Denying gay marriage is a device by conservatives to champion their own ideas by denying the rights of others, argues Quentin Fottrell.
It was a beautiful autumn day in Toronto, a year ago this month, when the friends and family of the groom-and-groom filed into the Deer Park United Church. We leaned over pews to catch up with friends we hadn't seen in years, whispered compliments about the grooms' parents, and how elegant they looked and proud they were, surreptitiously attached our cufflinks, and helped to plump each other's hastily knotted ties.
There was an air of excitement, but this writer, who comes from a small, open economy with sometimes too small, closed minds, was like a jumping bean with anticipation. There was a more trivial question puzzling me: who the blazes would walk who down the aisle? Well, the grooms walked each other down the aisle, smiling shyly and graciously if nervously accepting all the attention, followed by their two sisters, who also did readings.
This same-sex wedding, taking place in a church in the New World on this fine November afternoon, was still something of a novelty to me. Canada has same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. I say that because both seem pretty "traditional" to me. Although the UK has civil unions with essentially the same rights as the marriage of a man and a woman, Canada defines such a union of any couple - gay or straight - as marriage.
Separating church and state makes sense. A synagogue or mosque or Catholic church or Protestant church or Scientology centre can refuse to marry a Jew and a Muslim or a Jew and a Catholic or a Scientologist and a Protestant.
That's their prerogative. More power to them. Marriage means many things to many people: it can be about children, for those who can or choose to have them, or love, money, inheritance, tax, or next-of-kin.
But Article 41 of the Constitution says: "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack."
So what? That was written for divorce, not gay marriage. I have gay friends who have children, but the State does not promise to protect them. And by withholding the right to gay marriage, it doesn't protect gay children.
How will self-styled "family values" groups protect them? Some research shows children are better if they are raised by a mother and father. Other research also shows they are better if they are raised in a loving home, rather than one steeped in constant fighting, regardless of whether they have one mother, one father, two fathers, two mothers or, in the case of my friend, two fathers and two mothers - two of which are biological parents. (Now, that's what I call hitting the motherload!)
Gay marriage doesn't damage children. But not allowing it does. It fosters a culture of prejudice, and infects the aspirations of gay children. It's not healthy for our gay children to see a future in which their role in society is restricted.
Banning gay marriage achieves nothing. There will always be gay people who want the rights, responsibilities and public respect that often come with marriage. And gay people won't go away by preventing it.
That's why the "Suffer Little Children" argument against gay marriage is morally corrupt. It's not a silver bullet, it's a rubber one: it's a dishonest way of doing damage. This has always been part of the cannon used against gay rights through the ages: if I am uncomfortable with your sexuality, I will put the children in the front lines. It feeds off the old-age toxic, insidious myth that gayness somehow damages children and childhood.
Why? Because forces that seek to ban gay marriage are really rallying against gay life. If they can't get rid of the gays, they will infantilise them by withholding their civil rights. Of course, they can pay taxes for social welfare and State schools - in fact, more if they remain unmarried - but they'd rather gay people stuck to hosting game shows for married couples, designing their wedding gowns and choosing colour schemes for their houses. I understand the State's position, but it aggrieves me to see church and State hijack marriage as being subject to only one narrow interpretation. What's more, the inclusion of roommates and siblings into the debate purposely muddies the water. (That is a separate issue.) Some folk marry to raise children in a stable environment or, if they are beyond child-bearing age or can't have kids or choose not to, for love. Pure and simple.
Breda O'Brien in these pages recently suggested: "Extending marriage-like rights to gay people would be the final declaration that marriage is no longer about children, because by definition, gay people cannot have children without the active co-operation of heterosexuals." Fasten your seat-belt, my dear, the world has moved on without you. I'm no chef or scientist, but all it takes is a lesbian and a gay man (or sperm there of).
Some conservatives want the world to stay the same, close to their own ideals, and will restrict the rights of other people to achieve that. Others allow the world to grow as they know they're just leasing their 80-odd years here, live by their own values, but let other people live with theirs.
On a personal note, I know more damaged adults who are from two-parent dysfunctional families than single ones. (Insert your Philip Larkin quote here.) If you're a heterosexual, marry someone of the opposite sex, but don't spend your energy stopping other people, even if their own love and desire to make a commitment happens to make you uncomfortable.
Some heterosexuals spend far too much time thinking of homosexuals for their own good. Wouldn't it be better to toddle along and support the institution of marriage for every citizen who is brave enough to take the step . . . period?
Marriage has changed and suffered a lot over the years: young girls being given to elderly men, the notion of a wife as a chattel, the non-status of rape within marriage, polygamy, prenups, Las Vegas pitstops and commercialisation of weddings.
Heterosexuals have not done such a great job of it. That happens when you take something for granted. Nobody is entitled to the high moral ground. It's high time for fresh blood and a makeover.
Yesterday, my Canadian friend told me how life has been since marrying his groom: "Marriage not only extends rights, it extends responsibilities, like support in the event of a break-up. The truth is that society views marriage in a certain way. Being married puts us on the same footing as our relatives, neighbours and co-workers. That's important."