Gay Marriage (still!)
Chris Taylor and Damian Brooks (my evil twin), both of whom I had the pleasure of meeting last week in Toronto, both weigh in on the same sex debate.
From Mr. Taylor:
I would, as the verse states, rather let the religious do their thing, and the non-religious do theirs. I know the language isn't very nice or complimentary, but it's blunt and to the point. It's not an injunction to let crime skyrocket, it's a reminder that no one can be browbeaten or argued into the Kingdom of God. Do not run off trying to shoehorn the world into the Christian worldview. They will get there voluntarily or not at all.
From Mr. Brooks (evil!):
Marriage is too loaded and unclear a term for use in this debate. It’s an anachronistic throwback to the days when the state assumed everyone had Judeo-Christian beliefs. In today’s society, when you talk about marriage, you have to ask: are you talking about Catholic marriage – the type you can only do once unless one spouse dies or the marriage is annulled? Are you talking about financial obligations, like common-law marriage? Are you talking about both, or about something else entirely?
I'm changing my stated position on this one. I said that I didn't care. Now I do. Because the people ramming this down the throats of the electorate are doing it to distract everyone from 12 damn years of scandal and waste on the part of the Liberals. And now we have to go through this stupid debate before the electorate, who to be kind, have a one-issue attention span. So we have to fight this out. Now. So we can get back to skewering them on HR boondoggles, gun registry crappola, Stripper-gate and sponsorship scandal bullshit. How many of these things are in the news as more than a footnote, or a punchline to a joke about Judy Sgro?
I'm going to stake a position.
At this point, I believe that same-sex civil (insert word of choice here) should be allowed to exist and made legal. I believe that they should be granted all the legal rights and priveleges that heterosexual couples enjoy, including child-tax credits etc. that would result should one of the partners be a parent from a pre-existing hetero relationship, or should the same-sex couple pass an adoption screening process and formally adopt a youngster that needs them.
But I don't think that this is about equality, or even tolerance: it's about forcing society into acceptance, for "their own damn good."
And I think that's the problem.
My wife and I own a copy of the movie Mambo Italiano, mostly because Rue grew up in the neighbourhood it was flimed in, within the community supposedly portrayed. There's a scene in the movie in which the gay son of Italian immigrant parents confronts his parents about his relationship with his boyfriend. He proceeds to skewer them about the waste they've made of their lives blah blah blah, typical son confronting parents bullshit. It rang hollow to me because the parents weren't evil/bad/nasty etc., but the movie has a happy ending when (highlight blank space to read spoilers) mommy and daddy publicly accept gay son's lifestyle and are supportive of him with no reservations...
And that's what this debate seems to be about. Pro-SSM advocates are not happy with "tolerance" - no, we have to accept and support them in every aspect of their cause - or risk the label of intolerant, fascist, redneck, homophobe.
No one wants to be called a homophobe because one believes that freedom of religion should trump Same-Sex Marriage. I'm not Catholic, but when I see Catholics speak up based on deeply-held religious beliefs and then the government tells them to shove off because "he didn’t think that the government and the churches should get involved in each other’s affairs."
This is not the first time that the Martin government has attempted to bully or threaten the churches. Recently, the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) threatened to withdraw the charitable status of churches if they speak out on "political issues" such as gay marriage. While tax exempt status is conditional upon not having a political purpose, the churches were warned that since same sex marriage was now a political issue, the churches were risking their status if they spoke out about it. Of course Martin, Pettigrew and the gang remain silent when the United Church of Canada (sometimes referred to as the NDP at prayer) speaks out in favour of same sex unions. Separation of church and state is only raised in an attempt to silence and coerce those who oppose the Liberal government policies.
They say on any issue people can be divided into thirds: the third that vehemently support something, the third that vehemently oppose something, and the third who just don't care. By ramming through an agenda they never campaigned on, this government is forcing more and more people from this latter group to declare themselves: to care.
It's forced this agnostic into the ranks of those seeking to defend the freedom of religion rights granted to us under the Charter. To risk being called a homophobe because they have faith that what they believe in is what defines them is what gives the religious their strength; seeing them being beat upon by a government that doesn't care about religious freedom because it's not hip cool and trendy gives me the strength to say that what the Liberals are doing is certainly dangerous and probably wrong.
Page 1 of 1 pages
| August 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Recent Comments
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
Gross Display of Most Naked Capitalism
Blogroll
Red Ensign Blogs for Victory!
-- One of the Original Red Ensigns carried by the Penticton 1st Volunteers. It was present at Vimy Ridge when our little Dominion stood up and became a nation worth fighting for...
And Lastly...
Words are loaded, these days.
I personally don't care if the m-word is used or not - in religious terms it won't matter so long as the churches aren't compelled to perform services against their beliefs, but the court challenges on that will come depending on what crap is shoved through parliament...
But, if people want to tell me that gay sex or gay people are evil, immoral or not natural I will describe them as bigoted and stupid because this is precisely what I believe them to be. The same rights that allow a variety of people claiming to be Christian to call gay men evil, immoral or not natural allow me to describe such views as bigoted and stupid. That's the frustrating, wonderful thing about a free society where we can disagree with one another. At the moment, the religious views of a minority still hold sway in too much of public life and are still subsidized by my taxes including and especially the publicly financed separate school system in Ontario that I pay to describe "homosexuality" as immoral. Unless and until every church has to pay its own way in making such claims I have no sympathy whatsoever if some of them get their noses out of joint because gay people belatedly get to have the same civil unions as everybody else.
Quite right about all of this being a smoke screen on the part of the federal Liberals, btw. I am delighted this legislation is going through (obviously) and it has shown me the true colours of the Conservative party. That said, it is also a means for an essentially criminal enterprise to hold on to power. The sooner this debate is done and dusted the better.
-- I'll hold my delight until the actual legislation. We need this, but it needs to be balanced and fair.
"and it has shown me the true colours of the Conservative party."
-- Could you enlighten on that one, Nick? Not being incendiary, just wondered what specifically set you off. Maybe because I haven't had the time to specifically pour through what's being said by the politicoes... have I missed something I shouldn't have?
My disappointment is that the opposition parties have allowed the (minority!) government to regain the initiative and set the agenda - there are so many juicy targeted shots to take, yet the opposition seems to be buzzing around every issue possible, opposing things just to oppose them (eg. training Iraqi policemen)