The battle over same-sex marriage is partly about setting the standard used to determine a couple’s fitness to marry. Just the fact that there is such a thing as a fitness test shows that a legally recognized marriage is a privilege, not a right.
There is no such thing as a fitness test to quality for a human right. If you attempt to create a fitness test for speech you have censorship, create a fitness test for the right to live and you have eugenics. With privileges, the opposite is true: a standard must exist and if you don’t meet it, you have no claim.
Because legal recognition of a marriage is a privilege, the government is free to set a standard that excludes marriages between close relatives, children, groups of three or more persons, and other arrangements unacceptable to the moral standards of Canadians. Since the Supreme Court didn’t mandate same-sex marriage, the government still has the right to exclude same-sex individuals from marriage.
Excluding same-sex couples is frequently denounced as discriminatory, but all standards discriminate. The blind are not allowed to drive cars, the Canada Pension Plan treats people differently depending on their age, separate change rooms at the gym for men and women is segregation based on gender. In each case, the discrimination is justified because of fundamental differences that relate directly to the privilege being sought, and so it is with excluding gay couples from marriage.
The proof that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are fundamentally different lies in the fact that virtually every person in the world prefers one type over the other. There can’t be a strong preference for one kind of relationship unless they are different, and the difference isn’t hard to point out. . . . .
Bah! post the full article whenever you can....
Part 1
The Rights of Marriage
by Paul Albers
January 19, 2005
What part of ‘no answer’ is it that the Liberals don’t understand? The Supreme Court’s ruling on the proposed same-sex marriage legislation was supposed to be their magic bullet against opponents of the bill but the Justices surprised everyone and declined to pull the trigger.
The court only reaffirmed the position that it has stated in the past, that government can redefine marriage if it wants to, while refusing to say that government must redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. You would never know that listening to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler though.
Having failed to get the Supreme Court to do Parliament’s job, the government is now elbowing in on the court’s domain. Cotler assumed the authority to speak on behalf of the court when he stated, "The moment the court affirmed the constitutionality of extending civil marriage to gays and lesbians, at that very moment, it is declaring the opposite-sex requirement for marriage is unconstitutional."
If the fourth question was redundant, then why did Paul Martin add that question to the reference in the first place? Adding that question seems to indicate that the Liberals knew that a ruling for the constitutionality of same-sex marriages wouldn’t automatically make such marriages mandatory. Those in favour of same-sex marriage are on very shaky ground when they claim the Charter demands what they want. The words ‘can’ and ‘must’ have very different meanings.
The Justices admit in the text of their ruling that the last question was avoided because a potential ‘yes’ answer would conflict with the lower court’s rulings that established same-sex marriage in six provinces. But it is part of the role of a higher court to be a check against flawed decisions by lower courts, even if doing so runs counter to government objectives or causes a degree of disarray as unsound laws are struck down.
The excuse used to avoid answering the last question could have easily been applied to the second question as well. Both questions requested a ruling on the constitutionality of a definition of marriage, and in both cases there was the potential of an answer that would undermine Provincial court rulings. The court was perfectly comfortable giving an answer that promoted same-sex marriage in the second question. Declaring the traditional definition of marriage constitutional would be consistent with past rulings, but it appears they chose to be silent rather than say something unhelpful to the Liberals agenda.
And so the Liberals continue to champion the false claim that same-sex marriage is a human right. If Canadians and their elected MP’s don’t know how to tell a human right from a privilege, a lot more than just the traditional definition of marriage could be lost.
The foundations of all human rights rest on the concept of morality. It is immoral to deprive people of rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience or the right to own and control their own property. Rights are equally applicable to every person. Laws and government can recognize human rights or not, protect them or not, but they always exist regardless of those circumstances. Even so, the job of defining the moral system that determines what human rights are accepted and defended by government still has to be carried out by someone.
In a theocracy, the moral bedrock would be defined by a group of religious leaders. In a democracy, the citizens would set those standards collectively by democratically amending the law and constitution to reflect the moral views of the citizens. Canada is not a theocracy, thankfully, but its credentials as a democracy are not what they used to be. Rather than allow Canadians the chance to voice their will in a national referendum, the Liberals are attempting to impose a morality that really is nothing but party ideology. Perhaps this system of government should be called an idiocracy.
What is it that separates a human right from a privilege? How can you tell them apart and what role should majority rule have in human rights issues in a democracy? More importantly, how do the answers to these questions apply to the issue of same-sex marriage? These questions will be examined in Part 2.
Part 2
The Rights of Marriage
by Paul Albers
January 19, 2005
The battle over same-sex marriage is partly about setting the standard used to determine a couple’s fitness to marry. Just the fact that there is such a thing as a fitness test shows that a legally recognized marriage is a privilege, not a right.
There is no such thing as a fitness test to quality for a human right. If you attempt to create a fitness test for speech you have censorship, create a fitness test for the right to live and you have eugenics. With privileges, the opposite is true: a standard must exist and if you don’t meet it, you have no claim.
Because legal recognition of a marriage is a privilege, the government is free to set a standard that excludes marriages between close relatives, children, groups of three or more persons, and other arrangements unacceptable to the moral standards of Canadians. Since the Supreme Court didn’t mandate same-sex marriage, the government still has the right to exclude same-sex individuals from marriage.
Excluding same-sex couples is frequently denounced as discriminatory, but all standards discriminate. The blind are not allowed to drive cars, the Canada Pension Plan treats people differently depending on their age, separate change rooms at the gym for men and women is segregation based on gender. In each case, the discrimination is justified because of fundamental differences that relate directly to the privilege being sought, and so it is with excluding gay couples from marriage.
The proof that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are fundamentally different lies in the fact that virtually every person in the world prefers one type over the other. There can’t be a strong preference for one kind of relationship unless they are different, and the difference isn’t hard to point out.
Men and women are equals, but still very different creatures. History and every form of entertainment are filled with expressions of frustration and bemusement over our difficulty in understanding the opposite sex. People usually find it far easier to build up a circle of close friends of their own gender than to bridge the gulf between the sexes just once. Forging a bond with a person of the opposite sex that is stronger than all other relationships is nothing short of miraculous. Although homosexuals also have to face relationship challenges of their own, they do not have to confront and overcome the basic differences between the sexes, resulting in a different kind of relationship.
Another fundamental difference lies in the total lack of reproductive ability in every homosexual couple. When a man and woman decide to marry, they must confront the issue of raising a family and come to some agreement about how many children to have, when to have them, and other related issues. It cannot be avoided since the commitments made at marriage preclude any attempt to reproduce with another person. If they cannot agree, the wedding will probably never take place. Even if they still wed, it is unlikely to last unless someone changes their mind since these matters are fundamental to the relationship. Homosexual couples can chose to become life long lovers, but the whole dimension of having children together is absent from all homosexual relationships.
Heterosexuals have no Charter right to legal recognition of their relationship so why should homosexuals? The state extended legal recognition and some privileges to marriage to implement a social policy, not because the Charter demanded it. If the government wanted to withdraw those privileges, it could do so, although the wisdom of doing so is questionable. The rights of a homosexual should not be different than the rights of anyone else.
When it comes to privileges, homosexuals should not be discriminated against in areas where sexual preference is irrelevant, but the elementary differences between gay and straight relationships are relevant to marriage and justify limiting marriage to heterosexuals. The main argument for enshrining same-sex marriage as a human right boils down to the fact that they want it, and they claim that being denied it makes them feel slighted.
Couldn’t they just as easily choose to see their relationship as too ‘progressive’ for marriage? As a group they are famous for annual parades flaunting how proud they are of being different, so why can’t they be proud of this difference too? ‘If you really accept me, you’ll give me what I want,’ is the kind of emotional blackmail that adults shouldn’t fall for, and it certainly isn’t what defines a human right.
This is not just about deciding what the definition of marriage should be, though. It is a decision about who gets to choose the moral core that defines what is considered a human right. Will it be the courts, the Prime Minister, or the citizens of the country? If marriage is declared a right, must it then be opened up to any and all relationships or can it still have a fitness test attached to it? What then about other rights, could they too have fitness tests attached to them?
Judaeo-Christian values have been the moral foundation for our society since before Confederation, not because someone forced it to be so but because it was the will of the majority to uphold those values. It is our right as citizens to decide together if the moral foundation of the country should change, but it is a right we will have to win from a government that considers us to be their subjects.