There’s an article in The Tyee today about a different stance on the same-sex marriage debate. The author Stan Persky puts out the position that it’s not an argument about marriage, it’s an argument about validating (or not) same-sex sex. Because we all know that the most important part of a marriage is the consummation thereof – and the notion of two same-sex partners doing that, is just ick as far as the Conservatives are concerned.
I’ve thought long and hard about this – wanting to respect both those who hold their religious beliefs strongly, and the obvious rights of any person to marry any other person. I posted my comments on the issue at the bottom of the article, but figured that since (at least I think) it seems like a cohesive and well-written stance, I’d post it here as well, and see what y’all think about it.
The only real solution at this point is to do away with the institution of “marriage” entirely as a legal entity. Civil Unions for all – man/woman/transgendered or any combination thereof – who wish to benefit from the legal contract of such an arragement. And have them performed or endorsed only by a public service employee (such as the JPs who do it now).
Once the church is no longer legally ordained to endorse “civil unions” they’ll no longer have a leg to stand on in their discrimination of those who are born homosexual. This leaves the church entirely outside a position of being able to deny performing a “marriage” for those it chooses to discriminate against.
It’s time to move beyond teaching “tolerance” of those who may be of a different race/sex/orientation/etc. (which is what the Conservative position of Civil Union vs. Marriage is) and move to a society of ACCEPTANCE that everyone is equal, and deserves an equal set of rights that have no basis on anything other than our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.