Memo to Canadian judges: Leave institution of
marriage alone
Susan Martinuk
The
Wed
Page: A16
Section: Editorial
Byline: Susan Martinuk
Column: Susan Martinuk
Source: The Province
[Return to Homepage] [Return to “Op-Ed Archive” Page]
Can three unelected judges irrevocably transform our
culture? Maybe. Probably.
Last week, the B.C. Court of Appeal gave in to current
cultural whims to rule that marriage laws are discriminatory to same-sex
couples and must be changed.
In doing so, it displayed remarkable arrogance towards the
social history of every culture on the planet. Even more so, the ruling
perpetuates ignorance about what marriage is -- the move to broaden the
definition of marriage is about how society views marriage, not how society
views homosexuals or homosexuality.
Canada's current law recognizes marriage as "the lawful
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." Every
culture and major religion has historically recognized it as that. Yet these
judges want to alter this social norm (that's right, "norm") by
proposing that marriage be "the lawful union of two persons to the
exclusion of all others."
Proponents say the change protects marriage from evolving
still further to include polygamy or any other conceivable "family"
arrangement that some may want. But no one can make this claim with any
certainty. Fifty, or even 20, years ago, we'd never have imagined altering the
legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Who's to say marriage
laws, once current limits are gone, won't change to embrace other social
arrangements?
An Ontario lesbian couple is currently petitioning for the
legal recognition of one lesbian partner as a third legal parent for her
two-year-old. In the U.S. a single mother who ended a four-year affair with a
married man wants the court to transform the adulterous union into the social
equivalent of marriage. She wants financial support for herself and her child
from another relationship.
This is the inevitable result of tinkering with laws that
have historically governed the social institution of marriage. Any family
arrangement will become acceptable. How children will adjust to these changes
is anyone's guess. There is no significant amount of sociological or historical
evidence to suggest that same-sex marriages will be stable unions that are
beneficial to kids and society.
Marriage is not an arbitrary or even legal construct. It's a
pre-existing societal, cultural and religious institution that reflects more
than one's desire for sexual intimacy or sexual preference.
It is a voluntary social institution and thus involves a
choice. If you choose to participate in this tradition, then you must follow
the governing rules. Therefore it is, quite rightly, discriminatory.
Should the majority have to change the rules to accommodate
same-sex couples who, according to the 2001 Census, comprise just 0.5 percent
of Canadian couples?
There can be no compromise. Homosexuals have legal
recognition of their relationships -- they already receive almost all the
economic and legal benefits of common-law couples. But marriage is, and always
has been, heterosexual in nature and sexual preferences can't trump societal
norms.
The courts should leave marriage alone.