Prior to the Charter of Rights, the definition of marriage was rooted in human biology (male-female). It was open to all, regardless of sexual orientation, and in that sense was completely non-discriminatory. The Charter judges, against the wisdom of Parliament, added "sexual orientation" as a new basis for rights-based thinking.
The problem is, there are many sexual orientations, and the courts to this point have chosen to grant only one sexual identity group marriage rights based on their identity. We know that bisexuals are a separate class of persons, because homosexual advocacy groups tell us so; yet the courts have not recognized "bisexual marriage", i.e., the rights of a bisexual who is attracted to both a man and a woman to marry them both.
We know that pederasty is a common sexual orientation -- perhaps as common as homosexuality, and no doubt equally "unchosen". If all sexual orientations are "equal" under the Charter, then why don't we have pederast marriage? And, if they are not all equal, well, then maybe homosexuality, as a behaviour, really isn't equal, either. It's a slippery slope, once you deny the equality of all sexual orientations.
And what about "swingers"? -- we know that they are an identifiable "minority", because the courts have said so. Would those who claim to believe in the Charter deny swingers'-marriage, involving multiple partners? (What, a one night stand is splendid, commitment is immoral?) If not, we are right back to the two-classes of Canadians argument, which according to our present Prime Minister, "we simply cannot have".
I do not believe in specific rights and entitlements based on "sexual orientation". But if I did, I would at least insist that all sexual orientations be treated as equal, and not just one. The fact that proponents of same-sex equality have left the battle, and are not going to bat for pederasts, swingers, and bisexuals is troublesome. If even supporters don't actually believe in it, why should we?
1 comment:
Nothing is too weird.
A woman recently married a dolphin.
What would our charter say about this?
What would the Supreme Court rule?
Would we need a "free" vote in parliament?
Where will they go for the honeymoon?
An unusual wedding ceremony was held in the southern resort town of Eilat on Wednesday, as Sharon Tendler, a 41-years-old Jewish millionaire from London married her beloved Cindy, a 35-years-old dolphin, Israel's leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Thursday.
The groom, a resident of the Eilat dolphin reef, met Tendler 15 years ago, when she first visited the resort. The British rock concert producer took a liking to the dolphin and has made a habit of traveling to Eilat two or three times a year and spending time with her underwater sweetheart.
"The peace and tranquility underwater, and his love, would calm me down," the excited bride said after the wedding.
After a years-long romance, Tendler decided to embark on the highly unusual path of tying the knot with her beloved dolphin. Last week, she approached Cindy's trainer Maya Zilber with the extraordinary request.
Zilber accepted the challenge and "talked the idea over with the fellow," who apparently consented.
'I'm not a pervert'
And so on Wednesday afternoon, the thrilled bride, wearing a white dress, walked down the dock before hundreds of astounded visitors and kneeled down before her groom, who was waiting in the water.
Cindy, escorted by his fellow best-men dolphins, swam over to Tendler and she hugged him, whispered sweet nothings in his ear, and kissed him in front of the cheering crowd.
After the ceremony was sealed with some mackerels, Tendler was tossed into the water by her friends so that she could swim with her new husband.
"I'm the happiest girl on earth," the bride said as she chocked back tears of emotion. "I made a dream come true, and I am not a pervert," she stressed.
Post a Comment