ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for same-sex marriage

Prop 8

by 2 Comments

Californians will be voting on Proposition 8, come election day. This confirms that marriage is between a man and a woman, after California’s courts recently struck down Proposition 22–where 60 per cent of Californians affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman back in 2000. I highlight this because it’s interesting–California is not a conservative state. And yet not eight years ago, they affirmed opposite sex marriage. (Homophobes, all of them? The whole state? I think not.)

Anyway, people like Jennifer Roback Morse have been working hard on this issue. And my colleague and I (for the day job) wrote this a while back. Marriage–it’s complicated–but in the end, that’s good. (ie. It was never so simplistic as to say “hey–what does someone else’s marriage have to do with me?” which seems pretty consistently to be the argument of those in favour of same sex marriage.)

We don’t know much about marriage

by Leave a Comment

The marriage debate. Frustrating. If marriage was strictly about love and equality–then of course there was never any reason to deny it to anyone. This article reminds me about the level of emotion associated with the marriage debate. The “equality soundbite” prevailed. I always thought the “children’s right to a mother and a father soundbite” was quite compelling too. But all it ever resulted in was the comment, “ya, but not everyone has children.” And we were back to square one. 

To argue against gay marriage on the grounds that children need a mother and a father required proving without doubt that children don’t do well with two or three parents of the same sex. Proving that, meanwhile, was impossible, because no long term studies without significant design shortcomings exist. Back to square one. Frustrating.

The author of the Globe piece doesn’t seem to find the “unintended consequences” of gay marriage very compelling. I on the other hand, do, and this piece by Jennifer Roback Morse, which landed in my inbox today too, highlights some.

Bottom line: Had there been more freedom of speech associated with the whole debate I’m not sure we would have legalized same sex marriage. Marriage as an institution is complex–and we just don’t learn about it anymore, beyond the Hollywood love angle. And the Hollywood understanding of marriage is not, quite frankly, an institution worth keeping.

Who’s laughing now?

by Leave a Comment

Remember when we were debating same-sex marriage some of us tried to point out that once you start messing with the definition of marriage there’s no telling where it’ll end? That polygamy would be next? Because once you decide that a marriage is simply the recognition of a loving relationship, there’s no reason to get hung up on the number of people involved in said loving relationship?

I remember. We were laughed at. We were told tut-tut, of course not, because polygamy is illegal.

Oh yeah?

Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages — some with a harem of wives — are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.

Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.

“Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims,” Ali said yesterday. “Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others.”

[…]

However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.

Once again, I wonder where the feminists are… Why aren’t they up in arms about this? Do they think polygamy is good for women?

____________________________________

Andrea adds: If I had a dime for every time a social liberal or even a libertarian told me family and marriage policy doesn’t matter, I’d be retired in Waikiki. Social liberals appear to be AOK with an illogical double standard: Yes to same sex marriage, no to polygamy (though clearly we have not said no to that at all). And my libertarian friends? With some of their attitudes toward marriage-one almost has to wonder whether they don’t secretly long for bigger government.  

____________________________________

Rebecca adds: “‘Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims,’ Ali said yesterday.”

No kidding. Lots of things are a regular part of life for many Muslims, but it doesn’t follow that we want these behaviours replicated in Canada, much less at taxpayer expense. Maybe we should jump on the Rowan Williams bandwagon and declare sharia in Canada inevitable?

Meta