What Should We Think About Gay Marriage in Canada?
January 30, 2005
Intro:
Before I begin, I want to first acknowledge and thank Lisa Nadon and Leanne Attwell for their help researching today’s topic.
Most of you have seen the headlines in the newspapers this past week, and we are expecting our minority government to introduce legislation to change the legal definition of marriage in Canada in the next week or so, with the intent that marriage in all of Canada will no longer be defined as “between a man and a woman” but rather as “between any two persons”.
What should we, as a group of Christians, think about this issue? What does the Bible say? How can we meet the goal of this sermon series on contemporary issues, which is that God would “transform (us) into new (people) by changing the way (we) think.” (Rom 12:2, NLT)?
Backing Up:
Last Sunday we began on the topic of marriage by looking at Genesis 2. My main point last week was that marriage was God’s idea, and that God created marriage before sin ever entered the world, and that our view of marriage and our definition of marriage comes from God’s perfect creation. Of course, like everything else in the universe we know, the sin of mankind corrupted the marriage relationship, but we must still always recognize that God created and defined marriage in the garden of Eden. I finished last week by challenging you to fight for marriage – for your own marriage – to make it as great as God intended and desires it to be.
Biblical Principles:
As we begin a look at the specific topic of homosexual marriage, let us start with the Bible. I see the key Biblical principles that apply as these:
1. God defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Gen. 2. Since that was last week’s whole sermon, I won’t say any more than that today.
2. God created sex, and then confined it to the marriage relationship. Any sexual act committed outside of marriage (as God defined it) is sinful. Why? Because sex within marriage is the only way for it to be a good, positive, pure, Godly, act that brings two committed life-partners together in a safe, enjoyable, life-creating and life affirming way – and sex in any other context is ultimately destructive to us. That is why God calls all sexual activity outside of marriage sin. So yes, this includes homosexual activity, just like it includes premarital sexual activity and extra-marital sexual activity. All of those will be profoundly negative in our lives, and destroy God’s design for us. God’s plan for sex is in many places in Scripture, here is one example: Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”
3. “Mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13). Any principle that identifies sin and judgment needs to be quickly followed by the principle of forgiveness. In our society, sexual purity is an increasingly rare thing – many people even here this morning have sinned sexually, and understand the guilt and condemnation and destructive power of sex outside of the safety of marriage. Listening in to Jesus, who said that “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:28), that would likely apply to all of us. If you are in that group, you need to know this principle, that “mercy triumphs over judgment,” and you need to know that through confession and repentance you will be completely forgiven, you will be healed of the wounds that were caused by sexual sin, and you will be set free from the bondage that very often results from deviation from God’s perfect design for sex. That is the truth of 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
4. Jesus came for “sinners”. Any study of the life of Jesus will come to this conclusion. Jesus’ entire ministry was characterized by how he loved the unlovable, touched the unclean, included the outcasts, and brought good news to all of those who were not in the mainstream of society. Jesus broke through all of the “rules of polite society” and associated with all the people who didn’t fit, and Jesus loved them. And that love was so strong and good and pure that many of the people who felt it were eternally changed.
Consider, for example, Zacchaeus, in Luke 19:1-10. “Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’ ” But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”
If our desire is to be Christlike, than our lives too must be characterized by transformational relationships with people outside of mainstream society.
5. The command to love is most important. Above every other principle, this one is the main message of Scripture and of Christianity. Jesus said it in response to the question about the greatest commandment: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt. 22:37-40). Paul called it “the most excellent way”, and continued, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.” (1 Cor 13:1-3).
Applying the Principles:
So with those Biblical principles in our minds, how do we apply them to the issue of homosexual marriage in Canada? How do we affirm God’s definition of marriage, hold to God’s standard for sexual purity, continually emphasize mercy and forgiveness, follow Jesus’ model in relationship with those ostracized, and above all be loving? Not an easy tension, yet to do any less than each of those is to reject the truth of Scripture. As we discuss how to respond, I believe we need to talk about responding in two separate ways: personally, in individual relationships; and also socially, in terms of our broader social responsibilities.
Responding Personally:
Responding personally is something many of you have already had to deal with. You have a sibling, or a parent, a close friend who is gay, and you have had to figure out how to hold all of those Biblical principles in tension. In the case of personal relationships, let me suggest this: The principle of love is primary. That is what we see with Jesus, in every personal encounter: they were loving, full of grace, and almost always transformational. Imposing standards without love leads to hurt, pain, and I believe does damage to the Kingdom of God.
As we affirm the principle of love, however, does that mean that we affirm behaviour that is contrary to Scripture? No, I don’t believe so. In fact, I don’t believe that is loving. When we truly love, like Jesus, we walk beside each other seeking the very best, like Jesus. And the very best in this instance is not, I believe, sending a message that homosexual expression is a behaviour we affirm. All sexual activity outside of God’s design for marriage will be destructive – that is what we believe in calling it sin – and so our opposition to homosexual activity comes from our love for people and our desire for the very best for them.
You may have noticed that I am making a distinction between homosexual activity and homosexual orientation. I believe that is a Biblical distinction, and is the same standard we apply to our young people in guiding them on their sexuality. Having sexual feelings, whether hetero or homo, is not sinful. We are, however, responsible before God for what we do with those feelings, and if and how we choose to act or not act on those feelings.
The most loving course of action, I believe, is to be honest about our beliefs about how all sexual expression outside of God’s design for marriage is ultimately destructive, and then continue to love and to serve those who disagree. We offer the same mercy and grace and forgiveness that God does when it is requested, we dig into the muck with each other when we face the hurt caused by our sin, we volunteer to walk beside as long as we are welcome and are not compromising our understanding of Scripture. This church has done that in our past with gay people, with single moms, with people who have been divorced. And we must continue; love must always come first.
Responding Socially:
As I study our society, however, especially on this issue, it appears that is not enough to love people and yet not affirm their behaviour. The counter argument is that if you do not accept their sexual identity and affirm their activity, you are not loving them. That brings me to this question: what is it that homosexual couples are looking for in a legalization of same sex marriage; or, why do they want “marriage” at all? As we wade through the rhetoric, it seems to me that it comes down to a desire for social acceptance of homosexuality. It is no longer about legal standing, the last liberal government went to great pains to change Canadian law so that it would be illegal to deny homosexual partners rights that heterosexual partners have. And, you may have noticed, there was no great outcry from the Christian community, except to ensure that we would continue to have the right to practice and teach our beliefs on sexual morality. I believe that is good – the “state” should exist to protect the freedom and rights of all of its citizens. I firmly believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law. Yet when we come to the issue of marriage, it seems to me that we cross into new territory.
In my understanding, there are no legal entitlements that heterosexual couples have that homosexual couples do not, except for a “marriage certificate” validated by the government. So the “equality” they seek is not in terms of the eyes of the law, but in the broader arena of public opinion. They want to be accepted, their lifestyle affirmed, their difference celebrated, and they feel that changing the definition of marriage is the only way that they will ever be truly equal. It is, they say, an issue of human rights and discrimination.
I hope that deep down, the compassion we have enables us to understand this desire. All of us desire to know that we are accepted, that our differences are ok, that who we are deep down is equally valued. And that is why I believe that when responding personally, the principle of love comes first.
And yet, if I am correct and the underlying issue is acceptance of behaviour that Scripture condemns as sinful, then it is here that I must draw a line. Then it is here that the Biblical principle of God’s perfect design for sex (confined within the context of heterosexual marriage) becomes the principle that must guide my response in our broader society. And so I support our country upholding the traditional definition of marriage.
But wait – isn’t that imposing my beliefs on someone else? Holding them to a standard that they do not acknowledge? Forcing morality? You could argue that, and perhaps score a point. But the reverse must also be considered in a truly tolerant society, and in this instance is, I believe, more accurate. My perception is not so much that I am imposing my beliefs on others, but rather that I am resisting others’ imposition of their beliefs on me. Our Supreme Court, our minority Liberal government, and the activist gay community are attempting to force the rest of Canada to approve of their lifestyle, and to re-define the word “marriage” to mean something it has never meant in all of history.
And when the headlines, even of radically liberal papers like the Edmonton Journal, start to scream “Church Told To Back Off”, I start to feel more like we are the ones not being tolerated, we are the ones being silenced, and not so much like I am imposing belief on others.
Steve’s Personal Conclusion: (at least, the working conclusions thus far…)
It comes down to this: is this the proverbial hill we should be willing to die on? Well, there is a third option in this whole debate; one which I did not previously endorse but is becoming more and more attractive. And that is this: that we as churches only perform marriages in the eyes of God, and leave the government to pass laws that protect and describe civil (or legal) relationships of whatever kind they choose. I think that if there is truly a human rights issue, then government should get out of the business of marriage altogether, and use the term “civil union” for all relationships that fit whatever definition they choose. People can then be married in the eyes of God, and registered in the eyes of the government of Canada.
This is a distinction I already make when preparing couples for their wedding ceremony. I instruct them that at the moment I sign the government issued marriage license, they are legally married in the eyes of the state. But that is not the same as being married in the eyes of God. My belief is that we are married in the eyes of God after publicly entering into the marriage covenant before God and a group of witnesses, and then privately consummating that covenant sexually. There is a distinction, which perhaps we should make more clear by only participating in the “spiritual marriage” aspect and leave the registering of that relationship up to a completely separate entity. And at the end of the day, if I have to choose whose eyes I prefer to marry and be married in, I’ll chose God’s eyes every time.
Extra resources:
An excellent (but long) legal review is available here:
http://lawreview.byu.edu/lawreview/journal/archives/vol18/04v18n2_ado.pdf
Screwtape Sounds Off on Same-sex Marriage
Letters from a senior demon to an underling.
by Jon Dykstra
http://www.christianity.ca/news/commentary/2005/01.003.html
A December 9, 2004 ruling by Canada’s Supreme Court has thrown the issue of same-sex "marriage" back into Parliament’s lap. Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has promised to introduce legislation creating gay "marriage" as early as January 2005. Please contact your MP and let them know not just that you disagree with this legislation, but also why.
My dear Wormwood,
Your report included an impressive list of recent accomplishments, but it was a far from complete report, wasn’t it? You’ve had your successes, but not everything went our way these last few weeks, did it? The court was supposed to settle the matter. You assured me it was a certain thing. With all the effort you’ve focused their way these last few decades how could you let something this big just slip through your grasp? Now the decision goes back to Parliament, and perhaps back to the people. I am disappointed.
It is about Him, but if we can keep His soldiers myopic we may be able to misdirect many of His forces.
This is a significant setback, but one that we may yet be able to use to our advantage. The key is to keep the debate solely about Marriage. Many in the Enemy’s camp assume that the main aim of our campaign is to make a mockery of Marriage. They’ve become near-sighted and have mistaken our means for our end. Don’t make the same mistake they have—our goal isn’t to tear down Marriage; no, we are only making a mockery of Marriage to tear at Him!
That is what this is ultimately about—yet another skirmish in our ongoing war with the Enemy. It is about Him, but if we can keep His soldiers myopic we may be able to misdirect many of His forces.
In that regard I must congratulate you on the petition you prompted. Yes, I do mean it. You only mentioned it in passing in your report, afraid I think, that your uncle would be angry that you’ve allowed the Enemy’s forces to become stirred up. It would have been better if you could have kept them silent, but that was probably never a possibility with this issue. And if you couldn’t suppress them, how clever it was of you to send them running to the wrong ramparts to defend not God, and not even Marriage, but rather Democracy. As you didn’t include it in your report I’ve had to use other resources to track down the petition:
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITIZENS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following:
WHEREAS the majority of Canadians believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected Members of Parliament and not the un-elected judiciary;
AND WHEREAS the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a single (that is, unmarried) male and a single (that is, unmarried) female;
AND WHEREAS it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage is defined as Canadians wish it to be defined;
THEREFORE WE, THE UNDERSIGNED petition Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking Section 33 of the Charter (the notwithstanding clause) if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
It is an admirable effort—written by His soldiers, distributed by still more of His forces, and harboured in His churches, and yet His Name is never mentioned. Indeed, instead of building on their Rock they’ve set up their defensive position on the shifting sands of the will of "the majority of Canadians." Ha! So many in the Enemy’s camp think that Democracy is on their side.
Now even if we lose this skirmish, if Marriage is preserved in the short-term, we have the means in place to guarantee the eventual victory. While He never changes, the will of the "the majority of Canadians" is much more pliable. This is where teamwork comes in—Hollywood’s contributions will help us immeasurably; he has promised me at least another season, and possibly two of that same-sex sit-com. (Would that you were as dependable as your cousin!) That may be all we need to sway the majority our way.
Still, a diversion must be found for the Enemy’s remaining forces, those not already distracted defending Democracy. He has told them they are His soldiers, and many are eager to fight. Your job is to ensure that if they fight, they fight for anything and anyone except Him. Have them defend Tradition, or send them off to attack Judicial Activism, just keep them distracted. We can win this as long as it never becomes about Him.
This last point is one I cannot overemphasize and the proposal you included in your report was terribly naive in this respect. Yes, if everything goes wrong, and the Enemy’s forces rally around Him, we could still succeed in undermining Marriage. But remember, that is not our goal—we are out to undermine Him! Never forget and never stray from this one goal lest the Enemy use the mess we’re making of Marriage to further His end. He has already shown an ability to snatch absolute victory from apparent defeat. He has done it before. So now is not a time to celebrate!
Your affectionate uncle,
SCREWTAPE
Reasons why gay people want marriage:
1) Emotional
• to have society recognize their lifetime commitment to one another
• to be able to “marry the partner that they love and to whom they are committed for the rest of their life” (www.religioustolerance.com)
2) Security
• to enjoy the benefits that come through marriage e.g. financial, legal, social, emotional
3) Political
• to lift the barrier that exists to the statement in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that no person can be discriminated against based on gender (there is a barrier because federal marriage legislation restricts marriage to one man and one woman thus preventing a homosexual individual from being able to marry their chosen partner because of the partner’s gender)
• the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that individuals in Canada cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation
• “Because our country has been founded on the Constitution, in which all men are created equal, we cannot deny the basic human and legal right of marriage to a class of individuals due to their sexual preference” (Anon, “Acceptance of Homosexual Marriage” at www.freeessays.cc quoted in www.religioustolerance.com)
Arguments in favour of gay marriage:
• these arguments are taken from www.religioustolerance.com (from the presentation by the State of Hawaii during the hearing in the Baehr v. Miike lawsuit in the Hawaiian Circuit Court in 1996 and the ruling in the Hedy Halpern case by the Court of Appeal for Ontario)
• rebuttals are based on the belief held by religious conservatives and fundamentalists that homosexuality is a changeable, chosen, addictive, abnormal and unnatural lifestyle
1) Heterosexual marriage will not be affected by same-sex marriage (heterosexual couples will continue to be able to marry and receive the same benefits they always have received)
rebuttal - allowing gays and lesbians to marry cheapens marriage
2) Marriage is a fundamental human right
rebuttal - “marriage” has always meant the union of one man and one woman; gays and lesbians can’t procreate which is the main purpose of marriage; marriage and family are society’s foundational institutions; God ordained heterosexual marriage, not homosexual marriage
3) Same-sex marriages bolster the economy e.g. through tourism
rebuttal – countries can boost tourism by legalizing prostitution and street drugs too but that doesn’t make these sinful behaviours right
4) Same-sex marriage has a civilizing influence on the country (Canada is a multi-racial and multi-ethnic country even though many racial groups have been opposed in the past. We also need to overcome discrimination against homosexuals.)
rebuttal – homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle; if same-sex marriage is legalized, all discouragements to this lifestyle will be removed and many people will choose to become homosexual
5) Same-sex marriage would increase the quality of life of same-sex couples (e.g. financial benefits such as being able to file joint tax returns and non-financial such as being recognized as next-of-kin)
rebuttal – these benefits would only make homosexuality more attractive and encourage more people to choose this lifestyle
6) Same-sex marriage would improve the lives of children in same-sex families (e.g. financial and emotional security)
rebuttal – homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle and children will be raised in this environment; the children will miss the needed influence of an opposite-sex parent; the children will be more likely to choose to be homosexual themselves
7) Same-sex marriage would reduce the amount of promiscuity in the gay community (single gay males have a large number of sexual partners and marriage will encourage them to form committed, monogamous relationships)
rebuttal – homosexuals in long-term relationships are rarely completely monogamous; allowing same-sex marriage will discourage homosexuals from seeking therapy to change their sexual orientation
8) Same-sex marriage would decrease the incidence of STDs in the gay male community
rebuttal – homosexuals in long-term relationships are rarely completely monogamous
9) If homosexuality is largely genetically caused as studies show, then God intentionally allows/creates homosexuals. Can we reject a whole group of people that God has created?
rebuttal – homosexuality is a chosen and sinful lifestyle
Arguments against gay marriage:
• these arguments are taken from “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives” by Scott Bidstrup (a homosexual) at www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm and from www.religioustolerance.com (from the presentation by the State of Hawaii during the hearing in the Baehr v. Miike lawsuit in the Hawaiian Circuit Court in 1996 and the ruling in the Hedy Halpern case by the Court of Appeal for Ontario)
• rebuttals are based on the belief held by gays, lesbians, mental health professionals, human sexuality researchers and religious liberals that homosexuality is a fixed (not chosen) and normal sexual orientation for a minority of adults
1) A same-sex marriage isn’t a good environment in which to raise children
rebuttal – homosexuals are as loving as heterosexuals and are just as competent as parents; “The single most important factor in the development of a happy, healthy and well-adjusted child is the nurturing relationship between parent and child” (Judge Kevin Chang of the Circuit Court in Hawaii, 1997, cited in www.religioustolerance.com); many studies show that “children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals ‘on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behaviour, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem.’ Additionally, no significant differences have been observed in regard to ‘teachers’ and parents’ evaluations of emotional and social behaviour, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences.’” (Meyer, “Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting,” 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240, 1992 cited in www.bidstrup.com/parenbib.htm); murderers and child molesters can freely marry and procreate so why can’t loving homosexuals?
2) Children need to be raised by their biological parents
rebuttal – many children of heterosexual couples are being raised by non-biological step parents due to the high divorce rate; adoption is based on the belief that genetically unrelated adults can love a child as their own and do a good job raising the child – if this can occur in heterosexual relationships, it can also occur in homosexual ones
3) A child with same-sex parents will be subject to hate
rebuttal – inter-racial marriages should be banned for the same reason
4) Same-sex couples aren’t monogamous, therefore marriage is not feasible
rebuttal – a high percentage of heterosexual spouses have extra-marital affairs
5) Gay relationships are sinful according to the Bible and are unnatural and disgusting
rebuttal – Canada is not a theocracy – what the Bible or any other holy book says about homosexuality is irrelevant when government forms legislation on marriage – the Constitution must be adhered to; the State of Hawaii’s “Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law” states, “Under our constitutional government the fact that some religions or churches condemn same-gender marriages does not mean that those religious beliefs can be imposed on others.”; homosexuals think that heterosexual sex is disgusting
6) Marriage is for procreation and same-sex couples can’t procreate by themselves
rebuttal – some heterosexual couples also can’t or don’t procreate e.g. infertility, age, vasectomies, choice; many homosexual couples have children from previous heterosexual marriages that failed or have children through surrogate mothers or sperm donation – therefore, there is procreation; Mr. Justice Robert Blair of the Superior Court of Ontario wrote, “There is much more to marriage as a societal institution, in my view, than the act of heterosexual intercourse leading to the birth of children. Moreover, the authorities are clear that marriage is not dependent upon the presence of children.”
7) Children raised by same-sex couples will choose to become homosexual themselves
rebuttal – according to mental health professionals and human sexuality researchers, a person does not choose their sexual orientation, whether homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual; studies have shown that the percentage of children raised in homosexual homes who grow up to be gay or lesbian is the same as in the general population
8) Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage which is a traditional institution between one man and one woman
rebuttal – slavery was also a traditional institution; homosexual marriages have existed in other cultures and times; sexual behaviour creates a mystical, one-flesh union between a man and a woman but the same thing occurs between two lesbian or two gay spouses; by allowing gay marriage, the number of opposite-sex marriages that end in divorce would be reduced because homosexuals wouldn’t attempt opposite-sex marriage; heterosexuals would still have the same choices and benefits that they do now and would be unaffected
9) Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment
rebuttal – gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 and in other countries for almost as long and the results have been positive
10) Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest and polygamy
rebuttal – incest is illegal and it will remain so; this has not occurred anywhere in the world where same-sex marriage occurs; it is a fear tactic
11) Same-sex marriage costs too much
rebuttal – same-sex marriages would make up less than 4% of marriages and the total cost of benefits to these couples would be minimal
12) Most people are opposed to same-sex marriage and this is a democracy so the majority rules
rebuttal – the constitution guarantees basic human rights even though the majority, in many cases, would deprive the minorities of those rights so the majority does not always rule; public opinion polls vary in their results, sometimes showing that a majority is opposed and sometimes showing that a majority is in favour (e.g. Leger Marketing Poll April, 2004 – 43% in favour, 47% opposed, 9% undecided or refused to answer; Centre for Research and Information on Canada Poll June, 2004 – 57% in favour, 38% opposed, 5% undecided or gave no response; Ispos-Reid Poll October, 2004 – 54% in favour, 43% opposed, 3% no opinion; Globe and Mail Poll October, 2004 – 51% in favour, 49% opposed)
http://www.theinterim.com/2004/oct/10howcanada.html
Oct 2004
How Canada got homosexual ’marriage’ - Constitutional Calvinball
Tristan Emmanuel
Special to The Interim
Do you remember the 1980s comic strip about a boy and his stuffed tiger, the strip Calvin and Hobbes? It sometimes featured a game called Calvinball. The most outstanding thing about the rules of that game was that they changed. Continuously. In fact, in one of the classic panels that introduced the game, Calvin gleefully tells Hobbes that "the only permanent rule in Calvinball is that you can’t play it the same way twice." Keep that bit of cartoon wisdom in mind as we consider, "How Canada Got Homosexual Marriage."
The very notion of "same-sex marriage" was something completely unheard of 25 years ago. It never would have occurred to most people to put the words "homosexual" and "marriage" together. (Remember that 30 years ago, the term "gay" hadn’t even come into common usage. Society only knew the word "homosexual" and a few derogatory terms that still exist today; even some of those like "queer" and "drag queen" have been co-opted by homosexual activists.)
In any event, the notion that two men or two women could marry and receive societal approval was completely unheard of. In fact, homosexual activists in Canada initially did not envision making "marriage" a seminal aspect of their movement.
...the gay movement in Canada never made legal recognition of same-sex marriages a primary concern. Many early liberationists found that cause far too "accomodationist" to warrant serious effort. (1971 We Demand, Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, www.clga.ca)
So, if society at large wasn’t clamouring for it, and homosexual activists weren’t pushing terribly hard either, how then did Canada get homosexual marriage?
How homosexual rights came to Canada
To understand how we arrived at where we are today, we need a bit of history. Maybe you thought history was boring in high school. Believe me, this piece of history is anything but boring. It’s about as varied and unpredictable as a game of Calvinball.
The history of the game began in 1965 (that is less than 40 years ago - in other words, one generation), at Pine Point, in the Northwest Territories. A man named Everett Klippert acknowledged to police that he was a homosexual, and that he had had sex with a number of men over a 24-year period. He was arrested and put in jail, where he told prison psychiatrists that he was unlikely to change his sexual drive or orientation. Klippert probably didn’t realize it at the time, but he was going to become the inspiration behind Constitutional Calvinball.
In 1967, Canada’s centennial year, Klippert was sent to prison indefinitely as a "dangerous sex offender." Interestingly enough, at the time, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the sentence. But that would quickly change. By 1971, Klippert was released on parole. The political mood was shifting and the government was backing away from the traditional notion that homosexual activity should be viewed as criminal.
Enter the constitutional catalyst. Remember Pierre Trudeau? He is the architect of Constitutional Calvinball. At the time Klippert was sentenced, Trudeau was the minister of justice. Klippert’s case left an indelible impression on Trudeau. He felt that Klippert had experienced a form of state tyranny. In fact, it was in reference to the Klippert case that Trudeau made the infamous remark: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The remark was an explicit response to criticism that he was, among other things, preparing to relax the laws against homosexuality.
In part, the Klippert case helped to galvanize Pierre Trudeau’s political purpose as prime minister of Canada. Trudeau believed that inequalities between Canadian anglophones and francophones, and inequalities between Canadian heterosexuals and people like Klippert, were due largely to Canada’s dependence on England, the monarchy, and the tradition of English common law. Such dependence fueled injustice and stripped Canadians of autonomy, equality and national pride. Thus, with single-minded determination, Trudeau spearheaded a 15-year battle to enshrine Canada’s independence with a constitution of its very own, a constitution that would give every individual in Canada a guarantee of freedom and equality. That battle culminated in 1982 with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The rules of the game
With that bit of history set as our context, we can now turn to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, if you will, is the rule book of Constitutional Calvinball - at least part of it is. The section of the Charter that interests us is Section 15, which says:
Every individual is equal before and under the law, has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Take a minute to ponder those lines. Because they really are important. Do you see anywhere in those lines the phrase "sexual orientation"? Or even "homosexuality"? Or "lesbianism"? These words are not included in the Charter, in spite of the fact that back then when it was written, there were activists who were aggressively lobbying for their inclusion. Parliament at that time, including Trudeau and (ironically enough) Jean Chretien, said no. Now the reason we reviewed this bit of constitutional legalese is to help explain one of the unique features of Constitutional Calvinball.
Today, some political science professors who want to rewrite history are teaching that the only reason the "sexual orientation" clause wasn’t explicitly put into the Charter was because "Canada wasn’t ready for it" at the time, that somehow, the politicians responsible for the Charter knew that and kept quiet even though that was their ultimate aim. In fact, interviews with the politicians at the time that the Charter was being written indicate that they made an explicit choice against including the idea of "sexual orientation" as a ground under which discrimination would be expressly prohibited. This is hugely important in view of what happened later.
Ultimately, you will not find "sexual orientation" in Section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unless of course, you are a judge.
Rule #1: The powerful make the rules as they play
Judges have claimed to see the notion of sexual orientation very clearly in our Charter. In fact, there have been a number of court rulings in recent years which insisted that sexual orientation is indeed part of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, even though it was never explicitly written down. It is the "intent" of the original authors that the judges are claiming to safeguard. And in case anyone disputes their insight, these judges are quick to remind us that they have a democratic anointing to prove it. As far as judges are concerned, they have the power to divine the intent of the original authors of the Charter, even if the original authors didn’t know what their intent was. The long and the short of it is this: judges have decided that the words are there, whether the rest of us can read them or not.
Now, if you understand that judges have taken it upon themselves to read things into documents, concepts that aren’t really there, then you’re well on your way to understanding the first, and, really, the only rule of Constitutional Calvinball that matters. Judges are powerful. Judges make the rules as they go.
Consider the arbitrary way the Supreme Court of Canada appears to make some of its decisions.
In 1998, the court had two cases before it. One involved a young woman who was pregnant. She was addicted to sniffing glue, a practice that certainly wasn’t healthy for her unborn child. Her social workers wanted to force her into treatment to protect the baby. However, the Supreme Court held that it was up to Parliament, not the courts, to protect pre-born children from substance abuse.
But there was another case in 1998. It involved a man named Delwin Vriend, who was fired from his job at a Christian college in Alberta because his flagrant, in-your-face homosexuality was contrary to his employer’s code of conduct, to which he had signed on when he took his job. Vriend appealed his firing, claiming he should have been protected under Alberta’s Individual’s Rights Protection Act. But that act (just like the Charter) made no specific mention of "sexual orientation" as a protected category. In fact, it had been repeatedly proposed over the years by the Alberta Human Rights Commission and repeatedly refused by Alberta’s elected government.
But remember, in Calvinball the rules are made as you go. The same Supreme Court judges who had decided in the glue-sniffing case that it was up to politicians to decide whether to protect pre-born children from substance abuse, now held that they, not the politicians, would decide whether or not sexual orientation should be a protected category in Alberta human rights law. (Their ruling was based, incidentally, on their reading of Section 15 of the Charter. Remember that section? The one that makes no mention of sexual orientation, unless you’re a judge, because then you can divine it into existence?)
In the Vriend case, the Supreme Court said that henceforth, the Alberta Individual’s Rights Protection Act would be interpreted to include protection for homosexuals, even if the province didn’t explicitly write that change into the act. So these invisible words would be inserted into the provincial law, whether or not the elected politicians of Alberta - those who were actually accountable to the people - agreed.
Even the Globe and Mail, not usually known for editorial support of judicial conservatism, took note of the contradictions. In an editorial on April 21, 1998, the paper stated: "It’s not easy to give the impression of being both directionless and headed in the wrong direction, but the Supreme Court of Canada has somehow managed the feat."
Then came the case of the school board in Surrey, B.C. Elected school trustees in the Vancouver suburb of Surrey had, after extensive consultation with their local voters, decided that books which promoted homosexuality were inappropriate for elementary school classroom use for children as young as five years old (although they agreed to leave them in the elementary school library). Homosexual activists took that decision to court, claiming "discrimination." On Dec. 20, 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the school board could not appeal to "community standards" or input from electors as the benchmark for its decision on these books. Instead, the court ruled that the decision about whether or not to include the books in the classroom must be based on what is contained in the B.C. School Act.
However, Chief Justice Beverly MacLachlin wrote that the B.C. School Act would have to be read as though it included the words "diversity" and "tolerance," and as though homosexual parenting were mentioned as well. Why? Well, just like with Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, these words were nowhere contained in the B.C. School Act. Constitutional Calvinball, anyone?
There have been other cases with similar outcomes. In 2001, Trinity Western University, a privately funded Christian university in B.C., was denied the right to have its education graduates certified as teachers. The B.C. College of Teachers decided that, because the university had a "discriminatory policy," the students graduating from its programs could not possibly be "tolerant" enough to teach in public schools. The "discriminatory policy" in question? Students had to sign a document promising to refrain from sinful practices while enrolled at Trinity, including premarital sex and homosexual activity.
This case also went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the "fundamental" religious rights in Section 2 of the Charter must be "balanced" by the "equality" rights in Section 15. Although the high court ruled in favour of Trinity Western University, the bottom line of its ruling was that a person may have the freedom to believe or hold to a particular religious opinion or dogma in private, but the freedom to practise that belief in public is not equal to the overriding principle of "tolerance." In other words, tolerance doesn’t extend to religious views that may be out of step with what the court considers politically acceptable at a particular point in history. Ergo: everyone is equal, but some get to make the rules as they play the game.
Some of the court rulings above came in a climate that had fostered increased institutional rights for homosexuality since the 1980s. Indeed, some would argue that the trend began with Trudeau’s rewrite of the Criminal Code of Canada in 1969. Three pivotal rulings are worth noting:
• April of 1989: the Canadian Human Rights Commission issued a precedent-setting ruling on the issue of employee benefits for homosexual couples. It ordered the government of Canada to pay one of its workers, Brian Mossop, bereavement leave to attend the funeral of his (male) partner. Among other things, the ruling said that it was "reasonable to conclude that homosexual couples may constitute a family."
• Oct 27, 1992: the Federal Court of Canada ruled the military’s treatment of homosexual was unconstitutional. The Defence Department announced the same day that it would "no longer discriminate against gays."
• May 25, 1995: the Supreme Court of Canada laid the final bit of pavement for the road to homosexual marriage with a ruling on pensions for same-sex couples. These pensions have, by law, been reserved only for heterosexual couples. But the majority decision from the court ended that when it said, in part: The definition of "spouse" as someone of the opposite sex reinforces the stereotype that homosexuals cannot and do not form lasting, caring, mutually supportive relationships with economic interdependence in the same manner as heterosexual couples … [T]herefore the distinction amounts to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
All of this history leads one to ask what is really behind the push for recognition of same sex marriage. If this history has taught us anything, it should have taught us that homosexual social engineering has been brought about not so much by those we have elected to write our laws (although there are plenty of exceptions), for then we could fight back at election time. Rather, it is the work of unelected, unaccountable, and very activist judges. Of course, another way to look at it is simply to say, "It’s only a game and only a few get to make the rules."
Rev. Tristan Emmanuel is the author of Christophobia and director of the Equipping Christians for the Public Square Centre. This article is based on an excerpt from a forthcoming book on marriage and will be continued next month when the rest of the rules of Constitutional Calvinball will be explained.
