April 14th, 2003
The Parliamentary justice committee is currently engaged in cross-country hearings trying to establish the merits of changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals.
The number one argument for recognising homosexuals' rights to marry is supposedly based on "equality".
This argument is presented with slogans such as: "If homosexuals cannot do what others can, then this is an unjust discrimination."
The current federal and provincial laws do not discriminate with respect to sex or sexual behaviour. All persons, no matter what their sexual preferences, can only marry a person of the opposite sex.
However, if the law was changed so that a homosexual man could marry another homosexual man, then this particular class (men displaying homosexual behaviour) would be privileged with respect to the class of heterosexuals.
That is a homosexual man could marry another homosexual man, but a heterosexual man could not marry another heterosexual man.
Similar arguments apply to women.
To eliminate this newly introduced disparity, then the right to marry another person of the same sex would also have to be granted to heterosexuals.
If you think that such heterosexual "right" is not needed and that discrimination against heterosexuals would be acceptable, because heterosexuals would not want to marry each other, think again.
One reason homosexual couples want to be recognized legally is because of spousal benefits, including survival benefits.
Thus if the legislation allowing same sex marriage was passed, it is understandable that a person would want to marry another close person (a loving brother or sister, son, daughter, grandmother or friend) to acquire benefits from, or grant benefits to that person, or to evade tax legislation, or to bypass inheritance laws.
Such re-defined marriage, where anyone could marry anyone else, based on "loving" or "living" arrangements, and where the state would recognize such couples as spouses deserving spousal benefits, would be untenable and absurd.
Granting homosexuals the special right to marry would create a disparity, not eliminate one.
Correcting this newly introduced disparity by further liberalizing the concept of marriage would be absurd.