Same-sex marriage first became legal in Canada in 2003, and I applaud Chretien’s decision to propose its legalization.
But I didn’t always feel this way. The analytical side of me was weighing the subject logically from various angles.
Economists were bringing up the double income, zero expense argument ie, that same-sex couples had less financial stress in starting a family because they might have the tendency to postpone having children. Therefore, it followed that same-sex couples should not enjoy the same tax breaks offered to married couples. Their solution was to offer a civil-union option rather than the legalization of same-sex marriage.
In fact, when I was in Asia between 2003 and 2004, I expressed my doubts over Chretien’s proposal when an acquaintance asked me about Canada’s legalization of same-sex marriage. It was a casual lunch with a bunch of people, so we didn’t expand on the issue and I didn’t think much of it.
But some time after, this same acquaintance told me he was gay. Although he was open about his sexual orientation, he wasn’t an activist; he was merely living his life and minding his own business. So it dawned on me that perhaps when he asked me about the issue, he wasn’t looking to debate over a subject in an academic kind of way – maybe he was probing the option of marrying his loved one in Canada.
And so I had the chance to think about this topic from a human-to-human perspective; if one wants to wed another, why can’t he or she? As I am able to enjoy the right to marry whomever I want as a heterosexual, I am in no position to point my finger at another human being and say that he or she should enjoy lesser right in this regard, at least not based on sexual orientation. On July 12, 2002, an Ontario court confirmed this for the first time, by ruling that the prohibition of gay marriages is unconstitutional and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is the magic of human rights protection: It is so fundamental that it takes priority (and rightly so, to ensure that every human being enjoy the same, equal rights regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation etc.) over other conflicting legislation ie, tax laws etc. One exception to the almost absolute protection from human rights is that one cannot be inflicting harm on another ie, one can marry whomever he or she chooses to, but one cannot marry a minor – to protect minors from the risk of being exploited.
That is also why the US court’s recent decision to overturn Roe vs Wade caused such an uproar; the ruling took away a woman’s federal, constitutional right to abortion.
In effect, individual US states can now decide for themselves whether or not to ban abortion. In a state-wide referendum on Wednesday, 60% of Kansan voters wanted the right to abortion to remain in their state’s constitution.
News-plus.ca 