Toronto hosts the 3rd largest pride day in North America with over a million people flocking to the city over the weekend. I did not celebrate because I was roasting at a soccer tournament in Mississauga. Nevertheless, in keeping with the occasion, I thought I would do something I have been meaning to do for a long time—write a letter to my local member of parliament. The Martin liberals are trying to enact a bill which redefines marriage for the purposes of federal legislation so that those in non-traditional relationships of some permanence can access certain entitlements that have long been denied to them.
This is a remarkable move given that the Martin government is a minority government and an unsuccessful vote in the House of Commons could bring down the government. It would then mean that the ensuing election would likely be fought on the issue of same sex marriage with extremely bitter and divisive consequences.
Here is the letter I have written. Feel free to borrow bits of it for your own purposes.
John Godfrey, MP
Room 322, West Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Sir:
Re: Bill C-38
I write to you as a member of your constituency who is both a (non-practising) member of the Ontario bar and a serious theologian in the Masters of Theological Studies program at the Toronto School of Theology. In both capacities, I firmly endorse the Liberal Party”s initiative to redefine the term “marriage” in order to broaden the application of federal statutes and regulations. I offer my endorsement on two fronts:
First, writing as a lawyer: I agree with the liberal “sales pitch” that this is an issue of equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To the extent that current legislation functions arbitrarily to exclude some citizens from benefits enjoyed by others, it is inevitable that someone will mount a successful challenge. By Charter-proofing legislation, the liberal government is being proactive and avoiding the expense and uncertainty that would arise from a successful challenge. More importantly, to the extent that equal treatment under the law enshrines a fundamental social value, it is, quite simply, the right thing to do.
Second, writing as a theologian, I invite you to disregard theological discourse in your deliberations. This may sound odd, but my reasons are twofold.
1) I am disturbed by the caterwauling of conservative theological institutions which claim, along with Stephen Harper, that marriage is meant to be a monogamous heterosexual lifelong union. There is no more basis (biblical or otherwise) for this claim than there is for any other regarding the nature of marriage. What is most disturbing is the fact that a few of these institutions receive considerable funding from American counterparts and this enables these groups to mount lobby campaigns disproportionate to their interests. American dollars have no business influencing domestic policy.
2) There is nothing sacrosanct about the current definition of marriage. It is a legal definition and therefore has no theological basis. No doubt earlier legislators were privately influenced by matters of faith, and no doubt this is true of you as well, but matters of faith remain off the public record. Yes, theologians have much to say about the institution of marriage as a covenant between two people before God. But they must butt out when the government deliberates upon the benefits it will accord those who enter into such a union, or any other union for that matter. Such is a matter of public policy—not theology.
Your truly, etc.