" Faith over knowledge " what a queer thought.

Hey notbononoryoko, feel free to cling to a favourite stereotype ("gays and wealth prestige"), but I'm not sure where you got condos, Republicans or, for that matter, wealth prestige from anything I described. Most people who get married, regardless of class, prefer their ceremonies to be pleasant affairs with good food, music and scenery. Would it please you if we got hitched in a dumpster? Anyone who sees "gay and straight" as a "fiction" must not get out very much, and I can't make heads or tails of that non-sequitur about activism and homelessness.

Good on ya, Gawthrop, for not going along with that strange little pit-bull Barbara Findlay's insistence on keeping her name lower-case -- and congratulations on finding someone to love. I'm a straight man and a gay-marriage supporter, but y'know something... I'm not all that thrilled with the reference "victory" today, and the whole deal feels a bit Pyrrhic to me, to be honest. Very simply, one doesn't want to win like this.// We've elevated one crucial principle by subverting an equally-important one here, I think, and this really takes the bloom off the Charter for me at this point. A *real* victory for equal state recognition of different kinds of marriage would be a public-opinion one, and more importantly a Parliamentary one. Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe today (not usually my ideological linemate, but still)delineates just how the Supreme Court reference has allowed PM PM to duck and dodge on this issue, and in the end *take no real position at all.* So y'see, it's not just the right-wing shibboleth of "judicial activism" that's worrying here (although there's something to that) -- the courts-on-steroids that are the children of the Charter also permit governments to operate without actually, well, governing. Making hard choices. Lining up your supporters. Outarguing your opponents. Democracy, in short. When you can accomplish something that way, by god, you've really accomplished something. Letting the Liberals ditch on this, man, it just feels like a sneak win, it doesn't feel right. And the next time judges decide crucial questions like this, what if I don't like the results? What can I change?// Cheers, nonetheless, cheers with an asterisk I suppose, to all those who'll be getting queerly married soon. I wonder if there are any gay Tyeenas who similarly aren't too happy with the fact that the Canadian government does *not* in fact support your right to marry -- only courts do? Please advise.

tee-hee giggle snort, have a great event, you great guy you. Sincerely.

It's unfortunate when a people achieve "equal status" of any kind anywhere around the world, the real evil of that society shines ever brighter.

just in case Randall meant me, I should clarify my chuckle was on Gawthrop's side, because he called my shot fairly well, and I meant that sincerely, sincerely. However I do believe that nobody is actually gay or straight, but both, and I'll fight like hell for those who define themselves as gay to do so, and that those who define themselves as straight are just conditioned fools living in safety, which I supposed, completely describes this here hockey player, sad but true. The oppression of self-defined gays is real, and creates a political separatism. But these are all conservative fictions, both the definitions, the oppressions and the separations, and I hope the next step, what Stan Persky calls post-gay, comes true. Then (some, self-stereotyped) self-defined gays can turn their activism towards real issues, rather than fashion statements. That would be the ...er...non-sequitar...about poverty and homelessness...something that is actually the ONLY sequitar, all other things being the frivolous non-sexquitars. oops. That being said, Bono is singin' Love Rescue Me on the box, and it's going out to the author, Mr. G, non-ironically and as I said, sincerely.

Thanks notyokoorbono, sincerely. The fact you're familiar with Persky's "post-gay" tells me you've thought more about this than you let on in your opener. I agree that no one's 100 per cent anything. But hey, if you're going to use "hockey player" to affirm your straightness, then I'm afraid I'll have to sentence you to half an hour in the dressing room of the Cutting Edges, a Duffer League team at UBC that's as queer as they come and is currently in first place in an otherwise all-straight league. (I play centre & left wing, now third in team scoring.) Hmmmm. Come to think of it, do I know you?....Thanks as well to Earnest Canuck, who makes a good point about who took the REAL leadership on this. Elsewhere in the Globe, an aide to the PM said that Martin took a while "for his gut to catch up to his head". Ah, but once it did, Martin the classic opportunist Liberal saw an opening provided for him by Trudeau. And now, by legal default, Canada's the hippest country in the world rather than the most boring. Did anyone see last year's edition of The Economist with the dope-smoking moose wearing shades?

Earnest Canuck is right. It's a cheesy victory imposed by our jurocracy. A real decision signifying true social acceptance would be in a national referendum (of course, gay marriage advocates are zero for 13 in the US). Given that our weasel politicians would never have the jam to let the people actually express an opinion on the matter, I think every self respecting Christian minister should mail their license to marry back to the government and refuse to participate in a system that is irretrievably corrupted. Chris Kempling Quesnel, BC

It seems to me that the reason a self respecting gay couple would seek to have their conjugal relationship blessed by the church where they worship is because they do indeed have self respect, and demand more than public acknowledgement of a civil contract. If you are not prepared to grasp the dimensions of the argument and difficulty of the forum in which Ingham and others are fighting for the principle, may I suggest you take an appropriate Canadian stance on the matter, and remain silent? Especially since you now have what you want. Dismissing the seriousness of the conflict underway is indeed disrespectful to Ingham and others.

The "gay and straight as a fiction" ideology is that espoused by Gore Vidal. I tend to hold similar views. People as people, not as defined by their sexuality. I don't pick friends based on what they do in bed. I don't consider one's choice of same, opposite, or even cross-species sex partner to make them "hip" or somehow different. You, on the other hand, are busy flaunting your preferences and proclivities in an obvious effort to gain attention. When the day comes when you DON'T refer to yourself as queer or feel the need to drool over the lush red lips of an imported hockey star or work out surrounded by buff, well-muscled potential quickies-in-the-shower-stalls is the day you're really 'arrived'.

Ah Chris Kempling, good to see that you're back. First, referenda do not work, especially when it comse to promoting equality. Although, I believe that in Canada that a referendum approving same sex marriage would actually succeed, it is still wrong to do so. It becomes an us vs. them issue where the us is the majority. Fear breeds contempt and people like yourself do everything in your power to spread the fear that homosexuality is a threat to “our” way of life – homophobia, in fact, is a legitimate term and a condition that councillors should be treating. Anyway, imposing the will of the majority on a minority group a healthy society does not make. It’s truly democratic you say? What nonsense, how is denying a group of people the same rights afforded to the majority a democracy? But you’ll pathetically hide behind your particular brand of Christianity. Once again, I pose the following question: where in the bible does it explicitly state that homosexuality is wrong? Does this not clash with the “love thy neighbour” philosophy? And please do not answer with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it’s been so bastardized and twisted to justify hate. Also, Chris, I still need to know how much I can get for my daughter when I sell her into slavery.

I'm not sure which Supreme Court decision the writer is referring to which ostensibly "affirmed same sex rights", but it couldn't have been the one issued last week. In that decision the court affirmed the following rights: 1) The constitutional authority of Parliament to make legislations with respect to marriage (which nobody doubted); and 2) The right of clergy to refuse to solemnize such marriages. The court refused to rule on whether there was a consisitutional right to marriage between same-sex partners. Now, I am pretty puzzled over all the media spin, and the only conclusion I can come to is....most hacks don't bother to do their homework! Can't figure it out...

Can't figure it out, RSD? Well, you've missed the big picture, so allow me to help. Your first example of what the court affirmed reinforces my point. "Nobody doubted" Parliament's authority? Um, how about the dozens of cowardly politicians sitting in that very same Parliament, who avoided the issue for years hoping that the lower courts would do their work for them (as indeed became the case in six provinces)? They're not exactly "nobody", are they? The decision last week you're so quick to dismiss also said there was no impediment to extending the definition of marriage to include gay men and lesbians. The Constitution, it said, is "a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life." No media spin necessary: by any definition, the decision affirmed same sex marriage rights. Now it's up to the politicians to follow through. Now, if you'll quit being such a pedant and do your own homework, you'll arrive at the same conclusion.

Sorry DG, the Court didn't affirm Charter rights, except with respect to clergy, and it didn't affirm a Charter right of same-sex couples to marry. It expressly declined to answer the question of whether the existing definition of marriage is unconstitutional. It merely said, the rights intended to be conferred by federal statute would be consistent with the Charter. It did not say that such legislative entitlement would required by the Charter. It merely said this, if the right to civil marriage is extended by statute, then the federal government has the legislative power to do this. In so doing, it must not interfere with an existing Charter right of freedom or religion. Clear?

They're not exactly "nobody", are they? er, well, according to St. Pierre, they are, but that's not to lessen the argument. Just to make a nod to the holy words of our saint, brother canoe, who also doth say, as we all together, that the bedroom hath no place for the state, nor doth it admit Steven Harpers man-tits either. Do I hear an amen? May the Pierre be with you, Mr. G...and you the congregation of one, say....

Why is it that an intelligent essay is followed not by intelligent discussion but by readers bickering and insulting one another. I hate this trend. It'd be nice to see rebuttals or additions or any reasonable comment directed at the essay.

I wish for you all the best of what you wish for yourself, Daniel. Congratulations are in order... not bad for a guy who once described himself as "born with a silver spoon shoved up my ass"...............

I wish for you all the best of what you wish for yourself, Daniel. Congratulations are in order... not bad for a guy who once described himself as "born with a silver spoon shoved up my ass"...............

RSC - I see where you're coming from, and can also see the flaw in your argument. The Supremes did not say the government HAS to legalize gay-marriage, because that's the government's intetion in the first place! I mean, they submited the question to the Supreme Court in order to make sure the legislation would be bullet-proof. They would have ruled "you must legalize this" if the government had appealed the lower courts ruligs, which it didn't. That's also the reason why they declined to answer on whether the current/traditional definition of marriage is constitutional: the federal government has already accepted that it isn't by not appealing the provincial courts ruling that the definition IS inconstitutional. This is CLEAR to me. Daniel - Congratulations and best wishes. Anne Cameron (off topic) - Daughters of Copper Woman is one of the very best books I've ever read! Couldn't put it down!

Congratulations Dan

Thanks Brenner, for putting it better than I did. Thanks Mike (can you believe it?) and Anne--nice to hear from you after all these years. (Did I really say "silver spoon", etc.? I was probably doing a mea culpa for that stupid letter to the Nanaimo Times in '82...) And Imogene Baksur, my thanks to you, too--you're absolutely right: the civilized debate is always more interesting than anonymous personal insults via e-mail. (For example, instead of calling RSD a "pedant", I should have just said that he's looking at the glass as half empty....)

Good article. Congrats on your wedding

Thank you, "Brenner". My life has been incredibly blessed. May I suggest, to those who seem puzzled by Daniel's self identification as a "gay man",that the reason some of us do, often and usually, publicly identify ourselves as queer is that so many others of us fear the consequences if their sexual identity becomes known. Right now the bigots are riding high, and there are people with power who would not hesitate to legislate compulsory "treatment" to "cure" us of our "sickness". Some people would lose their jobs, others would be denied housing, as the neo-cons flex their muscles we are too often reminded of the pink triangle. I don't think Dan is bragging or trying for attention when he identifies publicly as a queer; I see it as doing something which might one day lead to a public climate in which nobody might ever have to worry. I hate labels but I carry a long string of them; writer, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, dyke, socialist, anti-corporate agitator...and, probably, idiot, fool, and ugly old witch, depending on the motes in other peoples eyes. Since I first, at age forty, realized "who" and "what" I really was, I have been "out", and, I suspect, at some cost. But it took at least one rock out of the arsenal of the fanatics of churchianity who are so obsessed with everyone else's choices. Thirty years ago we were not safe, not by a long shot. And the recent sentence handed out to the brave men who beat a queer to death suggests we still are not safe. And so if some of us stand up and publicly identify our queer status... and manage to survive... life might seem less terrifying to some kid who wound up with the kind of teacher who would insist homosexuality is a sure sign of lunacy and the mark of a doomed-to-hell sinner. There is strong proof that youth suicide is skyrocketing, and other strong proof that most of the kids who end their lives did so because of their queer condition. If even one frightened child is encouraged in any way by Gawthrops' openness, then Dan has managed to do something the rest of this society hasn't been able to do. I ask all of you to take a moment to think of the child who holds your heart in his or her sometimes grubby hands. Now think of that child trying to cope with emerging sexuality in a world where someone like Christ Kempling is , say, the principal of the school. What absolute torment can be inflicted on that kid by that mentality? The day may well come when nobody will need to fear. But that day isn't here, yet. And so some of us publicly identify. By doing so we might make life seem like an option to your child, your grandchild.// Ah, Dan, that theatre debate in '82... makes me feel like a prophet...even back then I said you were a writer!

The December 9th SCC decision also gives me as a Unitarian minister the religious freedom to perform weddings for gay couples. For decades I have been marrying divorced Catholics turned away by their priests, and Jewish/Gentile couples turned away by their rabbis. This is simply an extension of that freedom. Some gays *do* want God invited to their weddings, however they understand that concept.

Wow, Anne. What a great posting! I had no idea you were "family" :) I agree wholeheartedly. I came out at age 27 four years ago and have not looked back at all. I'm so much happier being free to be who I am right now, and my loving partner (a big fan of your book as well!) and I have very similar experiences with regards to our sexualities and coming out. We believe in living in "Pride", and by that we mean doing our little part to tell/show people we're just like everyone else, just people struggling with the hardship of live, raising kids, etc. We walk hand-in-hand EVERYWHERE in this city and the reaction we get is mostly positive. Funny enough the only place we had people yell "Fucking Fags" was in the West End! I think that's the least we can do. PS.: I'm quite appalled with my previous posting! I swear I usually spell much better and that I know there is no such word as INconstitutional! I wrote that at the end of the business day yesterday, right during brain-down time! LOL My apologies.

Wow, Anne. What a great post! I agree wholeheartedly. I came out at age 27 four years ago and have not looked back at all. I'm so much happier being free to be who I am right now, and my loving partner (a big fan of your book as well!) and I have very similar experiences with regards to our sexualities and coming out. We believe in living in "Pride", and by that we mean doing our little part to tell/show people we're just like everyone else, just people struggling with the hardship of live, raising kids, etc. We walk hand-in-hand EVERYWHERE in this city and the reaction we get is mostly positive. Funny enough the only place we had people yell "Fucking Fags" was in the West End! I think that's the least we can do. PS.: I'm appalled with my previous post! I swear I usually spell much better and that I know there is no such word as INconstitutional! I wrote that at the end of the business day yesterday, right during brain-down time! LOL My apologies.

The legalizing of gay marriage is important, IMO, simply because it will stabilize society, proclaiming that it's definitely not OK to insult or abuse this (or any) specific group. That doesn't seem to be such a lot to ask of the rightwing bigots, does it?

I'm straight, but gay marriage makes me proud to be Canadian. What else can we lead the world in? Perhaps the right to assisted suicide.

Now don't forget the responsibilities of gay marriage...and the hazards..eg. divorce, splitting assets etc....

The best thing about this debate is the growth and change in people's attitudes, the very progression outlined in Dan's article. Not everyone, and not everyone who's put forward an opinion here, has always been as accepting of gays and lesbians as they are today. That is progress, and it's not to be taken lightly or overlooked. And there are some who still need to learn to rethink their feelings, whether about gays, or women, or minorities. So while there's been progress, there's still a journey ahead.

Is this posting system working?

Here's my prediction on the judicial handling of this issue: within five years, a Charter challange will be brought against the (upcoming) universal marriage legislation, arguing that it is an exercise in discrimination against gays. The challenge will argue that gay identity, bonding, and behaviour are unique, sui generis, and incapable of being shoehorned into traditional heterosexual categories. It will argue that the imposition of marriage responsibilities is a heterosexist straitjacket designed to control and marginalize gay behaviour. And guess what....I predict the Supreme Court will agree and strike down the legislation as contrary to the Charter equality rights.....

Why do we have the things that we have is a question asked by many. Considering Canada, the answer mostly can be found in the political directions. Since the arrival of Trudeau the country has been turned over to a Nation of "don't offend", which expression has many meanings. Offensive dogs in the neighbourhood, the same sex rise of special status, the growth of self-inflicted diseases, the decline in church attendance as it would imply commitment, obligations, following the rules of life contained in it. Why - because people have no longer responsibility, cradle to grave care, unions that become unregistered political parties expressing their views without having the approval of the majority.   The heavy hand of dictatorial power taken on in governments since 1969, a nation ruled by hired hands from the top down, the corruption of patronage, the strange belief that a language minority and culture of sodomy has the right to be equal. Many things causing us to slide towards the sewer......

It is a shame that Mr. Gawthorp seems to think the end of the road has come for gays and lesbians seeking happiness/acceptance/etc with same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians who think they have achieved something because Will and Grace is on television and because they may now legally mimic heterosexual values and ideals in church are as delusional as Stephen Harper. To call Mr. Gawthorp a traitor might be a bit dramatic, but way to cave in in the name of self-interest, Daniel.