Monday, December 20, 2004
Do you want to know what's stupid? I'll tell you what's stupid
Opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage is stupid. Not because this is a civil issue being mistaken for a religeous one, which it is, not because people who oppose same sex marriage in a civil sense should focus on lifting their knuckles off the ground, which they should, but rather because there is absolutely nothing in the ruling to oppose, even if you're, say, Stockwell Day. And yet a plurality of voters in a MacLean's poll purport to disagree.
Honestly, with which element of the ruling do these people disagree? With the assertion that the federal Parliament has the authority to legislate the civil definition of marriage? That would be a very odd basis for opposition, coming from the political demographic most attached to the idea of parliamentary supremacy. Or perhaps these people don't like the part where the Supremes stated that legalizing same-sex marriage would not contravene the Charter (to which I, and numerous legal scholars both more prominent and more qualified than myself, respond only "Duh"). Or perhaps the source of these people's frothy chins is the assertion that "the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs". That could be it - perhaps the Court's clear statement that civil marriage and religeous marriage are (or can be, at any rate) two different things upsets the rightists, since it removes much momentum from their political arguments.
Look, if you want to oppose same-sex marriage, go right ahead. But if you're going to purport to disagree with the court ruling, on legal bases or political, I'm going to want a reason.
|
Opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage is stupid. Not because this is a civil issue being mistaken for a religeous one, which it is, not because people who oppose same sex marriage in a civil sense should focus on lifting their knuckles off the ground, which they should, but rather because there is absolutely nothing in the ruling to oppose, even if you're, say, Stockwell Day. And yet a plurality of voters in a MacLean's poll purport to disagree.
Honestly, with which element of the ruling do these people disagree? With the assertion that the federal Parliament has the authority to legislate the civil definition of marriage? That would be a very odd basis for opposition, coming from the political demographic most attached to the idea of parliamentary supremacy. Or perhaps these people don't like the part where the Supremes stated that legalizing same-sex marriage would not contravene the Charter (to which I, and numerous legal scholars both more prominent and more qualified than myself, respond only "Duh"). Or perhaps the source of these people's frothy chins is the assertion that "the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs". That could be it - perhaps the Court's clear statement that civil marriage and religeous marriage are (or can be, at any rate) two different things upsets the rightists, since it removes much momentum from their political arguments.
Look, if you want to oppose same-sex marriage, go right ahead. But if you're going to purport to disagree with the court ruling, on legal bases or political, I'm going to want a reason.
