Within two weeks, we will know if Parliament has supported the proposed Bill C38 legalizing same-sex marriages, which would do so against a great deal of opposition from many Canadians. The gay marriage debate has been a divisive one, not just within Parliament, but the whole country. From the tone of the debate, it seems as though Canada may be heading towards a US-style polarization between the religious and the secular.
In the United States, the schism between church and secular values is nothing new. The religious right has been a major force in American politics for decades, and the so-called “values voters” were a major force in the re-election of President Bush last November. But in Canada, religious groups have been less likely to pick a particular side on the left-right spectrum. In fact, the trend in Canada has often been opposite to the United States: the “religious left” has often been a force for social justice in Canada, using the organizational power of Canada’s churches, synagogues and temples to advocate for the poor, the homeless, and refugees, to name just a few.
In Canada it seems, the religious are just as likely to vote NDP and Liberal as they are to vote Conservative, which explains why religion is seen as less of an issue in Canada. However, the current debate seems to be changing this, and the consequences are troubling. If it were only fundamentalist right-wing Christians arguing against same-sex marriage, it would not be remarkable, but to see that moderates of many faiths are also deeply skeptical of same-sex marriage is something that the left should take notice of.
Those in favor of same-sex marriage, however, have preferred to ignore or to brush off the issue, rather than confront it. In an op-ed piece in the Toronto Star, NDP leader Jack Layton describes same-sex marriage as being simply an issue of Charter rights, and denounces Liberals and Conservatives who are opposed to same-sex marriage as “extremists.” Unfortunately for Mr. Layton, not all the people who oppose same-sex marriage are extremists. In fact, they represent a large portion of the Canadian electorate, including several of his own caucus. By simply dismissing the concerns of religious voters, instead of engaging them in dialogue, Mr. Layton is alienating Canadians that might otherwise be willing to accept same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage is a right, but to simply say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares that we must accept same-sex marriage does not address the concerns of the many Canadians who believe that we shouldn’t accept it. Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage are in favor of gay rights, and even support civil unions. They are not homophobes or religious fundamentalists, but are simply skeptical of a bill which proposes to change one of humanity’s oldest institutions. This skepticism is only reinforced when those on the left denounce them as extremists, and reject their sincere beliefs wholesale.
We can pass equal marriage legislation, but if same-sex marriage is to be accepted by the great majority of Canadians, its supporters must reach out to religious voters with their arguments. They must speak to Canadians of all faiths along their own terms, instead of trivializing the place of faith in Canadian society. They must speak about values, about principles, and about family, and accept that religion is not something the left should be hostile towards, but an ally in the struggle to create a more tolerant and compassionate society.
To start, they can make these points clear:
That people of faith are respected in Canada, and that the values of Christianity and other religions are perfectly compatible with the values of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and of the Canadian left.
That the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples will in no way force any religious institution to perform or endorse same-sex marriage.
That the extension of marriage to same-sex couples should be seen as an expression of the values of compassion, tolerance, and love which are the foundation of all religions.
That love is a manifestation of a greater truth, and it is beyond the right of our government to deny any couple the right to express this truth in the fullest extent.
That same-sex marriage is in no way a threat to heterosexual marriage, and should be seen as strengthening the family as an institution by extending its benefits to a greater segment of humanity.
In the end, marriage is not about rights or religion or laws, but about love and commitment. By justifying same-sex marriage as being simply a rights issue, our leaders are missing the point. Regardless of the law, the constitution, or the doctrines of a particular church, the point is that the love between two people is an institution that should be respected and fostered in our society.
I think this is something we can all agree upon.
Chris Hendricks is a recent Political Science Grad from U of T, and is currently studying Economics part time.
