The Same-Sex Marriage Hypocrisy

The Same-Sex Marriage Hypocrisy

As a long-time supporter of same-sex marriage legalization, I am astounded at the gullibility of both Canadians and the leftist element within the Canadian media whom one can only assume enjoys being played like a Hardanger fiddle.

We are presented with two apparently simple options: Paul Martin - for same-sex marriage - and Stephen Harper - opposed to same-sex marriage. Looking a little closer it is obvious that this is nonsense.

Paul Martin has never come out publicly in support of the principle of same-sex marriage. He has instead hidden behind statements like "I believe in the Charter" and "It is a Charter right". During his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party he would not even answer the question: "Are you for or against same-sex marriage?". When it came time to vote for C-13 he only imposed party discipline on his cabinet. Does this make any sense? If you honestly support a principle wouldn't you do as Jack Layton did and demand that all members adhere to the principle. But as we know Mr. Martin can count. He tried to present the appearance of "Parliamentary democracy" while shirking his obligation to remain consistent with a principle. If he really believed in either the acceptability of same-sex marriage within Canadian society or the Charter of Rights, he would have demanded that all Liberal members support his position.

The fact is the Liberal party has used the very important issue of same-sex marriage to position themselves politically. Groups like EGALE, while deeming themselves pragmatic, are in fact whoring out their principles in the misguided notion that they are advancing the welfare and social participation of gay, lesbien and bisexual Canadians. What they are in fact doing is playing into the Liberal political game of "divide Canadians, maintain political power".

For these groups to allow themselves to be put in a partisan position is exceptionally deterimental to the cause of gay and lesbien acceptance in Canadian society. They have succeeded only in combining an important social issue with political gamesmanship and are at serious risk of making the two inseparable and thus further marginalizing an important minority group. Rather than calling Paul Martin to account for his duplicity they have instead attacked Stephen Harper - perhaps the only politician in Canada who realizes the inevitability of same-sex marriage and the necessity of making the issue go away in order to maintain Canadian (and Conservative) unity.

Stephen Harper has committed to re-opening the issue in Parliament. He did this for a couple of reason. First, a good deal of his support base is opposed to same-sex marriage and he could not risk eroding this in an extremely tight election - remaining silent on the issue was not an option. Second, he realizes that this issue is one of the top 3 divisive issues within the Conservative Party of Canada. In order for the Conservative party to remain united this issue must receive closure - and the imposition of C-13 in Parliament does not constitue closure in the minds of many Conservative Canadians. In a minority Parliament, putting the issue to an open vote is unlikely to result in the restoration of traditional marriage. Even though their are a large number of Liberals who are openly opposed to same-sex marriage there would probably be enough Bloc, NDP and socially progressive Liberal and Conservative votes to defeat the issue - and finally, finally, bring closure to this issue.

The gay equality movement must immediately revisit their approach in the advocacy of same-sex marriage. They must commit to a democratically arrived at solution in order to maintain their wins over the longer term. Going in the back door through the Canadian judicial system - in co-operation with the Liberal party - with the intention of "imposing equality" will only serve to further marginalize the gay community and increase the likelihood of a backlash that could set the movement back twenty years or more. They must also commit to distancing themselves from partisan political gamesmanship and realize when they are being used for political purposes. Sometimes achieving one's objectives slowly over time is more effective than a quick victory that cannot be maintained in the long term.