Wed Oct 6/04
Because it's in the Bible, that's why

There are, presumably, thousands of very intelligent and eloquent religious people out there who oppose gay marriage. So why can't any of them get in the newspaper? Lorna Dueck, whom I have accused of being silly before, chimed in with another head-scratcher in today's Globe (subscribers only, but I'm sure it will be reprinted elsewhere in short order).

You really only have to read this one line to know how irretrievably (and proudly, I think) out of touch her arguments are: "Gay couples are fighting for the banishing of religious boundaries that keep them from marriage." They are? Where? If would-be gay newlyweds are out looking for religious acceptance of their prospective marriages (though I'm sure many would appreciate it), they are doing it in very limited numbers. The vast majority are simply petitioning the government to recognize their relationships as it does opposite-sex unions.

Of course, Dueck and people like her always conveniently forget that people get married in places other than churches all the time. She summarizes the vision of the Working Group on Civil Unions (WCGU), who will present their case to the Supreme Court, as follows:

Let the state offer civil unions; allow religious groups to maintain the integrity of their beliefs by offering the marriage ceremony only for those who embrace their marriage doctrine and want to be committed "before the eyes of God."

But, of course, that's exactly where we are now. No one has ever suggested stripping the churches of their right to permit and refuse marriage to whomever they choose. Still, it should be recognized that this is inherently a discriminatory practice (I mean that in the literal, not necessarily pejorative, sense). Dueck does not: "If the state handled civil unions," she writes, "it would solve the equality concerns of same-sex couples — but if churches move from open-door to protectionist policies, countless other couples would lose a spiritual opportunity."

Open-door policy? Churches? Tell another one, Auntie Lorna! I'm sure many Catholics with non-Catholic spouses would be all too happy to disavow Dueck of this notion. I can only imagine what it's like with even more — how to put this — "traditional" religions.

I like this WGCU, though. In Dueck's words, they believe that "if marriage is not maintained as a heterosexual institution, then churches should no longer act as servants of the state on marriage." For that, at least I'm glad I read the article. I'd never really fixated on it, but they're absolutely right. The Marriage Act needs to lose its talk of "publication of banns" and any other similar voodoo. Church and state were separate, last I checked, and if marriage is indeed "a God thing, "not designed by humans," then Christians, for whom Dueck apparently speaks, won't mind us altering its definition in our pagan civil code.

-contact-