How Slippery Is Thy Slope?

I don't mean to get into too many serious issues on the weekend, but I have some unfinished business from earlier in the week. I promised in an earlier post to write about Canada's legalization of same sex marriage, and I guess now is as good a time as any.

Simply put, this is all about equal rights. If certain rights and benefits are going to be offered under the law to married couples, you can't exclude a statistically significant segment of the population from those rights. The problem seems to be that a lot of people, especially of the more religious persuasion, are all up in arms over the use of the word "marriage" as it pertains to same sex relationships. I am not insensitive to the concerns of these people, because who am I to tell them what their spiritual beliefs should be? But the state has no right to make such distinctions. So there would seem to be two solutions to this dilemma, one of which was the action that the Canadian Parliament has taken. The other alternative would have been for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether, leaving that to the clergy, and simply granting civil union status to all couples who so choose, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Then, if a couple wished to get "married", they could do so through their religious institution, and the religious institutions would be free to set their own policies over who to marry. While that would be equitable, there is something about the word "marriage" that seems to be sacred to a lot of people even in secular unions.

The arguments against same sex marriage are generally illogical. We're supposed to believe that if gays are allowed to marry, that somehow diminishes the significance of a heterosexual couple's marriage. It was never adequately explained how that is. If two gay guys across the street have gotten married, does that make you any less committed to or devoted to your spouse? It has also been argued that if you allow gays to marry, then you start down a slippery slope in which polygamy or marriage to a sibling or minor child will become possible at some time in the future. This is a load of bull. The issue is here is equality. If you prohibit these other things, you are applying the law equally to everybody. If you allow marriage of two consenting adults, but only if they are heterosexual, you are restricting rights to some people.

The ink on the new law has not yet dried, and Stephen Harper has already talked of revisiting the issue should his Conservative Party win the next election. It is very possible that gay marriage will become the wedge issue in Canada that abortion is in the U.S. (I highly recommend the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. He writes about the rise of the Right in heartland America, and how the Right gets people worked up enough over wedge issues to vote against their own economic interests.) Of course, many on the religious Right genuinely belive that heterosexuality is deviant and a decadent lifestyle choice. But let's face it - who would choose to be gay, given what they have to put up with from society? I have no doubt that it's who they are, and not what they choose. I realized I wasn't gay the first time I had a rectal exam and didn't really enjoy it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.