Back in February I wrote the following on the topic of same-sex marriage;
I have not found an argument to support the extension of legal marriage to include same-sex couples that I could not use in equal measure to demand the right to marry my sister.
Being of the same gender, society’s interest in the health of potential offspring is nullified – though it can also be argued that removing the ability to procreate as a defining property of marriage opens the door pretty wide. I don’t know how you can arbitrarily set aside something as fundamental as procreation to broaden the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships, but stick it back in to narrow that same definition to exclude incestuous ones.
If it is discriminatory to deny persons the right to legally marry on the basis of same-sex orientation (be it choice or chance), is it not equally discriminatory to deny persons the right to marry on the basis of sexual ambivilance? Being homosexual or heterosexual is not a product of having sex with a person of the same or opposite gender, or having sex at all! Celibacy, whether voluntary or involuntary, does not affect orientation.
[…]
This is not a frivolous suggestion. It’s not uncommon for siblings to live their entire adult lives together, to share incomes, property, to support, comfort, care for, love and commit to each other. Why should such a couple be denied the societal benefits afforded to other such couples – pension benefits, spousal deductions. That they may or may not be having sex is no one’s business but their own.
Today, Colby Cosh points out that Alberta is proposing new legislation that accomplishes just that.
Alberta: enemy of “traditional marriage”? In today’s National Post I assess an odd claim made earlier this week by Premier Ralph Klein that Canada’s stubborn right-wing province has “probably the most advanced and forward-thinking legislation in the country as it affects gays and lesbians”. Hey, even I can only be so contrarian–the statement is a clear exaggeration if you take “advanced and forward-thinking” in its typical formal meaning (“liberals like it”). But there’s a little-known fact here, squatting in the background of the national gay-marriage debate: Alberta’s mysteriously obscure new law creating civil- union-type arrangements is, in one important respect, more radical than proposed federal law–it extends access to “spousal” benefits to non-conjugal life partners, including unmarried relatives living together. Same-sex activists actually dislike this because it’s too inclusive–its effect is to lump them in with single people in platonic cohabitation. In that sense, they’re serving as defenders of “traditional marriage”, amended so as to cover them, against the country’s broadest regime of practical access to spousal privileges. You can find the details on page A21 of today’s paper.
Good on Ralphie. Serve up the “inclusiveness” they’ve been clamouring for and then stand back and watch the demands for exclusivity roll out.
Nobody does hypocrisy like the left.
Really? I’d like to think of myself as an ‘activist’ when it comes to same-sex marriage. I’ve gone on marches, I’ve written MP’s and I’ve contributed to the cause. If Alberta is completely getting out of marriage, great! As long as they don’t want to meddle with churches that do want to marry someone and are willing to have everyone just do civil unions making it equal for all, that’s fine with me.
Kate, yesterday the Calgary Herald had a columnist writing about a similar view, but took it even further, expanding on the idea of sex in regards to marriage. He brought up the point that one of the arguements used by same-sex advocates is that since hetero couples who choose to not have children by means of birth control can still get married, then gay couples should also be allowed to, as having children obviously shouldn’t be a factor in marriage.
Using this arguement, and since people can now use birth control to determine whether or not they have kids, what is to prevent siblings from not only living together as a married couple, but also from actually having sexual relations. If a brother and sister are in love and birth control can prevent them from getting pregnant, why not let them get hitched?
I should have become a lawyer, as there will soon be a lot more money to be made on this topic from both sides.
Colby is correct about Alberta’s “Adult Interdependent Relationship” legislation. It is quite telling that those notorious shrinking violets, the gay-rights zealots, have toned down the rhetoric in condemning it, not because they secretly agree with it, but because it paints them into a corner.
In order to criticize the Alberta approach, they have to explain the difference between gay couplings and “spinster sisters” that warrants inclusion of the former in the institution of marriage, but not the latter. Suffice it to say, “because we like to have anal intercourse” doesn’t tend to resonate with the populace and the opposition to Alberta’s approach from the zealots has essentially been limited to even more shrill condemnations of the homophobia of the Alberta government who “obviously” have only done this as a way to avoid doing what our sage courts have ordered them to do.
I think a lot of guys are already dating their sisters. In fact, my wife is fairly convinced of it, and refuses to teach English in any more small rural schools because she’s sick to death of dealing with their offspring.
“Suffice it to say, “because we like to have anal intercourse” doesn’t tend to resonate with the populace.”
You’ve obviously never worked in an adult video store. I did as a youth, and you’ll never guess what the busiest section was…
Let’s say that my friend Gus and I both graduate at the same time. Likewise, Troy and Bruce also graduate at the same time. We all had an identical grade point average with identical majors.
Gus and I decide to split the rent on an apartment so we can save more money for chasing skirts.
Troy and Bruce move into the same apartment complex (they just keep theirs neater, with a lot of gold macrame and a roccoco decor).
All of go to work for the same company doing the exact same job for the exact same money.
Suddenly Troy and Bruce announce that they are gay and get all sorts of special company and government benefits and concessions that Gus and I are not entitled to, simply because all of our deviance is in a heterosexual orientation.
Whose civil rights are being violated? I say me and Gus. After all, we can’t help it that we were born straight. It was an act of God or nurture or nature, or something; why should be we denied simply because of the misfortune of our sexual orientation?
“In order to criticize the Alberta approach, they have to explain the difference between gay couplings and “spinster sisters” that warrants inclusion of the former in the institution of marriage, but not the latter.”
Back off spinsters! No jumping on the bandwagon! If you want benefits you can damn well organize your own parades and blackmail politicians into participating. You’re also going to have to write a lot of plays, get musicians and film stars to be your champions in the media, and sew together some kind of giant quilt or shawl or something in the name of Arthritis victims. You think these things happen just by snapping your fingers?
Brett Hull said it best on SNL
Poehler: Brett, you’re Canadian — what do you think of the new gay marriage law passing in Canada?
Hull: Well, that’s what happens in Canada when there’s no hockey. Guys have more time to hang out, talk about their feelings. Next thing you know, they’re in love with each other. I’ve got nothing against it, but I’d rather be playing hockey.
The misunderstanding is probably my fault here, but it does go to show how obscure this statute is. We’re not talking about proposed new legislation. It’s been in place since June 1, 2003.
This is one of the first things that occurred to me when the gay marriage debate started heating up, possibly because I have a bachelor uncle and widowed aunt living together who fit the profile perfectly. I don’t see this as an argument against gay marriage necessarily, but it does seem to be an almost inevitable consequence.
As for Greg, I would suggest that he and Gus can get “married” as long as they are willing to go through all the hassle and expense of a “divorce” when they decide to go their separate ways. Although I do know a few married couples who live in different cities, so even that may not be an insurmountable obstacle.
So might I conclude from above posts such as that of Todd (who, it appears, no longer wants the govt. “in the business of marriage”, with the presumable consequence that there will cease to be any governmental “benefits” associated with marriage) and Sean E (who suggests new “marriages of convenience” that spread the marriage “benefits” even further are an acceptable adjunct of the Liberalization of marriage) that the cannard that “gay marriage won’t affect anyone else” has been officially dropped?
The distinction, as I see it, comes down to whether homosexuality is biological or not. If you accept that it is, then the argument for same-sex marriage would not be the same as the argument for marrying your sister, or to expand civil unions to those who are not living in a “marriage type relationship.”
The critical distinction is that without same-sex marriage homosexuals cannot marry anyone that they fall in love with. Preventing siblings from marrying only prevents those siblings form marrying each other. In other words in the first instance the state is saying “you cannot marry” in the second instance the state is saying “you cannot marry that individual”.
Bob Smith, your reasoning is flawed, I’m afraid. In neither case is the state saying “you cannot marry.” In each case the response is “you cannot marry that individual” – in one case, on the grounds of consanguinity, in the other on the grounds of shared gender. In neither case is the state prohibiting marriage to non-related persons of the opposite gender.
Neither is “falling in love” an essential feature of a valid marriage. We may think it ought to be, but it is not, as is demonstrated by arranged marriages, marriages of convenience and such, which nevertheless enjoy full legal validity.