But I do not believe the psychological discomfort at the actions of other people is sufficient grounds to deny those other people their human rights as guaranteed by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Interestingly, the real ground for changing the definition of marriage appears to be that _not_ to do so would impose psychological discomfort.
Why not simply change the law to recognize "civil unions", a separate but equal legal category? By "separate but equal" I do not mean "separate but not really equal", which was the subterfuge to which Jim Crow resorted. I mean _really_ equal, in terms of the conferral of rights and responsibilities under our law (as exists now under our Income Tax Act). Why isn't that good enough? Because (some) gays and lesbians want the pyschological comfort that comes with the marriage label. It is about _recognition_, which is to say it is about providing pyschological benefits to a certain class of people who have been discriminated against historically.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Geoff strikes again! Again!
Date: 2005-02-02 10:40 pm (UTC)Interestingly, the real ground for changing the definition of marriage appears to be that _not_ to do so would impose psychological discomfort.
Why not simply change the law to recognize "civil unions", a separate but equal legal category? By "separate but equal" I do not mean "separate but not really equal", which was the subterfuge to which Jim Crow resorted. I mean _really_ equal, in terms of the conferral of rights and responsibilities under our law (as exists now under our Income Tax Act). Why isn't that good enough? Because (some) gays and lesbians want the pyschological comfort that comes with the marriage label. It is about _recognition_, which is to say it is about providing pyschological benefits to a certain class of people who have been discriminated against historically.