also dislike gay marriage being slipped in through the back door (pun intended) via court rulings by non-elected judges. I'd rather see it approved by a majority of Canadians at the polls or through a national referendum. If my side loses, I'm pretty sure that I can live with it (especially since I'm straight).
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-24 9:11:07 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.