|
Politicians allow courts to turn them into eunuchs BY
IAN HUNTER London,
Ont. For what is probably a minority within a minority
- homosexuals who want to enter a traditional marriage - this week's unanimous
decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal declaring the ban on same-sex
marriages unconstitutional is good news. Whether it is good news for Canada,
we shall wait and see: the court has spoken; we, its vassals, obey. The
court held the existing definition of marriage, a lifelong union of a
man and a woman, is contrary to the Charter of Rights. Henceforth, marriage
means the union of any two “persons." The
decision is also good news for those Canadians fed up with democracy.
After all, the political process is lengthy and frustrating. It is hard
to persuade one's fellow citizens, and the resulting political compromises
are maddening. How much quicker and nicer to have anonymous judges answer
the great existential question: How shall we then live? It saves time,
debate and, especially, thought on our part. It
is difficult to believe that Canadians who support the traditional definition
of marriage, a definition that sustained two millennia, still can't get
the message or admit defeat; such people call on Justice Minister Martin
Cauchon to appeal the Ontario decision to the Supreme Court of Canada;
What do they think? That the Supreme Court decision will somehow be different?
Even Mr. Cauchon must have been prematurely sampling that magic weed the
federal government sees as the panacea to our problems when he told reporters,
"We really need a national solution." Look,
Mr. Minister, courts in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario have given
the same marching orders; short of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court
weighing in, how much more national can you get? It is not often that
"Svend is Right" makes for a slogan to march under, but this
is one such occasion. On Tuesday, Mr. Robinson said, "Stop the appeals,
stop the obstruction, stop the waste of taxpayers' money." The
court decision has implications for other institutions and individuals,
including the churches. The
mainline Protestant denominations will have no difficulty adjusting.
In a generous spirit of accommodation, they have already rewritten Scripture.
Whereas formerly St. Paul expressed reservations, now the pew Bible reads:
"The flesh lusteth with the spirit, and the spirit with the flesh,
so that we can all do whatever we have a mind to." Indeed, the United
and Anglican churches are ready with special rites and blessings, just
waiting for the breathless couples to arrive. No doubt they hope this
new constituency might staunch their free-falling membership, but experience
suggests otherwise. Doctrinal and liturgical innovation has a way of driving
out the faithful without bringing in the anticipated new market. For
smaller evangelical churches, and for Roman Catholics - those institutions
so quaintly unpostmodern as to believe that Scripture says what it means
and means what it says – the problem is acute. It is only a matter of
time, and likely a short time, before a gay couple shows up at the priest's
study demanding a church wedding. The minister who refuses will not only
be preferring his outmoded interpretation of the Bible to the courts'
interpretation of the Charter, but, if Bill C-250 passes, as seems probable,
any reservations he might express could be construed as a hate crime. The
Ontario decision is useful in showing up the impotence of Parliament.
The decision was issued even as an all- party committee, apparently divided,
was putting the final touches on a report. All its traipsing about, all
those sittings, those earnest points of order, all for naught; before
its report is finished, gays are wed at City Hall. No
doubt Canadians will have forgotten this by the next election, but in
case they haven't, they might consider asking candidates what point elections
serve? And, why do you aspire to be a eunuch? The
Ontario decision is bad news for teachers of constitutional law. In the
face of the argument that the Charter of Right's transformed Canada from
a regime of parliamentary supremacy into one of judicial supremacy, they
insisted, "No, no, the Charter opens the way for a dialogue, that's
all, between Parliament and courts." Ha,
some dialogue. They speak. We obey. At
least the B.C. and Quebec court decisions perpetuated the "dialogue
sham. These courts gave Parliament two years to change the law. But not
Ontario. Ontario's appeals judges struck the law down without so much
as a by-your-leave to Parliament. Effective now. Dialogue,
my hat. Monologue is putting it very politely indeed. . Ian Hunter is professor emeritus in the faculty of law at the University
of Western Ontario |