Up in Ontario

A Look Ahead on Same-Sex Marriage

This morning, just as I do most mornings, I walked down to my favourite local coffee shop for a morning coffee before proceeding to a workout to get the day started. On the front page of the Globe and Mail, two stories caught my eye and reminded me why I like to live in this city of Vancouver and in this country of Canada.

The first story was the predictable headline: Same-sex bill finally passes. Bill C-38 became law across the country last night as a coalition of Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois voted, 158-133 in favour of the bill, and Canada became the third nation of the world (along with Belgium and the Netherlands) to legalize marriages between two individuals, regardless of gender. As you might guess, I'm in favour of gay marriage, though I'm not really sure what there is to be against, so I'm in favour of not restricting marriage by gender or sexual preference.

On the same-sex marriage issue, two observations stand out for me. First of all, I think legalized same-sex marriage is such a touchy subject with people because it's an odd place for the government to be passing laws. Couples, regardless of gender, have for a long time received the same rights and paid the same taxes as married couples in what I've come to understand, through first-hand knowledge, is known as the common-law relationship. In the eyes of the law I can find no difference that exists between common-law couples and married couples.

So really, this same-sex legislation is a symbolic gesture aimed at a religious ceremony and distinction, which is, as I mentioned above, an odd place for governments to be passing laws. Similar debates and legislation have not arisen around christenings, bar mitzvahs or catechism. So why the push for marriage? Why is the government in the marriage debate at all? I think that this fuzziness drives much of the confusion and contention around same-sex marriage: it's a religious ceremony but it's also a legal arrangement, though the legal arrangement exists outside of the religious ceremony. Confused yet? Wouldn't it have been simpler for the government to split the legal and religious components of marriage, taken the legal components and left the religious ones to their respective religions?

My second observation about the same-sex legislation arises from the strident positions politicians have taken on the issue. It seems as if the usual wishy washyness of politicians has given way to specific, static positions. Name a politician and you know just how they stood on the issue and voted on the legislation. It took some of the suspense out of the proceedings but I think that people will remember. The issue will persist long after even our next election.

What do I mean? Well, as the Prime Martin has promised, we're going to have a national election at the latest about a year from now, after the findings of the Gomery Inquiry are in. For many people the same-sex debate has been a very personal discussion, raising all kinds of issues they'd have rather not discussed, and forcing them to consider same-sex sex. I think that voters will remember just how each party and each politician running in their riding voted or positioned themselves on the same-sex marriage issue. I believe the pollsters call it a *wedge issue* because it acts to distinguish the parties and the candidates. This one's not going away just yet.

Lastly on same-sex marriage, it seems like the Prime Martin has shaken off some of the rust and stigma of his Mr. Dithers persona. They're keeping the house sitting well into what would normally be the summer recess and they're passing legislation from a minority position - both difficult things to do.

The second story on the front page of the Globe this morning was how Vancouver refuses to buy into Wal-Mart. After the retail megalith spent millions trying to woo Vancouver city council with a cutting-edge green building, the council still shut them out. On the radio this morning a commentator in favour of allowing Wal-Mart to set up shop in Vancouver tried to make the point that the decision by city councillors had its basis in ideology - that multinational corporations were categorically bad no matter the specifics of this proposal. Ha! Of course it was about ideology! Partially. Just as the whole ethos of big-box stores, minimal, marginal pay, imported goods derived from offshore cheaper labour and retail layouts that require a car to access are built around an ideology. Even when we're talking about Wal-Mart, no one has a monopoly on blind generalizations and diminutive labels.

Lastly, I understand that the rest of Canada may hear this story and either cheer, if they agree with the it, or shake their head as those crazies out on the left coast make another cuckoo decision, if they don't agree with it. But either way, I see in Vancouver a diaspora of small, locally owned businesses, and I don't see that same variety anywhere where I see Wal-Mart and big-box stores. I return to Winnipeg and over 80 percent of all the new retail developments could just as easily be in Saskatoon or Mississauga. There's nothing but cheap sameness at the end of each parking lot. If that's the alternative, and I believe that a vision just like that is what the Wal-Mart proposal was all about, then I'll take higher prices and messy diversity in my local bazaar. But I'm the same guy who argues that you should value more than price and buy according to what you value.