Senate Passes Historic Marriage Legislation

I finished my last post, only to have my anger and frustration tempered by breaking news from the CBC. Royal assent is expected as early as today. Needless to say, it's a great day to be a Canadian.

(UPDATE: Read more on this story at The National Post or BBC News.)

Heterosexuals Demand A Monopoly On Screwing Kids Over

According to a recent poll conducted for The Globe/CTV, 55% of Canadians think the new marriage legislation should stand and do not want politicians to revisit the issue. It's an encouraging statistic that will no doubt cause Harper to reconsider his threat to repeal the legislation if elected Prime Minister.

One should be careful, however, in reading the poll results as a ringing endorsement of gay and lesbian rights. The survey also shows that 51% of Canadians do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should not be able to adopt children. 51%. This stat turns my stomach. Sure, the law in Ontario is clear -- gay and lesbian couples can adopt -- but it's the sentiment that upsets me. I suppose I take these things kind of personally and have always been sensitive to what others think. So, knowing that a large segment of the Canadian public has an irrational and baseless fear of allowing me to raise a child... frankly, it hurts. Do these people really believe that I, and the loving partner I eventually hope to find, am less qualified to have a child than a single parent working two jobs, or a struggling alcoholic, or a woman working on her fourth marriage? There are so many kids out there who have been mistreated or abandoned and who might blossom if provided with a stable and loving home in which to grow up. I find it bizarre that anyone would want to deny them this opportunity.

How badly do they think we'll fuck these kids up? Such strong opposition to gay adoption is a staggering blow to my faith in my fellow Canadians and a sentiment I don't think I'll ever understand. The fact that more than half of Canadians think we’ll somehow fuck kids up any more than they already have makes me want to vomit.

Klein Revisited

In a recent post, I wrote that marriage commissioners who refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples on moral or religious grounds should be forced to quit. That statement elicited several responses, including the following comment from an anonymous reader:

Anonymous said...
Actually, there is a reason for Alberta not to follow suit: they don't want to.

As long as some gov't representatives are willing to perform the service, there's no reason to force those who disagree on moral grounds to do it.

Those who don't agree with same sex marriage and don't wish to perform the services will be following the law of the land - Alberta's.

Ralph Klein hasn't been Canada's most successful politician by not following the will of the people. If the man can do anything, it's read which way the wind is blowing.

Though I've already responded in the comments section of the original post, I feel like my response warrants its own entry.

Bo said...
To Anonymous #1: I appreciate your comments, though I disagree. When I speak of marriage commissioners following the law of the land, I'm referring to federal law. Only the federal government has the right to define who can and can't be granted marriage licenses. In this case, they have said that all adults, regardless of sexual orientation can be issued a license. This is the law, whether or not Alberta chooses to recognize it as such.

As to there being "no reason to force those who disagree on moral grounds" to perform marriages for same-sex couples, I think that's untrue for both practical reasons and reasons of principle.

A practical reason: Imagine I want to get married on a particular day. I live in a small town with only two marriage commissioners at city hall. One is on vacation and the other refuses to marry me "on moral grounds." Who is supposed to perform the ceremony? Just as someone can be fired for not being able to work Saturdays or Sundays, the commissioner in this case should be let go for being unable to provide the public with the service for which he was hired.

A reason of principle: Marriage commissioners are government agents. If the government allows a particular commissioner to refuse to serve certain members of the public, then the government is guilty of discrimination. I tried to make this clear when I asked you to imagine an MTO agent refusing to issue a driver's license to a woman because he does not believe women should drive. Sure, another employee could serve this woman. "I'm sorry, I'm unable to serve you. Please wait for the next available agent," sounds like a relatively benign request, but it is pure discrimination and should not be condoned.

In Soviet Russia, Vest Wears You!

(click to enlarge)

This being the most ridiculous photo of a political leader ever published, there's simply nothing I could write that would make it any funnier.

(Picture courtesy of CalgaryGrit and the Calgary Herald.)

Deep Thought

This world would be quite a place,
if all the roads were freshly paved.

Sorry, Your Application Has Been De-Kleined

"Hands off that there definition, partner!"

Alberta Premier and local gunslinger Ralph Klein fought the redefinition of marriage to the bitter end, going so far as to threaten to ruin civil marriage for everyone by having the province pull out of the marriage business altogether. He's since backed down and acknowledged that the new, inclusive definition of marriage is a reality. The fight for marriage is over and Klein has lost.

The Premier can't seem to leave well enough alone, however, and plans to introduce legislation allowing officials, including marriage commissioners, to refuse to marry gay or lesbian couples on the basis of cultural values or religious belief. I strongly support the religious freedom of church officials, but Klein is going too far by extending protection to civil servants. Marriage commissioners are government representatives and bound to follow the law of the land. They have no more right to refuse to marry same-sex couples than a Saudi working at the MTO has to refuse to issue a driver's license to a woman. If a commissioner finds himself unable to perform his duties, then he should find another job. At least a dozen Manitoba commissioners found themselves in just this situation and were forced to quit. Ontario also requires their commissioners to perform marriages for same-sex couples. There is no reason for Alberta not to follow suit.

I appreciate the fact that the marriage war is over and that these peripheral issues will eventually sort themselves out. I also know that the redefinition of marriage will, over time, translate into even stronger public support for gay and lesbian causes and may eventually open the eyes of even the most hardened traditionalists -- including Mr. Klein.

It's Not Gay If You're On Top

The Onion takes a biting jab at insecure straight men (possibly NSFW: Not Safe For Work).

Short-Term Memory

Check out this monument to hypocrisy from right-wing nut Aizlynne over at Exposed Agenda. First, read this post written at 8:37 am...

Friday, June 24, 2005
"Bastard Alert"

I've just about had enough of the American bashing from those dapocaginous twits who call themselves representatives of Canada.

MP Pat Martin should be muzzled. You won't get any positive results by insulting people. [emphasis added]

... then read this post, written only 12 minutes earlier...

"Something Stinks in Alberta"

There is a stinky smell pervading Southern Alberta today. Wouldn't have anything to do with Paulie Martin, the Prime Moron coming to town would it?? Hmmm.. a week too late by my standards. I'm sure someone told him the optics would look good. Give me a break - pluheeze........ [emphasis added]

Yes folks, this is what passes for political discourse on the majority of conservative/right-wing Canadian blogs.

"I've done terrible things, that's for sure."

The CBC aired an interview with Karla Homolka last night, conducted less than two hours after she was released from prison. You can watch the entire interview here (RealPlayer required).

I've read a lot about Homolka and her crimes over the years, but this is the first time I've seen her since the trial and the first time I've ever heard her speak. As the camera pulled in for a tight shot of her face, I searched her eyes for a glimpse of the monster that had perpetrated the rape and murder of three young girls. I didn't find it. Granted, neither did I find confirmation of her humanity. Simply said, I remain confused. I can't tell if she was being sincere in her interview and I don't know whether she is truly remorseful or a sociopath. At least part of me wants to believe her, however, when her voice begins to tremble and she says through tears, "I would like to go back in time and re-do things".

Though I remain undecided as to her credibility, I'm steadfast in my belief that Homolka has served out her sentence and paid her debt to society. She now deserves her privacy and a chance to prove she is better for having spent twelve years behind bars. That's an unpopular stance, I know. Instead of showing Homolka the understanding and compassion that she admittedly failed to show her victims, the public would rather salivate over every detail of her horrible story. This sentiment feeds an unrelenting media circus that all at once debases serious journalism, diminishes the heinous nature of her crimes and distracts the nation from more pressing matters. Some of the interest is driven by our penchant for voyeurism, but for the most part the public seeks vengeance. An eye for an eye, so to speak. Fear not, there is evidence that this woman has and will forever continue to suffer:

Napier: So, you are today, Karla Homolka, a free woman, a truly free woman?

Homolka: No, no. I think I will never be truly free. Because there are different kinds of prisons. There are concrete prisons, and there are internal prisons. And I think I will always be in an internal prison.

(A full transcript of the interview has been made available by The Globe and Mail.)

Back In Business, Baby

I am a very bad blogger. I hang my head in shame. It's been more than a week since I posted anything of substance. To be honest, I've recently been contemplating an early but permanent departure from the blogosphere as my motivation to write has waned. Luckily, my fingers are tingling tonight, so I've decided to boot up and see if I can keep this experiment moving forward. I'm proud of what I've accomplished so far and find satisfaction in each completed entry. The problem is finding the time, energy and motivation to sit down in front of the computer and type. Well, here I am and here you are, so let's give it another try.

(click to enlarge)

I spent the weekend in Chicago, the Big City of Brotherly Wind (or whatever). My most indelible memory will be the trip to White Castle. One of my buddies is Indian and the other is Chinese, so I was left to play Neil Patrick Harris. We opted to drive there instead of riding a cheetah, but the journey was just as sweet. I ordered Combo 3: Ten burgers, two drinks, two fries. I had a feeling that the meal was meant for two people, but I wasn't about to share.

Chicago, by the way, is truly a world class city. I enjoy it more than New York, and Toronto would do well to take a few pages from its playbook. It's waterfront consists of miles of beach, park and fresh water. Buildings are hundreds of meters back from the water's edge. There's even a public zoo with free admission. The Ape House was my favorite exhibit. I challenge you to stare into the eyes of one of these great creatures and not see a little of yourself reflected back. Many people are insulted by the idea that men and apes are actually close relatives, but I'm convinced that these animals are family. It pained me, in fact, to see them caged, restless and on display.

I've been back for a week and have been semi-productive. I think I might quit my job with the bank, however, if I can find something better. I'm just not getting any shifts! So if you have a job offer or even a lead, let me know.

While I was away, my city re-branded itself. I actually love Toronto's new logo and tagline. The core campaign is creative, modern, clean and professional. I am, however, absolutely aghast at the accompanying copy. Check out the following gems from a two-page spread in the New York Times.

And while all these answers are true. It is barely scratching the surface. Toronto is one of those rare instances where its true unique nature makes it difficult to describe without being cliche.

And how else to best explain it but to begin not with the impressive CN Tower or any major skyline player, but with those intersections, streets and districts whose mention conjures up completely original feelings in each of those who've traversed them.

Toronto is nearly indefinable, nearly infinite in its possibilities for the traveller, and nearly impossible to forget once you've been there. And perhaps what makes this place so original, so individual and somehow majestic is that it is a product of natural occurrences.

What does that last one even mean? If you find yourself thinking, "Hey, that's not half bad," then you might as well drop your course in TV/VCR repair because you're never going to amount to anything. Wow. Harsh. Sorry, I'm just perplexed by how such vague, verbose, meandering prose riddled with grammatical errors and halting punctuation could be the product of $4 million dollars and thirteen months of research? The entire print campaign should be pulled immediately and either cancelled or revamped. It's currently a joke.

And finally, Tom Cruise kills Oprah (QuickTime required).