I have a lot of respect for Andrew Coyne. I find his articles well reasoned and balanced, keeping in mind he approaches things from a conservative perspective. Because he is such a smart guy, I derive extra satisfaction from finding flaws in his arguments. Many left wing writer's seem to lack any semblance of logic to their writing, making it too easy to deconstruct their arguments. For a good example, read anything by Sheila Copps in the National Post. (Note to the editors of the Post, why does she have a column and not me?)
Last week AC was writing about same sex marriage and the debate about the slippery slope. To summarize, his argument was that the Supreme Court ruling that preventing same sex couples from marrying was against the Charter of Rights, based on the discrimination on sexual orientation, was not the first step toward polygamy (his site seems to be experiencing technical difficulties, I will post a link when possible)
From a strictly legal perspective, this is correct. However, one should take a bigger view on the subject and not the very narrow one that Andrew takes. While I agree that same sex marriage will not lead directly to polygamy, this ruling overturns an institution in our society that has remained the same for a few thousand years. If you are going to end the traditional definition of marriage based on the the fact that the Charter states discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong, how is one to prevent polygamy, which is a religious practice with a much longer history in other societies?
If I was a lawyer looking to make a name for myself, I would find a Muslim client and challenge the law.
My personal feelings on this issue is that the state should get out of the marriage business. Government should allow people to enter into any type of civil union they wish (same sex, multiple partners, and may others most people have not heard about) and let churches decide who they want to marry in the eyes of God (or the supreme being, or whatever some are calling him now).
But to say that changing our definition of marriage will not lead to further changes is foolish at best.
3 comments:
I think it's important to remember that the 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy--our decision about the one need not affect the other. Good argument is supposed to avoid the slippery slope, not embrace it.
In any case, even if we could wave our magic wand and make ssm go away, there is nothing stopping that clever lawyer from making a charter challenge against the prohibition against polygamy for heterosexuals. We may have to go through the argument anyway.
Will it be a diffficult case? I don't really think so. Not if it's a muslim that brings it: their religion allows them to marry up to four wives, but doesn't demand it. Consequently, allowing them to marry only once does not require them to act against their religion.
So, why bring up polygamy? It is no more likely to arise as a charter issue if we approve ssm than if we don't, and the legal case here is not likely to be compelling. It only muddies the water and scares people--but then, that's what it's meant to do.
"is no more likely to arise as a charter issue if we approve ssm than if we don't, and the legal case here is not likely to be compelling."
Not compelling to you or the average Canadian, no. But there won't be a referendum on it, so that doesn't matter. What does matter is if polygamy has a compelling equality/discrimination arguement to a judge. And given a) freedom of religion, b) religions with long-standing traditions of polygamy and c) a legal precedent that marriage is a charter right that adds up to polygamy. You're right on the slippery slope - you don't need c), but it's impossible to evade polygamy's legal arguement if you have it.
I honestly don't understand the disconnect of same-sex supporters who claim it's a rights issue while simultaneouly dismissing polygamy as unpopular. If it is a matter of popularity/public acceptance, then why isn't SSM up for referendum? You can't have it both ways!
That is the problem with many on the left. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Thanks for you comments Stork. You have expressed the point much more clearly.
Post a Comment