I really hate to take on another big Alberta “grievance” so soon after the gun registry post but today’s Supreme Court decision is too important to ignore. Maybe I’ll even follow this up with my pro-Kyoto commentary if the Martin government ever decides to come up with some sort of plan for it.
As for gay marriage, I’m strictly against it. I feel that the definition of marriage must be changed, but it must be changed to the following:
1. No woman past menopause and no man with a low sperm count should be allowed to marry. Listening to conservatives today, I learned gay marriage is wrong because gay couples can not have children (and yet these same people are against gay couples adopting. Hmm…). In addition, any couple which fails to conceive within the first five years of marriage will have their marriage annulled.
2. Religious reasons are cited for opposition by those advocating the “traditional” definition of marriage. Given the numerous wives of key Old Testament figures, I therefore move that polygamy be made legal. I’m also hoping that the criminal code can be modified so that all who work on the Sabbath and commit adultery are stoned to death but this is a different discussion for a different time.
3. On the same vein why do we let atheists marry? Haven’t these godless heathens done enough harm as it is without destroying the blessed institution of holy matrimony?
4. Given the cry that marriage is a “traditional” institution and that modifications to it will lead us down a slippery slope to men marrying toasters, it’s paramount that we reverse previous changes to the “traditional” definition of marriage which have started us down this slope. Primarily, I have grave concerns about the move to allow interracial marriage. Likewise, I’m not keen on changes to the traditional voting definition so hopefully Mr. Cotler will move quickly to remove the franchise from women.
5. Given that we don’t want to “cheapen” the definition of marriage, why do we allow marriages by those who have already cheapened this institution by receiving a divorce? Or cheating on their spouses? Or forgetting their wife’s birthday?
Since this decision is now in the hands of such capable members of parliament as Tom Wappel, Dan McTeague, and David Kilgour, I’m confident we’ll finally get a definition of marriage all Canadians can live with.
On a serious note, if anyone knows of any good arguments against gay marriage, please post them in the comments section since I have never once heard a credible argument against allowing equal marriage. I’ve heard good arguments against Kyoto, against the gun registry, in favour of Missile Defense, even in favour of asymmetrical federalism. These arguments haven’t convinced me but at least they’re there. There has to be a reason 40-45% of Canadians oppose allowing gays to marry but, for the life of me, I have yet to hear a good reason. Surely one exists, right?