Oh, Canada
This article from The New York Times, Church Fights Gay Marriage Bill, about the full-court press the "Catholic" Church is putting on the Canadian Parliament in an effort to turn back or deflect progress in marriage equality, must be fascinating because it keeps presenting these outrageous statements that just beg for comment.
For instance:
" A coalition of Catholic organizations and anti-abortion groups in Quebec…." were initiating a postcard-sending action to members of Parliament.
Whatever do "anti-abortion groups" have to do with preserving the "sanctity" of "traditional" marriage, I wonder? After all, it seems to me, encouraging homosexuality and gay marriage would be a very good strategy for cutting down on abortions (particularly considering all those closeted men who feel the pressure of societal peers to produce children to proved that they're NOT GAY!)
Or this one:
The Knights of Columbus alone has printed 800,000 postcards for distribution nationwide in a campaign that argues that the redefinition of marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would promote pedophilia, pornography and unsafe sex.
I'm more concerned about really important issues:
- Guys wanting to use computerized gift registeries designed with straights in mind;
- Guys who mistakenly think white is slimming and insist on wearing it in their weddings; and
- Are there really enough honeymoon suites in Niagra Falls to handle the sudden increase in honeymooners?
Important stuff like that.
Then there are the medieval style doomsayers:
Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the archbishop of Quebec and primate of Canada's Catholic Church, warned that the marriage bill "threatens to unleash nothing less than cultural upheaval whose negative consequences are still impossible to predict."
(don't you just love the slight embarrassement that goes with calling him the "primate"? Sort of causes that same frisson that comes from using "gay" in the old-fashioned, good meaning, doesn't it?) and
…the Toronto archbishop, Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic, wrote Prime Minister Paul Martin a letter urging him to reverse course. "Can we say with certainty what the social outcome of a redefinition of marriage would be?" the cardinal wrote. "In all humility none of us can do so."
I love this fearmongering when, in fact, marriage would continue to evolve despite any "redefinition" as it has done for thousands of years. Indeed, society will continue to change regardless of any "redefinition" and, in all humility, I claim that none of us can predict what will be the outcome of society's continued evolution.