I’m legally marrying my same-sex partner in two weeks. I’ve had a lot of time to reflect on what it means to me on many levels, least of all legally. As well, what happened in 11 U.S. states on Tuesday has further strengthened my political view, which I didn’t think could get any stronger or ardent.
I wish I could say that I cannot understand why people can’t follow the logical flowchart that supports gay marriage, and further, gay marriage over gay civil unions. However, I’m not surprised, because in my opinion, fear of losing power - real or imagined - can severely cripple one’s ability to think clearly, logically, and outside the box, if necessary.
Here’s how it goes, as far as I’m concerned:
The state does not require anyone to be married in a place of worship, nor does it require that a wedding be performed by a member of the clergy. We can get married in a church, a courtroom, a backyard, or in a cave. The officiant can be a member of the clergy, a judge, a justice of the peace, or anyone else legally empowered to perform such a union.
Therefore, the state has no claim in, or opinion regarding, the religious aspect present in the majority of weddings. What the state is immediately concerned with is the legal contract of partnership that is being agreed to by two consenting human adults. (I say “consenting adults” in order to reinforce that the bestial or pedophilic arguments are ridiculous.)
If the state restricted the authority to perform marriages to clergypeople, that would be a different matter altogether. And no Canadian province - and eventually, the federal government - is going to force any church to perform a gay marriage against its will. They have pledged to not do so, respecting religious freedom in our Charter of Rights and Freedms. Various denominations and even individual congregations therein are free to choose whether or not they will perform such ceremonies. Still, the state has recognized and ruled that the right to religious freedom does not trump the right of all citizens to enjoy equal protection and benefits under the law.
If I am subject to obeying the same laws as everyone else, I am therefore entitled to the same protection and benefits of the law. And our laws includes marriage. It follows that the state cannot deny any two consenting law-abiding and tax-paying adults the right to marriage.
Finally, the charters of rights of many provinces forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. No right or freedom enjoyed by a heterosexual can be denied to a homosexual.
As for civil unions, or “marriage lite,” a dangerous potential presents itself. Conferring a different legal title on a union can lead to conferring different and lesser rights and obligations. (Let’s not forget the obligations that come with the legal contract of marriage.)
I think I’ve stated my position clearly, as well as my understanding of the rationale implicit in the court rulings of several provinces that have quashed their respective bans on gay marriage. I’m not going to justify it any further.
Because where I live, there’s no need to justify it at all.