Boston Globe Online / Nation | World / Gay nuptials causing rift in Canada: In Canada, a nation famed for tolerance, bitter opposition is building toward Prime Minister Jean Chretien's determination to make gay marriage the law of the land. [...] the real shocker is the rebellion brewing within the ranks of the prime minister's usually-docile Liberal Party. Same-sex marriage has emerged as an issue that could dominate next year's federal elections and might even loosen the Liberal stranglehold on power. Last week some party members demanded a national referendum on whether the marriage law should be rewritten, arguing that all Canadians deserve a say on such a momentous social question. ''We're on a collision course with the electorate,'' Dan McTeague, a Liberal member of Parliament from Ontario, said of the gay marriage issue. ''This thing is really, really heating up.''
Chretien, however, is adamant that gay marriage is a pure civil rights issue that should not be subject to a popularity contest. ''To have a referendum to decide on the fate of a minority -- it's a problem,'' he said. ''If it's always the majority of the vote by a referendum, who will defend the minorities? In government, we are there to defend every minority.''
My, my. The concept that one of the purposes of government is to defend minorities from the majority actually being expressed by a governmental leader. Alas, not ours. Who almost certainly believes no such thing in any event. But I digress.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out. If this is both a pure civil rights issue, as Chretien asserts, and also a pure constitutional issue, then there actually is no point in submitting it to the people as a referendum, because the referendum results would be trumped by the Canadian constitution in any event.
At first, Chretien's move to make Canada the third nation in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to recognize gay marriage seemed likely to be a cakewalk, because there was little public outcry or criticism from Parliament when the Ontario court made its landmark decision. However, furious criticism is coming now not just from the religious right, which has little clout in this country, but also from Parliament. Liberals and opposition party members alike are incensed that Chretien, by failing to consult with lawmakers, is making the body a rubber stamp for social revolution. ''It can be a dangerous issue for the Liberal Party, especially if it becomes an issue in the US,'' said Michael Bliss, a history professor at the University of Toronto who writes political commentary occasionally for the National Post newspaper. Many Canadians are nervous about antagonizing their most important trading partner with Chretien's insistence on decriminalizing marijuana and cutbacks in military spending that have given Canada the reputation as the least reliable of the NATO allies. Canadians are also keenly aware that Washington is already annoyed by Canada's refusal to support the war in Iraq.
Well ... that's just odd. Frankly, gay marriage in Canada isn't particularly likely to incense Washington, in and of itself. Where it might come into play is in encouraging people to bring "full faith and credit" clause based lawsuits -- to deny recognition to marriages that would be recognized as valid in the country in which they are performed would normally be considered a denial of full faith and credit, and thus, a violation of our constitution. (Not that this argument will go anywhere.)
What party backbenchers most resent is that Chretien proposed the dramatic revision without public debate or consultation with the Liberal rank and file. ''It's unfair, because his action cast every Liberal member immediately into the position of seeming either a progressive or reactionary dinosaur,'' said Joe Volpe, a Liberal MP from Ontario. At a Liberal Party caucus in Ontario last week, even [Paul Martin, a Liberal MP from Quebec], the prime-minister-in-waiting, seemed to edge away nervously from gay marriage, suggesting that as a compromise Canada might instead enact a law allowing for Vermont-style ''civil unions,'' which are not marriages but confer many of the same rights. Many gay activists scorn that alternative. ''Civil unions send the message that we are second-class citizens,'' [Laurie Arron, director of advocacy for Egale-Canada, an Ottawa-based group] said.
You know, it's fascinating to watch comparatively liberal Canada floundering through a more advanced version of the same morass we're wading through here. After all, it's only a matter of time before the marriage issue comes up again. Probably through the liberal Ninth Circuit, which is the only one even vaguely likely to rule that refusal to recognize marriages contracted in a valid manner abroad is a violation of the US Constitution.
And if it's this bad in Canada already, it's likely to get spectacularly vicious here.
Posted by iain at August 28, 2003 07:55 PMComments
