Drat, do I have to?

On the plus side, your cantankerous Canadian scribe, without an electronic tablet upon which to engrave her scribbles, has been freed from the hourly agony of posting updates on the ludicrous same-sex wedding shenanigans in the House of Commons.

I'd just have to add new rumours every 180 minutes anyway. The latest is here (maybe). (I did appear on the CBC national evening news on Sunday, June 26, breaking the ranks and dissing marriage. With the blog down, I guess I... needed to talk.)

The whining -- I mean, lobbying -- from Egale Canada and Canadians for Equal Marriage seems to be making an impressive impression in ensuring passage of the bill. Not. It's the politicians themselves, some of whom desperately want marriage behind them so it won't impact on the next election. (You think it's because they care? Oh please. Okay, I'll give you a handful of New Democrats, but even some of them have backed away slowly.) New Brunswick added itself to the list of legal queer hitching posts last week, by the by, leaving only Prince Edward Island, Alberta, Nunavut and Northwest Territories as conscientious objectors. Or something.

Change of pace: Let's visit our poor schlub neighbours. In a recent piece, conservative queer media columnist Dale Carpenter writes that American gay men and lesbians have "hit a wall of public disapproval on gay marriage and, more broadly, on the morality of homosexuality itself. After moving the polls in our direction for a decade or so, the number of Americans who support gay marriage has now stabilized and even turned slightly against us. The same trend is evident when people are asked about the morality of homosexuality."

"How do we breach this wall? Not, I think, by more talk of equality and liberty. We have won over just about everyone who will be moved by such arguments." And Carpenter looks at the problems of equality and liberty talk when it comes to marriage -- because it's an institution that is inherently judgmental: "It says some ways of living are better than others. Some relationships are healthier than others. Two-person relationships are better than three-person relationships..." See also monogamy, babies, and spousal benefits.

Banning marriage is a lovely idea, Carpenter says, but it's never going to happen. "Marriage is founded on neither equality nor liberty. It is in some ways the negation of these. It is a way of binding people together in a union that is thought to benefit the couple, any children they raise, and the community around them, to an extent that other relationships simply do not. That's why it is a social institution. It is shaped by and helps to nurture the society in which it arises.

"If we are to get gay marriage, we must be able to appeal to the bulk of the country that properly understands marriage in this way. We must argue for it not on the basis of anti-discrimination principles, or on the basis of individual liberty, but on the basis of community."

But can we manage that without laughing?