Let's get this clear from the outset. I'm not gay, I'm not homophobic, I consider myself someone open and tolerant and I have gay friends who know my position on marriage and it does not bother them. In short, I give you a very objective view of the subject. In fact, I even had the chance to speak directly to Jack Layton, NDP leader who has made about gay marriage crusade, and he agreed with me and told me I had reservations legitimate topic. So I am announcing that I was against gay marriage. My opposition is not extreme and is not motivated by religious reasons, but legal. I will expose them. First of games, proponents of gay marriage say that, by law, must be married to enjoy certain benefits, including some plans of the SAAQ, CSST or even legal devolution. For those less familiar with the area of the estate, I quickly explained that if a spouse dies and there is no will, her spouse can not inherit. You have to be married. This is not isolated because, according to statistics, about half the population of Quebec has no will. Getting back to basics, pro-marriage tell me that the law was unfair for gays and that they were discriminated against because it was impossible for them to marry. I tell them they were partly right. Why? Because for all the hype about gay marriage, no one has mentioned that there was a bypass: civil union.
Civil union is what? It is a contract, virtually identical to a marriage (in France is practically the PACS). There are minor differences between marriage and civil unions. Here they are: marriage is possible from 16 years of civil union, 18. Also, marriage (if one excludes cancellations) ends in divorce (one trial), while civil unions goes, in most cases by a notarized joint declaration, ie say another contract that negates the first (it is possible, but rare, that civil union ends in divorce court). And finally, THIS IS OPEN TO SAME-SEX SPOUSES! In short, the civil union is an institution flexible, simple and light and makes it eligible to vest legal and all other public and social require a marriage.
What I wonder is why the gay community has not jumped at the chance? With civil unions, gays have both ends and the means to fully enjoy the privileges of civil rights. A civil union is a whole side of the debate that has been excluded and I do not know why. Otherwise what is the real intention was to allow gays to gay youth of 16 years can get married? I doubt it. Frankly, regardless of sexual orientation, I always thought that 16 years (even 18 years), it is still too young to marry. At age 16, normally, we are still in high school and, correct me if I'm wrong, marriage at 16, nowadays are quite rare. Otherwise, do gays insist on having the right to pay attorney fees and justice in cases of divorce? Funny motivation as well. Some may say to me that other countries do not recognize civil unions. On the one hand, these countries are few. On the other hand: so what? Do you really want to celebrate a union in Quebec just to move elsewhere? Anyway, I commend you on the carpet the example of French PACS that nobody seems to dispute. So emotional reasons? As I said above, the civil union meets the same purpose, and nothing prevents nor to a party to celebrate a civil union. Moreover, in France, PACS, nobody seems to complain. So where is the problem?
By analogy, I would give you a parallel example. In countries with Muslim law, repudiation is a common practice that is right for man (not woman) to divorce unilaterally. All that man to do is go to a courthouse and sign some papers to "put his wife out." Given these facts, some European countries refused to recognize this civil act. To solve the problem, some countries like Morocco has adopted the "Chicaq. This is a repudiation but open to both men and women. The fact remains that it is a procedure rather untimely, but at least both men and women have equal rights, and some countries in Europe recognize the validity of the Chicaq. Since that time, I know of no group of women in Morocco who still claims the right to divorce. I do not know anyone either, in France, which campaigns for gay marriage, still illegal today. Why? Because they have a similar plan! To return to our sheep, civil unions already existed upon returning to the Supreme Court of Canada. Gays were already at their disposal a similar plan for marriage and they had no need to advocate for the rights they already had.
Ultimately (and some gay men like me out this argument), the real motivation, it would disgust for the Catholic Church. Frankly, this is not a good reason. When we advocate, it should be done "for" something, not against. Besides, if gays have their own institutions, such as gay pride or gay games, so why Christians or heterosexuals could they not have too? Equality is for everyone it seems? Some will reply that the federal bill was clear to the effect that it could not compel a religious celebrant to bless a marriage that goes against his belief and according to that gays can fall back on civil marriage. I come back to what I said earlier: Why then argue for a right you already have?
Anyway, the old adage "Look who benefits" opens on another side of the debate. With gay marriages, it makes more business opportunities for solicitors and other officers celebrate weddings. And since, according to statistics, homosexual unions are less durable than heterosexual relationships, that will make more money for lawyers in family law, more money for judges, clerks and courthouse and more congestion in the judiciary ... already loaded yet. In short, gay marriage is therefore a lucrative business for lawyers.
To summarize, I understand that gay marriage is already a fait accompli and it is useless to talk about. Anyway, it is clear that gay marriage was not as popular than people had anticipated. That is why I will not make a case for such a short marriage. I rather think that the institution of marriage (and divorce) is not perfect in its own face and that it would need changes before thinking of opening to other possibilities exist for abuse also in traditional marriage.
