the response
2006-12-08 | 12:15 a.m.

Hands up... who's surprised at how the same-sex marriage debate turned out?

Much as I dislike the man, it was a smart political move for Harper. He gets to look good for keeping a campaign promise. He gets to say to the religious-righty whackjobs and other bigots in his base that, hey, he tried. And he doesn't have to actually do anything, like, oh, say, invoke Section 33.

The only reason I feel the need to comment on this entirely predictable development is this: I did finally hear back from my MP.

His email was polite, reasonable, and directly addressed my questions and comments. When was the last time any of you got a letter like that from a politician? After the whole Parc Avenue affair, I was starting to think such letters were a fantasy. So, for that much, I have to give the man credit. Even though I disagree with his final position, I am very happy with the response I got.

Anyway, the highlights. One, the poll results. There was some shoddy reporting in the press release. According to Mike, With regards to the question of re-opening the debate 48.8% said yes and 40.8% said no (8.3% were undecided and 2.2% did not respond). While 48.8% as a percentage out of 100 does not equal majority, more people said yes than no.

(So, why wasn't that information in the press release? Jeez, who wrote the damn thing? Would have pre-empted my whole argument!)

Second highlight was his clarification of his reasons for wanting to reopen the debate. The whole "get the government out of the marriage business" thing. I know it's a moot point now, but I'm going to muse on the idea a bit anyway.

It seems, on the surface, like a decent compromise. A good way to shut up the people who whine that "marriage is a religious institution," anyway.

Two problems, though. Marriage, both historically and culturally, is no more a religious institution than it is a civil and legal one. It may even be less. Why give up the word to the churches and temples and mosques?

Yeah, yeah, all in the name of compromise. And in a significantly nicer world, it might just work.

But let's be honest. Second problem with the plan. So you take the word "marriage" off of marriage licenses. Replace it with something else. "Civil union" or some such thing. Fact is, people who have these "civil unions" are still going to use the term "married" to describe their relationship with their partner, especially opposite-sex couples who have always taken the right to a civil marriage for granted. So, if the official word isn't "marriage" but the colloquial one is...

...is that really going to appease the angry religious groups?

Maybe it's a better idea than I'm giving it credit for. Similar ideas have been implemented in some other countries, after all.

But I say, let the houses of worship define religious marriage, and the government define civil marriage, just the way it's always been. If you think this is an irreconcilable problem, I have two words for you:

Divorced Catholic.

looking back | looking forward