If you don't believe in it, don't do it!

Academy Bed & Breakfast now

Academy Bed & Breakfast after September

John Irving, author of The World According to Garp, The Cider House Rules and A Prayer for Owen Meany, was on George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight the other night. (See http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/George_Stroumboulopoulos_Tonight/1595682788/ID=2235874723) Irving has been a stalwart supporter of equal treatment for people regardless of differences—in gender preference particularly. Stroumboulopoulos played a clip of Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry, on a homophobic rant while he was still in the running and trying to turn a tide that was quickly shifting against him. (Remember the “I would close three federal agencies: commerce, education and . . . and . . .” speech?) The question to Irving was, “What do you think of comments like that?” If you click on the link above, you can hear his reply; if not, it was something like: “If you don’t believe in gay marriage, my best advice to you is to avoid falling in love and marrying someone of the same gender. Likewise, if you’re not pro-choice regarding abortion, don’t abort your foetuses. We don’t tell you hard liners what to do, why do you feel you have to direct us?”

There’s something of American “individual rights” mentality in that response, but there’s some food for thought as well. In a similar vein to Irving’s point of view, I would tend to add: “If you believe the Bible literally read to be the one and only true source of instruction and guidance for humans, read it carefully and apply it to yourself as best you can, but refrain from applying it to your neighbours. Encourage them, rather, to study it for themselves and act upon it if it moves them.” The urge to use civil government to enforce a uniform ethic is always there, as witness the current attempt to hold a parliamentary debate on “when life begins,” a conundrum that can’t possibly be resolved in a debate in the Canadian parliament at this time.

Is human biology ethical? moral? We’re designed for a scenario in which procreation was mandatory for survival, so important that the urge to copulate had to be as strong as the urge to eat lest indifference cause our species to dwindle. Unfortunately, in our age survival hinges on our ability to limit procreation, while the libido designed for an earlier aeon ticks on. Imagine what the world would be like if we could devise a new way to procreate. In order to have a baby, suppose two people would have to face each other for ten minutes while kneeling on dried peas, tapping each other on the shoulders continuously with peeled birch sticks and chewing a special gum. After ten minutes, they would exchange DNA by swapping their wads of gum and one of them would develop and pass an egg, which they would take turns tending until it hatched nine months later. Accidental or unwanted pregnancies would be rare and we would certainly have resolved the abortion debate. Sexual union would be just the most pleasurable way of expressing intimacy and love, or, perhaps, be available as an alternative to Scrabble.

I thought I detected the exasperation of weariness on John Irving’s face at the question; that “must it always be about this?” ennui that we’re all beginning to feel over the questions of same-gender marriage and abortion. His “If you don’t believe in it, don’t do it” may be as close to an answer as it’s possible to get on these issues

 . . . and a few others you could undoubtedly name.

Same Gender Marriage

I watched cpac for four hours last night to see what was being said about Stephen Harper's motion asking for MPs to decide whether or not to bring back the same-sex marriage question. What I found hard to understand was how few of the principals of any party were present for the debate. Jack Layton appeared for a few minutes while his wife was speaking against the motion, and the BLOQ had no need to be there, since they had already decided to vote against the motion, en masse. (Also true of the NDP; I'm not sure why they were there except possibly to try convincing a few more conservatives to vote against it.)
Notable was the lack of information on the part of the Conservative speakers. Backbenchers all, they gave roughly the same speech: 1. the traditional concept of marriage has served us well for millenia and should not be changed, 2. children do best in a family where they know both parents and where those parents are a man and a woman; children's rights have not been considered, 3. expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will weaken the institution of marriage and affect family life negatively over time.
On the other side, several more prominent Liberals including Hedy Fry argued most emphatically that 1. children were central to the same-sex marriage legislation in that children of same-sex couples could now hold their heads up and be proud of their parentage, 2. a reinstatement of the old marriage definition would be illegal since it would mean that those same-sex couples already married would enjoy a right future gay and lesbian couples would not have, and 3. the broadening of the marriage definition does no harm, and is therefore the right thing to do in the interest of equality.
There were other points made. Conservative members either did not understand the points being made by Liberals and New Democrats, or they had been instructed not to acknowledge the questions put to them if they fell outside pre-approved categories. For instance, various Liberals and New Democrats pressed the Conservative speakers to assert firmly that they would table new legislation if the motion being discussed were to pass. Ken Epp (Edmonton-Sherwood Park) did finally answer this in the affirmative, but it appeared the other Tories were afraid to enter into any discussion on process through which the constitution would have to be changed or on the need to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
I'm pretty sure Harper never intended this motion to pass. Having presented it, however, he can say to his electors that he kept his promise to reintroduce it. He's an intelligent person and even if his backbenchers are clueless on the constitutional implications of reversing the definition of marriage, Harper isn't. He hoped to catch Stephane Dion off guard after only a few days in office as Liberal leader, I'm sure.
I expect we will have seen the last of this issue. Harper can truthfully say that he gave the House of Commons and opportunity to make an earlier mistake right, and they turned it down. What a lot of hokey! Does he think the citizenry just fell off the turnip truck? He may be right, if he's judging by the parade of backbenchers prominent in yesterday's debate!

geoe41