Mayhem and Matrimony

Sorry about the delay in posting - busy week. Can't always guarantee I'll post stuff on a regular basis. Depends on level of fatigue, time & availability, and whether or not I damn well feel like writing something! I'm not pondering, intellectualizing or brainstorming all the time... Most of the time my cerebrum is in "standby" mode :-)

Anyway, first thing I wanna mention is the whole London terrorist bombings thing. What a tragedy! To be hit twice in as many weeks...talk about bad luck! I'm just thankful that the second attack didn't result in as many casualties. What sticks in my mind, though, is the overall reaction of the British people and Londoners in particular. I truly admire their unflappable calm, quiet defiance and witty tenacity in the face of such hardship and suffering. For the most part, they stayed rational, and their responses were reasoned and even-tempered. I find that most extraordinary and praiseworthy. They just pick up the pieces and keep right on going, living their lives as normal. I suppose that comes from experience. Londoners proved their mettle during the Blitz and later against IRA terrorists in the 1970s. If German and Irish bombs didn't break them, I suppose nothing will! Still, I think it says something about the British character. The English seem to have the wisdom, courage and forbearance not to overreact and fly off the handle in a crisis like this. They don't let their emotions overwhelm them (or their government) and immediately start screaming for blood and vengeance like some (I won't name names here, but I think you know who I have in mind...) I thought PM Blair's speech after the first attack was positively brilliant (as an Englishman would say!) - a superb mixture of refined Churchillian rhetoric and plain-spoken honesty. What's more, while the speech was passionate and inspiring, it wasn't inflammatory. That's the key. England won't surrender herself to terror, despair and anguish, but neither will she storm out to battle recklessly. I've always liked Tony Blair; I admire him even more now. I can only hope that if, God forbid, Canada should face a similar challenge in the future, the Canadian people and government would show an equal amount of calm bravery and restraint in the face of cowardly terrorist mayhem. Given the choice, though, I'd rather not have to find out in the first place...

The second thing I wanted to note is that, as of last Wednesday (July 20), same-sex marriage is legal across my fair country. Bill C-38 was passed by both the House of Commons and the Senate, and has received Royal Assent; the Civil Marriage Act is thus enacted. The historian (as well as the liberal) in me swelled with pride. Despite a storm of criticism and the risk of electoral defeat, the current Canadian government (i.e. the Liberal Party) did the right thing and validated the human rights & equality of gays and lesbians. All Canadian couples, regardless of sexual orientation, can now officially consummate their mutual love and commitment under the law. This makes Canada only the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage - after the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain - and the only non-European country to do so thus far. It's a great moment for us, in my opinion.

Now, there have been plenty of arguments and counter-arguments when it comes to the debate over this issue. I won't go over them all - that would take way too much time and space. I don't want to bore you! If you're that interested, there's more than enough material on the Web that'll break it all down for you. I just wanted to take a moment to refute a few of the main arguments put forth by opponents to this law.

1. Marriage is about having kids and raising a family. Since homosexuals can't do this, it's not really marriage. That's crap. True, historically, marriage used to be about procreation. However, this was due to biological necessity. Farmers, peasants and the like needed to have lots of kids in order to help work in the fields and thus ensure the family's survival from one winter to the next. Also, the infant mortality and overall death rates were higher due to disease and other factors; people needed to stack the proverbial deck in their favour, to account for "statistical loss". However, that's changed in the last century or two. More and more people live in the well-supplied cities; medical advances have resulted in mortality rates going down. Therefore, the whole survival issue isn't as precarious anymore. Nowadays, people tend not to marry simply in order to have kids so that they can keep eating. Factor that out and marriage becomes something deeper and more meaningful. It's about love, companionship, making a lifelong commitment to each other, combining incomes, etc. - all of which homosexuals need and desire as much as heterosexuals. And there are other ways to have children in today's world (adoption, surrogate parentage, in vitro fertilization). So barring gays from marrying simply because they can't biologically have children with each other is ludicrous. Besides, with divorce rates being as high as they are these days (50%+!!!), the whole "sanctity of marriage" line is increasingly suspect. Matrimony ain't so holy anymore... I know plenty of straight people out there who don't deserve to be married - why deny scores of couples who do deserve it? I say let's give gays and lesbians an equal chance to screw up the institution of marriage as much as we have already! Could they do any worse?
2. Civil Unions. Okay, we'll let them get hitched but, for the love of God, we won't call it marriage... C'mon, give me a break! Utterly ridiculous - the king of all euphemisms. Splitting hairs, plain and simple. It's just a freakin' word! Let them get "married" if they want to, not "civilly united". The latter just sounds stupid to me, too cumbersome and pretentious. Besides, creating a parallel, second-tier version of marriage is inherently discriminatory. You'd be legally enshrining homosexuals as second-class citizens, that they're not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. An intrepid young preacher by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. proved that "separate but equal" is neither separate nor equal...
3. Judicial activism! Unelected judges shouldn't be imposing their views on us and setting public policy! Leave it to our duly elected representatives in Parliament. Oh heavens! I guess the Supreme Court has no authority to make decisions when it comes to the law... Bullshit. That's what we pay them to do, people!! Between having to deal with corporate lawsuits run amok and absurd small-claims court escalations, they actually render a thoughtful and well-considered opinion on changing the definition of marriage. Key word: opinion. They're not forcing the government to do anything. In fact, the opinion was solicited by the government in the first place! The government took it upon itself to draft the legislation. It IS in Parliament's hands, silly! Besides, we have these judges there in the first place because they're educated and erudite folk who've spent their lives studying the proper relationship between law and society, morality and logic. They're a smart bunch who I would hope and expect know what they're talking about! They try to see past lingering cultural prejudices in order to serve the greater good. I'd certainly trust them more than a bunch of ignorant blowhards or unscrupulous politicians only trying to get re-elected when it comes to such an important decision. The Supreme Court is far more qualified, I think. Judicial activism? Let me ask you this: would the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. have succeeded without Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education ? Civil rights was a highly controversial issue at the time, opposed by many "upstanding" American citizens no different than you or I. I'd wager that civil rights legislation would have never made it through Congress without the Supreme Court rulings backing it up. Those judges dared to interpret the Constitution as it related to the fundamental rights of African-Americans. Without their activism, it's quite likely blacks would still be disenfranchised to a significant extent today. The vaunted, fickle (white) American public, in all their wisdom, were still blinded by old, persistent prejudices and bigotries - would it have been right and proper to trust them with such a crucial decision? It's unfortunate, but sometimes the people are wrong. The Germans did legitimately elect Adolf Hitler into power, after all... So, don't criticize judges for doing their jobs. In essence, they help protect us from ourselves sometimes.

There are many more arguments on both sides of the issue, but the three above were some main ones I wanted to address. Needless to say, it's kind of a moot point now, since the legislation is officially enacted. The Civil Marriage Act is now the law of the land, confirming what eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories had already said was just and right. It makes me all the more proud to be Canadian!