Supporting Same Sex Marriage

There are two articles in this posting about same sex marraige. They are different in focus, but together form a supporting argument for same sex marraige. Both articles have been published in the Ming Pao Daily's Bilingual Forum.

The first article takes a sociological perspective on same sex marriage, while the second one approaches this topic from a human rights perspective.

---
Article One

SAME SEX MARRIAGE WILL NOT DESTROY FAMILY AS A FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL INSTUTITION

The issue of same sex marriage has divided this country. Is it a matter of protecting human right, as the supporting camp has argued? Or is it a matter of protecting family as a social institution, as the opposing camp has argued? As a supporter of same sex marriage, I would argue that the legal recognition of same sex marriage will not destroy family as a fundamental social institution. On the contrary, this institution will be strengthened by an expanded definition of marriage, as proposed in the revised Marriage Act.

Family is a fundamental social institution. Both the opposing and supporting camps, I believe, will agree on this. This institution, however, has always manifested itself in many forms, beyond what the opposing camp likes to define as “nuclear family”. While marriage is mostly the beginning point of a family, the resulting structure of the family may vary. We have everything from single-parent families to nuclear families to extended families. Families may be headed by a man, a woman, a man and woman together, or more than one man and/or one woman (extended families or polygamous families), regardless of how marriage is defined and conducted, or at all. It is clear therefore that there is really no such thing as the “best” form of family. As a fundamental social institution, it is as much a cultural as natural product of humankind.

The opposing camp is deeply concerned that the legal recognition of same sex marriage will destroy the family. Their major argument is that same sex marriage cannot result in procreation, which is the key to the continuation of not only our family institution, but also human society as such. I have tried very hard to look at the potentially negative impacts same sex marriage has on the continuation of the family. I have to say that I cannot understand how extending the right of marriage to homosexuals can harm or nullify the family or heterosexual marriage. The only way imaginable that this happens is over time, more and more humans “become” homosexuals and thus overwhelm the heterosexual minority. But then, we are still not seeing the end of family, as procreation is still possible as long as humankind is biologically composed of the two sexes. So not to dwell too much on absurd futuristic conjecture, I can only conclude that the fundamental fear of the opposing camp is not warranted.

Beyond procreation, a family serves many more significant functions, including the protection and nourishment of family members (inclusive of but not limited to children). I am sure that if we lay all the available research findings in front of us, we can neither prove nor disprove the capability of same sex couples to protect and nourish their family members, at least not worse or better than their heterosexual counterparts. And their heterosexual counterparts are not always doing a fine job any way. Marraige has never been permitted based on projected capacity of couples to become adeqaute parents.

By extending the right of marriage to homosexuals, Canada will become a more inclusive society. It takes tremendous courage to take this step, as it requires that we embrace new forms of family with which many of us are not familiar and of which many of us may never have first experience. It is natural for human beings to fear the unfamiliar, and it is through open and trusting dialogue that we may be able to overcome our fear. Let us show the world that we are not a culture of fear and hatred, but a culture of love and mutual respect.

---
Article Two

SAME SEX MARRIAGE - MISCONCEPTIONS IN THE OPPOSING ARGUMENT

As the Canadian parliament is going to decide on same sex marriage, I would like to critique the essential misconceptions in the opposing argument. I believe that these misconceptions, having to do with our understanding of the democratic system in which the issue of same sex marriage plays out, have not been challenged and debated openly in the Chinese media.

---
1. Same sex marriage is not a human rights issue.

This misconception lies at the core of the opposing argument, suggesting that marriage is not a right, but a privilege. On the other hand, the same argument states that marriage is an essential, perhaps the most critical, human institution, without which our society - or human civilization - will no longer exist. Here lies the illogicality of this argument. If marriage (and its associated institution - the family) is a core human institution, how can one argue that it has nothing to do with human rights?

The right to marriage is dealt with in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the rights to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

While same sex marriage might not have been included explicitly in the original conception of Article 16, it nonetheless affirms that marriage is a human right - essentially because it belongs to the most basic of human institutions.

2. The will of the majority (referring to supporters of heterosexual marriage) should prevail over that of the minority.

To those opposing same sex marriage, since homosexuals represent the minority of the human race, they should submit themselves to the will of the majority, the heterosexuals. It is true that the principle of "the majority rules" is an important foundation for democracy. But let us not forget that the majority principle is about governance, while the minority principle is about human rights. And marriage is not an issue of governance.

A democratic system's major contribution to human existence is in protecting the rights of the minorities, so that they are able to live side-by-side with the majorities without the fear of oppression. This is what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all about.

3. The courts have been too eager to impose their "liberal" position on the Canadian society.

So far, many provincial courts of appeal have ruled in favour of same sex marriage, charging that the federal law is not constitutional, in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the amendment of the federal law is in the hands of the parliament. The opposing argument has been criticizing the judges to be too active in imposing their "positions" on the Canadian society, a phenomenon labelled as "court activism". Imagine that the courts had ruled in favour of the opposing argument, would their proponents be making the same accusation?

Living in a democratic society, we must be very careful not to fall into a self-fulfilling trap of supporting the system only when it favours our interests. If we agree to the rules of the game, sometimes we win and sometimes we don't. The courts in Canada are fair, and historically, like courts in other respectable democratic system, have played an important role in ensuring that the rights of the Canadian people are protected in accordance with the rule of law (the Constitution). In this kind of system, it is the people's right to bring their discontent to the court and ask for a verdict. The homosexual couples who wish to marry like every other Canadian have done so.

This is not to say that our judicial system is perfect and requires no improvement, but it is counter-productive to accuse the courts of activism simply because one's position has not been favoured.