By Teresa McDonald
The recent release of Statistics Canada’s 2001 Census has set the nation buzzing about numbers.
Are Canadians divorcing as often as Americans? Are we still having 2.4 children? Are young adults living with mom and dad longer?
But there’s another important figure the survey doesn’t include: 83 per cent.
That’s how close homosexual relationships come to meeting the federal government’s definition of marriage.
Although same-sex couples have spousal benefits in Canada, marriage is not legal in any province.
And despite Ontario courts ruling the ban on gay marriage illegal, the federal government is fighting to keep marriage straight.
In a submission to the Ontario Court of Appeal by federal lawyers, the government defined marriage as a “monogamous opposite-sex union which has spiritual, economic, social and contractual dimensions.”
With this model of Canadian marriage in mind, how do same-sex relationships measure up?
In a society of divorce court and Monica Lewinsky, it appears monogamy is a condition straight marriages struggle to meet.
And since when should the government be in the spirituality business? Why are gay marriages any less spiritual than straight ones?
Two years ago, the government expanded Bill C-23 to allow same-sex couples things like pension benefits, thus granting economic status.
Recognizing homosexual couples in terms of common-law relationships takes care of the contractual dimension.
And here’s where the census comes in: the inclusion of same-sex couples in the 2001 “census family” affords official societal recognition.
The only requirement missing from same-sex couples is the opposite-sex.
Eighty-three per cent.
It’s a majority in a vote, it gets a student on the honour roll at school, but it isn’t enough to make same-sex marriages legal in Canada.
In the same legal submission, the government maintained this is not a personal attack. It is simply that same-sex unions fail to meet the “fundamental objective” of marriage.
Why isn’t five out of six good enough? Traditional marriage is breaking down whether the whole government sees it or not.
Fortunately, the current Census says that being “a couple living common-law may be of opposite or same sex.”
What the new survey found is that of 11 million households surveyed, 34,200 couples are in homosexual relationships. That’s 0.5 per cent of all Canadian couples.
It also reported that 15 per cent of lesbian couples and three per cent of gay couples are raising children.
John Fisher, the executive director of Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, EGALE, praises the inclusion of the new statistics on homosexual relationships.
“I think it’s significant because it shows we are a part of Canadian society,” says Fisher. “Clearly the government’s definition of marriage and family is based exclusively on procreation and parenting. But the diversity of modern family includes opposite-sex couples who can’t or don’t have children and same-sex couples who do,” says Fisher.
“The numbers undermine the government’s own argument that marriage is about parenting if three per cent of gay couples are raising children, then why deny them the right to marry?” he says.
The federal government has often cited religion, history and anthropology in its case against same-sex marriages.
But sociology professor Craig McKie says “Canadians aren’t holding onto the 1950s version of the family.”
Given that the status of the same-sex community in this nation has vastly improved, some may wonder why the last step — marriage — is so important.
Fisher explains. “It’s a question of providing same-sex couples with equality of choice. It sends a message that the government doesn’t view same-sex relationships as equally valued and equally respected.”
Although the issue cropped up in the throne speech that opened this session of Parliament, the subject of same-sex marriage has been conveniently diverted to a House of Commons committee — or relegated to a dust-bunny under the rug of a government out of touch with its citizens. Whichever you prefer.
When same-sex marriage is declared unconstitutional, it boils down to a discrimination based on sex.
This is not permissible according to the government’s own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Given the census findings about non-traditional families and given society’s acceptance of them, doesn’t it stand to reason that the government’s definition of marriage should keep up?