Against Marriage: January 2005

Marriage Ignores Our Culture

September 2003

Our leading politicians have proven the depths of their knee-knocking cowardice by appointing two gay-positive judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. And in doing so -- in giving us the most gay-positive court we've ever seen -- politicians are dooming the gay community.

Let me explain. Our top judges are picked by the ruling party, with the justice and prime ministers elevating top legal minds to the Supreme Court of Canada. The powers-that-be have thrown glory, fur-lined red robes, and a private dining room to Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron (the promotion was official as of Oct. 4).

Both are excellent judges and both deserve the promotion. Both these women are also known for their past gay-positive judgments. They should tip the balance on the nine-justice bench such that we will win any equality challenge brought forward for many years to come.

The feds have done this so they can ensure gay equality without doing anything controversial themselves. The judges will do it for the politicians, craven poltroons that our leaders are.

Thus will the waffling of our elected representatives become officially institutionalized. They already blame judge-made law for legal changes that some despise, but now can completely wash their hands of the basic concepts of equality.

There will no role models in the House of Commons for us, nor for the many hetero Canadians wobbling along looking for strong declarations of principle from our elected leaders.

Everything will be left to the courts.

But we now need to look beyond this nasty little game to see the truly insidious implications of court-ordered equality.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically says that it seeks equality of outcome, rather than the absolute same treatment of individuals. Meaning that equality does not come about when everyone is treated the same. Cultural differences can mean that identical treatment can lead to vast inequalities.

Canadian politicians have no problem with this when it comes to other "minority" groups. Our 1982 Constitution (negotiated by politicians) gives a university the right to post a job ad that allows only applications from women, for example -- as has occurred. It is perfectly legal for an institution to look at its employment make-up, see a vast under-representation of women, and decide to fix that apparent discrimination.

In the same way, an Ontario pilot project is underway allowing Muslims to deal with some civil matters, such as divorce and child custody, in special courts that dispense Sharia law, rather than justice according to "proper" Canadian divorce law.

But in the courts, this concept of different-but-equal has never been applied to gay men and lesbians. Women's culture matters, religious difference matters.... but not homosexual difference.

Everybody gets equality of outcome except us. And that is what's being institutionalized through the Supreme Court of Canada. These gay-positive judges believe in equality, but not in our essential cultural difference. We get to be treated exactly like heterosexuals, regardless of how that impacts us.

So the Butler porn law precedent, which states that women are routinely victimized by porn, means that vast amounts of lesbian porn is also banned. Because things that many lesbians do routinely (like fisting and bondage and having sex while menstruating) are gross and sick and are about men victimizing women, even if no men are involved in the creation of the naughty pictures.

So marriage, under het rules, is being implemented.

So is divorce -- as just occurred recently in a Toronto court by (an anonymous) lesbian couple that got hitched mere months before.

A well-known law professor has recently called for gay men and lesbians to be included properly in Canadian divorce laws, specifically mentioning that adultery should be a ground for gay divorce. Imagine how that fits into the way we structure our relationships.

It reminds me of the 1960s, when divorce was almost impossible in our moralistic nation, and straights would lie under oath to get one. A political science professor once mentioned in class that one divorce lawyer's female secretary would routinely pose in a slightly compromising position with male clients. The photo (taken by a "private investigator") would then be sent in, along with a petition for divorce.

Straight rules don't even work for straights. But this is where we're going: being forced into straight lifestyles despite our gay culture.