Through a series of misadventures, and sadly misunderstanding the intentions of a good friend, i found myself reading the “Marriage Alliance” perspective on same-sex marriage (SSM) in Canada. I’m not going to link to the article, you can search for it by title (below) if you need to. Here’s my re-drafted take on the article:

The title is flat-out hyperbole, and patently untrue:

“IN CANADA, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS DESTROYING ALL OTHER RIGHTS”.

Think about that for a minute “All Other Rights”.

Have people in Canada lost the right to trial by jury, the right to assemble in public, the right to not be imprisoned without charge…? Have they lost any actual rights? Read on.

The article claims that “it is impossible to deny that the majority of Canadians have lost their fundamental rights as a result (sic) marriage being redefined.”

I would say that it is impossible to believe for a second that any Canadians have lost any rights at all, unless you suspend all access to evidence and logic. But that’s just me.

 

The “fundamental rights” referred to in the article seem to be:

• the “right” to express abuse toward LGBTQi people or to “question SSM”
  • (the article provides no actual examples of people losing their job or going to jail because they questioned SSM)
• children having a “right to their biological roots”
  • some vague, evidence-free assertion that Canadian law now prevents children from connecting with their biological relatives 
  • no idea if this is true, or how it works in practice if it is true
  • not clear how this is relevant to the Australian case
  • seems to be fear-mongering
• businesses having the “right to refuse service on principle”
  • really?
• the right to get people’s gender pronouns wrong
  • (without fear of criminal sanction)
  • no examples given of people being criminally prosecuted for getting someone’s gender pronouns wrong
  • no argument provided to show any connection between legalising SSM and criminalising use of gender pronouns

 

Conflating issues of parenting and marriage

One thread of the article is that Canada’s laws have changed the way parents are defined, from “natural” to “legal”. This may be true, but this is not being proposed in any Australian model i’ve heard of. The Australian debate is around the right to marry, not the way we define parenting*.

It is also not made clear how – or if in fact – the changes to Canadian law prevent children from connecting with their biological relatives

*Side note: people on the No campaign are working hard to connect these issues (marriage and parenting) in people’s minds. Marriage was – until very recently – the only way to prevent children being “illegitimate” – bastards – with no right to inheritance; or alternatively, to disenfranchise children born out of wedlock.)

 

Does business really have, or need the “right to refuse service on principle“?

The article goes on to assert that “fair business is all but obliterated”, continuing with this statement: “A business should be able to retain the right to refuse service on principle.”

I’m not sure how i feel about that statement. Is there any legal basis to it in current law? Should a business be able to refuse service to people of colour? Women maybe? Short people? ..or just gay people? Where do we draw the line with this so-called “retained right” to discriminate? Is that really a thing?

On this theme, the proposed legislation that is currently most popular with major parties in Australia permits some kind of “religious freedom” that lets you refuse to participate in someone else’s wedding if your God really insists on it.

Does that religious freedom extend to bakeries.. and should it? ***

 

Questions you might ask, if someone posts this article near your social media stream:

• Do you really think people should have the right to express hate speech about people who are gay or lesbian (LGBTQ) …?
• Can you give any actual examples of people who lost their job or went to jail because they questioned SSM in Canada?
• Can you provide examples of how Canadian law now prevents children from connecting with their biological relatives?
  • ..and do you really think this is relevant to the Australian debate?
  • (There’s been no talk of redefining parenting definitions here.)
• Can you give me any examples of people being criminally prosecuted in Canada for getting someone’s gender pronouns wrong?
  • We’re talking about couples who love each other having the right to get married
  • – is “gender pronouns” a real reason to say no to SSM?

 

————————————-

Satirical outtro:

Okay this next style of argument i wouldn’t recommend you use with a Real Hard-Core Believer. They might find satire deeply offensive:

 

The implication seems to be that gangs of LGBTQ couples will roam the streets looking for innocently traditional bakeries to sue and put out of business, on an anti-capitalist wedding cake spree of destruction. That all the businesses who believe in “fair business” will be shut down thanks to greedy LGBTQ wedding parties.

“They’re coming for us Dan.. hide your baking tools!” 

---

Image credits:

• Love by Ruben Ulset at Flickr, CC-BY
• “Bert + Ernie for Marriage Equality” by See-ming Lee at Flickr, CC-BY