Same-sex marriages
The federal government will not water down legislation allowing same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien insisted Tuesday, admitting that he is praying for his soul but has to act on behalf of all Canadians.
"We want to legalize the union of homosexuals," he said after a meeting of his cabinet, which has shown signs of the dissent reflected in the wider Liberal caucus.
He said that he has heard accusations from Roman Catholic leaders that he risks eternal damnation but feels that the division between church and state is necessary and that he must act in the best interests of all Canadians, not just his fellow Catholics.
"I've been attacked by many people in my life — it will not be the first time," he said. "I'm a Catholic, and I'm praying. But I am the Prime Minister of Canada. When I'm Prime Minister of Canada, I'm acting as the person responsible for the nation, and the problem of my religion I deal with."
This is a commendable position, but you still have to wonder what he really thinks. If he's praying for his soul, then he must at some level believe the church leaders' threats of damnation and by extension that same-sex marriage is "an abomination." Maybe this explains the subtle-but-important hairsplitting between "union" and "marriage." Or it may be an attempt to appeal to both sides--reaching out to moderate Catholics without alienating liberals or gays (an unsuccessful attempt, or so it seems).
Tory Leader Peter MacKay has the best proposal so far: get government out of marriage altogether by creating a registered domestic partnership that's open to all Canadians. Marriage would be left up to religious institutions. (And asinine MP Elsie Wayne might yet sink this one with comments like "certainly none of the churches, according to the Bible, should be marrying any of these people.")
Still, MacKay's proposal offers an equal union for everyone rather than a second-class marriage for same-sex couples. To me that seems like the best way to avoid another kind of eternal damnation--that of an endless, circular, fruitless debate over the definition of marriage. This is Canada, after all, where fruitless national debates are part of our identity (cf. health care, the constitution, the Spicer Commission, Quebec separation)
