Hansard, continued

[bcholmes]

I thought this part was nicely said. Incidentally, Burnaby-Douglas is formerly Svend Robinson's riding, and Svend was Canada's first openly gay Member of Parliament.

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): The bill claims to be about the definition of marriage, and we often talk lately about the definition of marriage. I do not think that is really what we are talking about. We are talking about something much more limited than that. We are talking about eligibility for marriage. If we were talking about the definition of marriage, we would be talking about things like love, commitment, faithfulness, responsibility, security and the care for children. All those kinds of things I think define marriage, not necessarily the gender of the couple who presents itself to be married.

[...]

I want to read a quote from the Right Reverend Peter Short, the Moderator of the United Church of Canada, who wrote an article called "Let No One Be Turned Away". In that article Reverend Short describes marriage. He states:

Marriage lays a foundation, constructs a framework, and builds a house for love. Since constant perfect love is impossible (that's another story) marriage provides a structure, a habit of being together, a promise of faithfulness to carry us through those times when we know we must act with love but do not feel like loving. Eventually the house becomes a home, the wedding becomes a marriage, and the relationship becomes a habit of the heart.

Marriage functions the way any good habit or discipline functions. It helps us hang on through short-term ambiguity on the way to long-term freedom. The ambiguity is in the conflict between feeling and commitment. The freedom is in knowing there's a place to stand beneath the ambiguity -- common ground. Common ground is not the same as having things in common, but you find that out in time.

It is important to remember that we are talking about this kind of commitment in this discussion. I do not think there is anything in the statement by Reverend Short that is not accessible to gay and lesbian couples. This is exactly what we hope for in our relationships and in our marriages. We need to remember that there is nothing in being gay or lesbian which limits our participation in that kind of love, relationship and marriage.

I am concerned when I hear discussion, some of which we have had this afternoon, that seems legalistic and very removed from the real lives of Canadians. It is hard for me as a gay man to listen to something which so affects on such an intimate level our lives and loves being debated in an abstract and legalistic kind of way. I remind people that when we are talking about this issue, we are talking about real people and real commitments.

Poly people could get testy about the way he uses the word "faithfulness", and whether or not it means fidelity. Or whether or not he's implying that marriage must somehow involve children. <shrug> I am able to read past that.

Comments

[lisiblac.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting on this over the past few days. It's been impossible for me to keep up with much news outside my home the past month or so!

If we were talking about the definition of marriage, we would be talking about things like love, commitment, faithfulness, responsibility, security and the care for children.

I don't think he's putting a "must" on any of this. It reads to me like an attempt at inclusiveness. When he says, 'things like', he leaves it open-ended enough to satisfy me too.

Gays and Lesbians raising children is a major thorn in the side of conservatives, so I'm glad he stuck it in there!

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much how I'm reading it as well. These are things that people look at and think "they're married" without regard to whether there's a paper in a filefolder somewhere that says so. Why deny the paper under those kinds of circumstances?

[lcohen]

this is terrific--yes, it's too specific to be universal, but it has a lot of great thoughts. i like this especially:

Marriage lays a foundation, constructs a framework, and builds a house for love. Since constant perfect love is impossible (that's another story) marriage provides a structure, a habit of being together, a promise of faithfulness to carry us through those times when we know we must act with love but do not feel like loving. Eventually the house becomes a home, the wedding becomes a marriage, and the relationship becomes a habit of the heart.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

If marriages must somehow involve children, then post-menopausal women wouldn't be allowed to marry. Or those known to be infertile. Perhaps there are religious tradidions that are that strict, but I've ever met anyone who supported such a plan.

I don't think that Short's comments are anti-poly, nor are his beliefs necessarily anti-poly. Surely he wishes many of his readers to be faithful to God at the same time that they are faithful to their lover, so I suspect he would confess that faith can be a one-to-many relation.