I'm still in the gray in my views on gay marriage (although I support gay rights), and I take it as a given that I must try to reconcile my beliefs in the value of the family and equal rights under the law with the evolution of our society, but then along comes the CBC who found someone to speak against the issue because gay marriage violates women's rights:

>From Agnete Kay of Calgary:

Opposition to same-sex-marriage is generally thought to be a right-wing -religious concern only. Not being very right-wing, I see it differently. My personal perspective is that there are issues of women's right here. Something that was always theirs is being taken away, namely the right to be an essential half of the institution of marriage.

Our Constitution's phrases about "not discriminate" once meant "not treat unfairly," but is now re-interpreted as "not distinguish." It is taken to mean that men and women are the very same thing.

Okay, I'm with her so far. There has been a blurring of lines these past several years because equality does not equate sameness if only because biological realities get in the way. I'm not as strong as most men, and I couldn't carry fire-fighting equipment up 50 stories or a victim down a ladder. But there are women who are strong enough and men who aren't strong enough, so the issue has always been (to me) one of evaluating our abilitities as individuals.

... Over the last hundred years there has been good progress in getting women represented in such institutions as the courts and parliament. If it is now decided that a man can represent a woman, will there be any necessity to have women in other institutions? (Emphasis added)
[...]

Huh? Maybe she's just too subtle for me. Read on:

Men are physically stronger than women. They have more influence in society. They earn higher incomes with better pensions. They are employable even after age 50. They are not subject to the potential dangers of childbirth, one of the many uncertainties of a marriage. How can two men, two equally privileged persons, say they form a marriage?
[...]

I hope she isn't saying that women need marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman because it is the only way women can make up for inequality between the genders. Does that mean that lesbians who marry will be at an even bigger disadvantage? Where does that leave single women?

If her argument hinges on the contention that a man married to a man supposedly has an advantage over a man married to a woman, what does that have to do with women's rights? Am I to suppose therefore that a heterosexual man will look at the comparative advantages and decide "Hey! I'm gonna marry me a man instead of a woman because then I'll be more privileged!"

I really, really appreciate the tireless efforts of CBC investigative reporters who uncovered this threat to women's rights and brought it to the attention of those of us who are actually trying to work out our attitudes on this issue rationally.

(via Daimnation!)

Posted by: Debbye at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.