And theyyyyyyy're off!

So, the religious groups in Canada are at arms about same-sex marriage, which comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody.

(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)

So my much, much, much, much, much better half informed me that in mass the other day, the priest (for, apparently, the fourth time in as many weeks) got into a tirade about same-sex marriage; at the end of which, apparently, someone stood up and cheered.

Now, I want it understood that this comes as second-hand information, and therefore should be given the grain of salt you feel it deserves; but from the description I got, there are a lot of arguments that were used which really, really scare me.

I will ignore the religious arguments he used, since I don't believe that any one religion should be writing our laws, he was basically singing to the choir there. The religious arguments have no meaning outside the Catholic faith, and as such have no influence upon the making, interpretation or enforcement of new laws. So, I'll ignore them.

One argument he did use which I've heard a lot is that the ruling was handed down by the supreme court, not by a democratic vote. He went on to claim that the majority does not want gay marriage, and therefore it should be prohibited.

Apparently, he fails to understand the concept of tyrrany of the majority. One of the fundamental flaws of a democratic system is that when majority rules, the rights of the minorities are at risk; and even the most ardently homophobic would not claim that homosexuals are not a minority. In a way, that's really why the Supreme Court of Canada (and the US) exists. Their entire purpose for being is to ensure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or, in the US, the Bill of Rights) applies to all citizens. Minority, majority, whatever. Their role is to ensure that the rights assured to all citizens by the constitution are not abridged by the democratic process.

Case in point: when the Supreme Court of the US overturned the laws which prohibited interracial marriage, they had approval of over 90% of citizens in the states where such laws were in effect. Now, you would be hard-pressed to find someone today who agrees that these laws were right and just. That's the whole reason why the supreme court is appointed, not elected. Their job is to do the right thing, as dictated by the constitution; not the popular thing.

There was also a suggestion which truly scared me. He suggested that this was an attempt to take power away from the Catholic church.

One question: what power?

The Catholic church has no role in the writing of laws, the interpretation of those laws, or the enforcement of the law. The Catholic church, as far as the laws of the land are concerned, does not exist; and this is the arena in which gay marriage is being decided.

Second question: what power is being taken away?

The finding of the supreme court is very specific: namely that allowing gay marriage is legal provided (and the supreme court was very specific on this one) that no religious institution is required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if they choose not to do so.

So, what power is being taken away from the Catholic church? The short answer is "none." The Catholic church is not required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, should they choose not to do so. Within the framework of the Catholic church, they still have full autonomy where marriage is concerned; but they have no influence upon marriages performed outside that framework. It could be pointed out that they never did.

What does this mean? Well, when you come down to it, I suspect that this isn't really about Gay marriage at all. My suspicion is that they want an acknowledgement by the government that the Catholic faith is the "correct" faith.

And that, frankly, is a very, very scary place to go.

The absurdity of politics

So, I'm seriously considering running for office.

No, I'm not joking.

Okay, this may seem hypocritical, considering that I didn't even vote in the last federal election in Canada; largely for two reasons: 1) There really wasn't anyone in my riding worth voting for, and I take my vote very seriously and 2) Canada's policy of giving $1.75 per vote to parties which earn more than 2% of the popular vote really rubbed me the wrong way. It struck me as undemocratic, and frankly, I just didn't like it.

So, I'm thinking of running as an independent. If nobody'll put up someone worth voting for, I'll try to be someone worth voting for. As an independent, I'm ineligible for the $1.75, so I see no hypocrisy in this course of action.

The real issue I have with politics is that there are too damn many politicians. There are too many people who either blindly follow the party line so that they don't have to think for themselves or have made a life out of pissing off the smallest possible number of people. Just once, I'd like to see someone who has no party line standing at center stage. Someone who knows, realistically, that they're not going to win the election, someone who has nothing to lose going into it, but at the very least has one golden opportunity to make the candidates who just may win address the issues. If nothing else, it'll get people talking; and maybe that's enough.

Seriously, am I the only one who wishes that once, just once, someone would stand in the spotlight and just cut through all the bull? You object to same sex marriage? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. You want to pray in school? Do so, but don't expect anyone else to do it. You want to have government-sponsored Daycare? Perfect, it will be made available to those who have or are actively seeking steady jobs; 'cause I ain't paying to take your kids off your hands so that you can sit at home and watch Dr. Phil. Your church opposes same-sex marriage? Great, you'll be thrilled to know that nobody's requiring them to perform such a ceremony. You object to abortion? Fine, nobody's forcing you to have one. You object to stem-cell research? Great, when they cure Alzheimer's, you can deny yourself treatment. You want secede from the rest of the country? Swell; here's a boat and a paddle, France is thattaway. You want land when you separate? Okay, how does Ellesmere Island strike your fancy? You say that allowing gay marriage will open the door to polygamy? Probably true; so what?

Just once, I'd like to see someone running for office speak in a way that isn't calculated to keep from pissing off too many people. I'd like to see someone speak in a way which isn't designed to keep the majority happy. I'd like to see someone running for office not just speak, but actually say something.

Sadly, those kinds of people don't get elected; and realistically, I won't either. But it'll make people talk, and maybe that's enough.

Okay, rant over. I just had to get that off my chest.