Thoughts on the Marriage Debate

4 January 2017--I wrote this a while back, and decided not to post it at that time. I've made a few additions to my comments and corrected some typos, but I feel like now is the time to post.

As various jurisdictions go tripping over themselves to legalise same sex marriage [which is how I will refer to the subject from here on out; full disclosure: this was the topic of my first year law school moot, and as such, it is the terminology with which I am most comfortable], I find myself pondering the various attitudes towards the subject with the same trepidation I had in law school. I really don't like pussyfooting around such subjects and like to make my position as clear as possible. People can choose to be offended, or they can agree to disagree, which is the position I take. It is my hope that those of you who support same sex marriage will respect and appreciate my position, and those who do not may be enlightened somehow. In this post, I will outline what I consider to be the core issues, how they agree or disagree with human rights, and how I came to the conclusion I did, after careful consideration, soul-searching and yes, even prayer.

1. Marriage is a religious institution, co-opted by the state for its own ends.

No matter how much you want to argue this point, you will always be wrong. Marriage began as a religious institution, is still a religious institution, and always will be a religious institution. When marriage was adopted and regulated by the state, it was done for its own ends i.e. Taxation and regulation. By creating rules and regulations for marriage within a given state, that state could profit from its recognition within the state (marriage licences, fees for a justice of the peace to perform a wedding, taxation on the basis of marital status, etc.). Where the waters get somewhat muddied is in the realm of legal recognition of religions and their ministers to perform marriages recognised by the state. There are those among same sex marriage activists who would would have you believe that this would entitle them to be married by whatever religion they choose.  This is false, and leads to:

2. Where freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation collide, freedom of religion must always protect the religious observers from doing anything against their beliefs. 

When we talk about constitutional rights, they fall into two categories: positive liberties and negative liberties. Freedom of religion is actually both: it is the freedom to worship according to your religion of choice and freedom from religious persecution. Sexual orientation falls more into the negative liberty category: freedom from discrimination. Where a conflict arises between the two, say a gay couple wants to get married by a Catholic priest or a Mormon bishop, freedom of religion trumps sexual orientation, since to perform a same sex marriage is against the beliefs of the minister in question.

It does not mean that the couple cannot get married; merely that the options are reduced. It is akin to a physician declining to perform abortions because it goes against his religious beliefs; there are still physicians ready, willing and able to do the procedure. Another example that works is that of purchasing a car: if a certain feature is not available from a given manufacturer, much as the purchaser would prefer to buy that particular brand, the option remains to buy from another manufacturer. The actual ceremony is a service, and since that service can be provided by the government, or by a religion that supports same sex marriage, to force a religion that does not to perform the ceremony is compulsion, which deprives others of their rights. As to whether such compulsion could happen, there is currently a case making its way through the British courts where a gay couple is seeking to have their marriage performed in the Church of England. If they succeed, it will be a sad day indeed.

I know some will raise the "right to refuse service" laws that cropped up in Kansas and Arizona recently, but those laws were an abuse of process and the Arizona one was rightly vetoed. While I imagine other Bible Belt states will continue to champion such laws notwithstanding, I do not support such legislation.

3. Not supporting same sex marriage does not equal homophobia. 

"If you're not with us, you're against us." Funnily enough, those words come from a musical that was preaching tolerance: Beauty and the Beast. The context, of course, is that Gaston and the mob are planning to lay siege to the Beast's castle and kill him, because, "We don't like what we don't understand, in fact it scares us, and this monster is mysterious at least." Words written by an openly gay man (Howard Ashman) using the Beast's plight as a metaphor for homosexuality. Yet, the mob mentality appears to have overtaken all intelligent debate on the issue. Not supporting same sex marriage because it goes against your religious beliefs is not homophobia. Opposition arises out of two particular schools of thought. The first was described above: no person should be compelled to perform a same sex marriage ceremony if it conflicts with his religious beliefs. The second opposition weirdly mirrors the attitude espoused by same sex marriage activists that if one person says no to us, the floodgates will open and none of us will be able to get married. It is that if same sex marriage becomes legal, other forms of marriage can't be too far behind (polygamy, etc.). We would all like to believe that cooler heads will prevail, but we can't be sure. That goes for both groups.  We need to cool the hyperbolic rhetoric here. 

For the record, I have known and do know many gay and lesbian people. They come from all walks of life, just like straight people. It is my hope that they understand that "If you're not with us, you're against us" is as stupid as it sounds. 

4. Persecution and/or bullying is never OK. 

This should be obvious, but it seems that members of both sides of the issue seem to think that whoever yells loud enough, throws their weight around and belittles the other will win the debate. I was tremendously impressed when George Takei, a gay rights and same sex marriage supporter, took the high road when noted anti-gay activist Fred Phelps passed away. Many activists were calling for pickets of his funeral, screaming things like "BURN IN HELL!" which would be the sort of thing Phelps commonly practiced in his life. By not giving in to those base, knee-jerk sentiments, Takei has earned my respect. We could all learn a lot from his handling of the situation. 

Bullying doesn't end when school does; it just changes formats. Those who are wise enough to realise this are ahead of the game. Those of us who choose to continue such behaviour are deserving of any scorn we receive as a result, but that is not a licence for the bullied to engage in such scorn. By "stooping to [their] level," the discourse is reduced to something like what we saw in the US Presidential Election of 2016; vicious, divisive and uncivilised.

5.  How about trying to be true Christians (or whatever belief you espouse)?

It's not rocket science, folks. Just because you disagree on an issue does not mean you cannot love your fellow humans. There's a lot to be said for civility and respect, but loving takes more. It takes not only looking beyond differences, but appreciating differences and what others bring to the world. It does not mean agreement; if it did, couples and family members would never fight, but if we can try to see things from another perspective, we come out the other end better for it. 

I'm done.

 I'm frustrated, and I'd like to think I'm not alone. It seems that everywhere I turn, I'm seeing an overwhelming amount of negativity on a variety of subjects. Whether it's the government, either federal or provincial, or LGBTQ rights and issues, or the upcoming US election, or gun control, the hatred on both sides is palpable. How did we get here?

Let's examine each of the above individually. First, provincial politics. Six months ago, the NDP was elected to a majority in Alberta, ending 44 years of rule by the Progressive Conservative party. In classic "squeaky wheel gets the grease" fashion, the Wildrose party has been whipping rural constituents into a frenzy, most recently with Bill 6, proposed legislation that wants to remove certain exemptions for family farms regarding workplace safety regulations and workers' compensation. I will be the first to say that Bill 6 is clumsily worded; as a lawyer working in the realm of criminal justice, I have seen my fair share of badly worded legislation, and Bill 6 needs some TLC, particularly where exemptions for family members and unpaid "Good Samaritan" neighbours are concerned. Some of those in opposition to the bill state that their current insurance is better than what WCB has to offer, which isn't hard to believe, but I think they're somewhat missing the point. They argue that there are fewer reported farm accidents in Alberta than im provinces that have similar legislation. The key word there is "reported"; if farm accident statistics are anything like sexual assault statistics, under-reporting is a problem. If anyone wants to preserve the status quo, all he has to do is fail to report a farm accident. There is also concern that farm workers are placed in a position where they have to do work they know is dangerous, but risk losing their jobs if they refuse to do them. These are the primary concerns of the government, which farmers say are unfounded, and will lead to the unionization of farm labour. If this is the case, then show us why; don't just yell and scream in protest. 

There has been a bit of a rush to get the legislation passed, which is never a good idea, but consider the following: the government is only 6 months old, and is composed of many people who have NEVER held public office before. Are they going to make mistakes? Is China the number one consumer of rice in the world? They have since indicated that they are prepared to consult with farmers and their representatives, but that doesn't appear to be good enough. The rural vote is out for blood, and wants to see recall legislation brought in, thinking it will change things. How myopic. Do they forget that nearly all the NDP MLAs were elected in urban ridings? A recall will change nothing. The majority might shrink, but not enough to change anything, and all those taxpayer dollars will be wasted on an unnecessary election foisted on an electorate that is frankly burnt out on politics right now. Has nobody considered actually trying to work WITH the government, to try and understand where they're coming from and come to a compromise? No, because we're hearing what we want to hear thanks to social media. 

My news feeds are inundated with whining (calling it like I see it) about how we're all going to be destitute thanks to the policies of the NDP. Whatever happened to constructive criticism? We can accomplish so much more by not polarizing ourselves politically and falling for the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt for those unfamiliar with the acronym) being sown by opponents of the government. I'm not blaming the opposition; they're doing their job, but when we simply fall in line behind them and drink whatever Kool-Aid it is they're selling at any given time, we're not using our heads. We're treating the government like they're experienced legislators, which they clearly aren't. They have 6 months on the job and are learning on the job. Our job as constituents is to assist in educating them. Quit treating them like the PCs; they're not the PCs. This is a baby government with no experience running government, and how well do babies respond to protests, grandstanding and fear-mongering? While it's been a while since I've had young children, my memory tells me that they would react in fear and recoil, which is exactly what I see happening. While protesting seems to be the saveur du jour, I fail to see that it accomplishes any more than a well-reasoned discussion, and it seems to be accomplishing less. If anything, the current spate of protests seems to paint rural Alberta as a bunch of poorly educated, ill-informed rednecks whose only currency is to yell and scream until they get what they want. I know that's not the case, but back up and take a hard look at yourself.

Moving on to the next example, this is more of a federal/provincial mix than strictly federal, but hear me out. There has been a huge backlash against both the federal and Alberta provincial governments over their environmental policies, coupled with the US government's final refusal of the Keystone XL pipeline, and the increased resistance to the Northern Gateway pipeline. As a result, we are getting the same sort of FUD, not from the oil companies, but from those who are either currently working in the oil patch, or have been laid off from their jobs there. Some people think that the NDP and the federal Liberals are trying to destroy the oil industry all by themselves. They fail to see the bigger picture. Saudi Arabia has been flooding the market with their oil and driving the price of crude oil down to the $40 per barrel range. They will have to stop at some point, but because their cost of oil production is well below $40 per barrel, they can survive on the lower prices. For now. 

Oil is a complicated business in Canada. Eastern Canada has customarily imported oil to refine for Eastern use and continues to do so, albeit below their capacity to do so, meaning that apart from Western Canada, which has limited refinement capacity, Alberta has had to export its oil, typically at a steep discount, to be able to do anything with it. That was the reasoning behind Keystone XL and Northern Gateway: easier access to the US and China respectively. At current oil prices, we would be selling at a loss, which is why many projects have shut down, and no new ones are being announced. What is buried in the platforms of Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau is agreement on a proposed Energy East pipeline, which would send crude from Alberta, East to the existing refineries in Eastern Canada, meaning that instead of importing oil from other countries (Venezuela has been a popular choice), Canada has the opportunity to become energy self-sufficient, if we can just get past our regional prejudices. It's food for thought, but the FUDdites toil away, making sure we remain as polarized as ever. Yes, there's a carbon tax coming, and yes, it will make life more difficult, but let's take a hard look in the mirror: as Albertans, we've had life fairly easy up to now, including during the recession of 2008. We bounced back fairly quickly, but we don't know how quickly recovery will happen this time, because it is so dependent on external factors. We need to face the fact that we have been sucking on the teat of the oilpatch for far too long. We can't rely on it consistently, because it is so financially volatile, and the latest reports indicate oil will not bounce back as long as the US continues to invest in shale oil production. 

I repeatedly hear comments like, "I wish Ralph was back," and I have to shake my head. My wife and I were a young couple when Klein and his Conservatives began their hack-and-slash-privatize-everything policies. It was a difficult time to be in that position, but we learned from that experience. Ralph didn't, spreading the wealth around as soon as there were surpluses above what was needed to pay down provincial debt. This was a mistake; he should have been replenishing the Heritage Fund and other measures to save for a "rainy day." I doubt Ralph was much of a Bible reader; if he was, he might have remembered the story of Joseph interpreting the Pharoah's dream about the seven fattened kine and the seven lean kine and the importance of saving for the future. Instead, we are now in a situation where our infrastructure is hurting, especially in the area of school construction. I think I've made my point. Yes, King Ralph slew the deficit, but he didn't consider the possibility of a future one. It appears Stephen Harper made the same mistake on the national stage, but that's another story.

Moving on to LGBTQ issues, I found a very constructive article online a few days ago and would necourage everyone I know to give it a read. Here's a link: https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/jacob-hess/are-mormons-villains-or-just-people-with-different-story-about-their-ident. While it speaks specifically about Mormons, I think other friends of mine may either find common ground, or at least be better able to understand why most Mormons have such a hard time coming to terms with LGBTQ issues. Again, as above, if we stop to consider the "other side"'s point of view, the conversation can be more constructive. A lawyer friend of mine once said, "You attract more flies with honey than vinegar," which may seem contrary to an adversarial profession, but he had a point. If we approach a situation looking for a solution rather than just trying to scream the loudest to get our point across, we are more likely to reach an acceptable compromise. I know compromise tends to be a dirty word these days, but some of the best solutions have been compromises. Is any of this starting to sound familiar?

Donald Trump is an idiot. There; I said it. As polarised as politics are in Canada, it's far worse in the US, and has been for much longer. I really hate the US brand of smearing one's opponent with ad hominem attacks and the like, and what I hate more is how much it has seeped into Canadian politics. Sadly, conservatives are to blame, as they have co-opted attack ads and the like, and conservative no longer means conservative. It now appears to mean libertarian, which is properly described as the classical liberal school of politics. Conservative now means less than nothing, which I find to be rather sad. Conservatives would all rather model themselves on the Republican party, which is heavily controlled by the Tea Party, a classical liberal movement. I think I may have lost those of you who never studied political science. I used to describe myself as a conservative, but now I don't know what I am. I'm not a social democrat, I'm not a socialist, I'm not a libertarian, I'm not a liberal. I just am.

And now, to my last bugaboo: gun control. If you were to ask me what my position is on gun control, I would say that I am in favour of responsible gun ownership. In Canada, gun ownership is not a right; it is a privilege. It is enshrined as a right in the US. I don't honestly know which is the better approach, but I do know this: in my experience, I have known responsible gun owners and irresponsible gun owners. My anectdotal evidence is that there are far more responsible gun owners than irresponsible gun owners, and I am proud to call these people my friends. They know that improperly secured firearms and ammunition are a recipe for disaster, especially with children in the house. The answer, in my humble, non-gun-owning opinion, is education and licencing. We educate people and regulate them in the operation of motor vehicles, which can also be lethal weapons in the wrong hands. They have to be tested and licenced, and there are serious penalties, some of them criminal, for failing to comply. Should we apply a lesser standard to firearms, which are intended as weapons? Will there be unlicenced uses of firearms? If people driving without valid licences, insurance or registration are any indication, yes, but you can't fix stupid. Are we ever going to be able to completely stop murders, suicides and mass shootings? Probably not. Can we mitigate them or reduce their occurrence? I think it's possible. 

Before you go off about the Second Amendment to the US constitution, consider that I am not calling for an outright prohibition on owning firearms, nor am I calling for a firearms registry to return; I am calling for firearm ownership to be a regulated activity, like driving. I am not calling for a ban on so-called assault weapons; if you are properly trained on such devices, you should be allowed to own and use them. Again, think of this like the different classes of operators' licences. If you want to ride a motorcycle, that requires a different licence and training; same with a tractor-trailer unit, or a bus. So what I'm really saying is, the current status quo in Canada works just fine, but could use some tweaking. The US gun regulation is a mess amd is not helped by the Second Amendment, the NRA, or any of the interested parties, as there is no middle ground.

Before you write me off as some left-leaning hippie or having my head in the clouds, consider this: All I'm asking people to do is stop, listen and think. Hear out the other side. I'm not saying it will absolutely change your mind; it probably won't. At the very least, you'll be better informed and better able to articulate your point of view. At best, you might gain respect for another point of view. As an example, I don't like the Wildrose party, and I'm not a fan of the NDP [If you are thinking I voted for the PCs in the last provincial election, you would be mistaken]. However, I understand where they're coming from, and I respect their right to hold the positions they do. I just don't agree with either of them, but know that deliberately attempting to frustrate their political will (especially when one has formed a majority government) is a fool's errand. Power is such that even if a party has proposed election reform, once in power, it is unlikely to occur. Proportional representation sounds like a great idea on paper, but it's terrible if you want to get anything done, because it is dependent on coalitions, since no party will ever form a clear majority. The same with recall legislation, for the reasons explained above.

In short, I'm done. I am sick and tired of listening to everyone scream and shout on social media about their own little fiefdom. I'm on a break.

The Modern Bully

Welcome to my new blog, where I will try to comment rationally on issues which have caught my attention as of late. Unlike my other blog The 'Dark Room, this blog will concern itself with issues connected to current events, general rants about others' ignorance, and the like. Hence the title.


Bullying has been on my mind a lot as of late for many reasons, the least of which is that bullying seems to be all over the media. It seems that every week or so, either some poor soul ends his or her own life because of bullying, or some foundation is formed by a celebrity to combat bullying. As a person who has experienced bullying firsthand in many forms (though thankfully not cyber-bullying; I would hope that I'm way too old for that now), I have taken some serious thought as to the causes of bullying and whether or not they have changed over the years, and whether it is possible to "outgrow" bullying, either for the victim or the perpetrator.


One theory of bullying that dates back to shortly after dinosaurs roamed the earth, is that bullies are quite frequently bullied themselves, either by abusive parents, siblings, or other bullies. I am not a big fan of this particular theory, as it suggests two things: (1) bullying is cyclical in nature, much like alcoholism and sexual abuse; and (2) the far more frightening prospect: there is no real cure for bullying. From my own experience, bullies tended to belong to one of several social cliques, most of which were related to sports, and bullying was seen as rite of passage; a hazing ritual if you will. You simply did not belong to the clique unless you took the opportunity to pick on a particular person, most frequently outside of the sporting group. This puts the lie to this particular theory of bullying, which I believe was formed to create Christian empathy for the bully. Bluntly put, some kids are just plain evil, and there is no underlying reason for their behaviour, however reassuring this may be for some. Granted, self-hatred figured into Hitler's reasoning, but most bullies sleep just fine at night and don't wrestle with their feelings.


The second theory of bullying is that bullying is caused either by a failure or unwillingness to understand those who are different. This is one I consider to be closer to the truth. It seems that as soon as someone is labeled as "different" that any difference becomes a lightning rod for persecution. Most of the bullying stories we see as of late relate to sexual orientation. Whether or not this is simply because GLBT rights are dominating the media does not really matter; what matters is that bullied children are "different", and are tormented for their differences. It may be because of religious beliefs, a disability, colour of skin, an accent, anything. While the media focus may be on gay teens committing suicide because of bullying, this is but one face of the bullying behemoth; equal attention should be paid to those bullied for other reasons, and they should be able to benefit from the attention given to bullying.


By subscribing to the second theory of bullying, am I suggesting that the causes of bullying have changed? No; the causes have not changed, but the avenues available to bullies have. Where the realms of bullying were once (and may still be) the schoolyard, the school washroom and the locker room, technology has expanded bullying into realms both more intimate and more public: text messaging and social networking. I can't imagine anything being more painful than either a supposed "friend" sending a threatening or belittling text message, or doing the same on Facebook for all your friends to see. It would almost be preferable to get beaten up after school, because at least those wounds would heal. Emotional scars are reflected in our personalities and are far more difficult to hide from the world at large, hence the suicides motivated by Facebook posts and the like. How do you face your friends and enemies, not knowing how many of them may have read what was said about you? Granted, cyber-bullying has its antecedents in scrawlings on public washroom walls, but even those were limited to one gender or the other, and what is said now on public websites is often more brutal and explicit than what was once scribbled in Sharpie in a bathroom stall. How do you combat it?


The fortunate thing about the advance of technology is that the same tools that are available to bullies to perpetrate their hatred and ignorance can also work in favour of the bullied. Even the least web-savvy youngster can delete posts on his or her Facebook wall that are deemed offensive. The same youth can report such posts to Facebook and get the bully kicked off, but as parents, it is up to us to support our children in taking such actions.


And now, the rant: do we ever outgrow bullying? I don't know if we do. We hear about workplace bullying, but we don't know enough about it to answer the question, but one example gives me food for thought: the current Republican primaries and debates. Don't get me wrong; I think debating is a useful tool, but when it degenerates into catcalls on religious belief and other topics, where is the use? It just turns into a spitting match. I've never wanted to be involved in politics, and after several years watching the political arena, I finally know why, but I'm not going to tell you. My blog. My rules.