Gmarriage: Canada: Angry in the Great White North registers dissent regarding Parliament's assault on marriage

Readers of this blog have had enuff for the moment of my views on the Canadian politics of marriage-destruction, wiping out the trad legal definition and replacing it with a generic business-deal. Nevertheless I will recap with a new extension of my argument, after reading the important posts by the important Canadian website, Angry in the Great White North. My conclusion is that no marriage exists now in Canada's legal system (verbiage to the contrary notwithstanding), no recognition of the unique journey of 1woman1man across the structural differences of physiology, human organic chemistry, some instinctual features, emotional strutures, mood structures, and all the differences between a woman and a man that modern medicine and anthropological research has been ascertaining. Most of that research ends up being "only" a project to offer an alternative for women in regard to the male-only medical paradigm of our health system and what we have of a preventive medicine in Canada ("only" is not the correct word, as that purpose has immense validity in itself; but the research has wide implications, also for public policy and legislation at issue here).

I want to direct the use of that large and increasing body of knowledge to bear on the point of a certain kind of intimate union, that of 1woman1man, which when solemnized is marriage. Other forms of intimate union do exist, solemnized or not, and I think should be recognized by the state, in the distinctness of their differences from marriage and in their differences from one another - as the equation of intimate union of 2 women with that of 2 men is, among other things, medical nonsense. Of course, each of these three forms of intimate union should have distinct names and basic distinct legal provisions of responsibilities and rights, at the very least. For all I know, all the business-deal stuff could be similar if not identical. They are tertiary matters, but in the interest of the state which must help pick up the pieces and adjudicate when the tragedy of divorce, the wounding of children thereby, and the cutting of the kids' lives into parts in custody determinations.

Because the Conservative Party of Canada is philosophically brain-dead, it could not think what's right in front of its nose, nor harvest what's available for a superiour argument from woman-oriented medicine and anthropological research. Nor did experts in those professions who are conversant with the research that would back a serious Tory alternative, come forward. The Conservative Party lost the battle when Vic Toews, CPC Justice Critic in the Tory shadow cabinet, declared: “ 'The Conservative party will be proposing amendments to provide clear recognition of the traditional definition of marriage,' but then continued that they would also, 'provide full recognition of same-sex relationships as possessing equal rights and privileges.' ” And: "A reporter asked Conservative Party critic Toews, 'I hear you saying you want to extend all the rights, benefits, obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, except the right to use the word marriage, is that correct?' ¶ “ 'That’s essentially the point', replied Toews, on behalf of his party." (Hat tip to Brian O'Neill and the host website Angry in the Great White North for this tidbit.) This vacuous approach that cannot even conceive the differences, particularly the uniqueness of 1woman1man in a life-journey across all those difference, marrying for that purpose with the intention of permanence and the pledge of exclusivity, has only one virtue - it adheres in its half-fledged way to the Roman Catholic doctrine of subsidiarty whereby Catholics like the CPC's Steven Harper try to be obedient to the Church's Magisterium, while Catholics like Paul Martin of the Liberal Party try to disobey it.

Why did the overall poorly-performing Catholic Bishops not excommunicate, early the next morning, all the Magisterium-rejecting Catholic politicians who voted for this farcical law of Paul Martin the Apostate? Answer: because the doctrine itself is fallacious and should not be law anywhere, even in the Catholic Church; but more, because people in office who want to obey can't without a lot of gerrymandering obfuscation of concepts, while they lack a positive philosophical construct in regard to the three froms of intimate unions, whereby the state can privilege the traditional form of 1woman1man intimate union, and at the same time understand the differences and dignify the other two forms with non-identical legislation for each, whereby a real justice tailored to each in the articulation of the responsiblities and rights of each. This would have been a step forward, but neither Paul Martin the Apostate nor Steven Harper the Wannabe Good Son of the Church had the mental wherewithal to provide a good Catholic approach, because the Church herself doesn't have one.

Let's face it, the Catholic episcopate was largely cowardly, and where it was not, it was sadly incompetent. The Protestant Fundamentalists were utterlly dogmatic and mindless, with nothing really political to offer this pluralist democratic society in which we all wish them well, but can't depend on them for integral leadership regarding the state's relation thru public law to any of the three forms of intimate union. Vive la différance! - Owlb

After reading Angry, scroll down to Mark Collins: June 29: 12:38 PM Also see: Angry on apocalyptic scenarios re the Christian Churches in Canada after their opposition to this diabolically-clever government of the Liberal / New Democrat / Bloc Québecois coalition with its NewSpeak about rights that are simply not inscribed in Canada's Charter of Rights.