Same-sex Marriage Reality Check

As I'm sure everybody who hasn't been living in a cave knows, Canada's same-sex marriage legislation was passed by the Senate on Wednesday assuring the passage of the legislation. It's expected to be given Royal Assent (signed) by the Governor-General this Wednesday. Snippit from BBC News:

It was approved by 47 votes to 21, and could be signed into law as early as Wednesday.

I find it interesting that the legislation is so controversial that only half of the Senators bothered to be there for the vote. Probably didn't want to miss Leno. It's not like the vote wasn't going to pass since the Senate almost always rubber stamps what the House of Commons passes. There was that one time in 1988 that the Senate blocked legislation.

In any case, I think it's valuable to look at what the legislation means:

First, it provides for Civil Marriage with the members of it having the full rights and responsibilities of straight couples. This means that no church will be forced to perform same-sex unions contrary to the fear mongering of some Conservatives. Remember that Freedom of Conscience is also a constitutional right. Besides, there are several churches such as the United Church of Canada that are already willing to do so.

Secondly, just because someone else gets marriage doesn't make straight marriage any less important. Is a diamond not a diamond when everybody has one? Allowing gay couples to marry actually strengthens the bonds of union because more people are engaged in it.

Thirdly, there may be some immigration to Canada of gay couples, mostly from the US, who want to get married. I don't think it's going to be a lot though. My take on it is that most couples will get married here on a visit and then go back to the US forcing states to deal with it. Up until now, marriages performed in others countries have been honoured legally in the home countries. This will start to force the issue more in the US. It's interesting to note that a recent attempt to ban same-sex marriage in the US has failed:

Republicans had hoped to win at least a simple majority in favor of proceeding with the amendment but were thwarted when six of their own colleagues joined all but three Democrats in voting to scuttle the measure without a vote on its substance. Several senators had said there would have been even more "no" votes if the showdown had occurred on substance rather than procedure.

Finally, the legislation says nothing about adoption; that is decided by provincial legislation. However, one province already allows it.