Realwomen of BC - Briefs - Study of Marriage

Back to Briefs Brief on the Study on Marriage and the Legal Recognition of Same-sex Unions Presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee On Justice and Human Rights by Laurie Geschke, Sharen Frewing and Virginia Kirkham on behalf of REAL Women of B.C.
Introduction Between us, here at this table, we have almost 100 years of experience living within the institution of marriage, and over 160 years living in the foundational unit of society in Canada, the family. Collectively, we have given birth to and successfully raised 10 children, some grown to adulthood with children of their own and some not yet into their adolescence. We know what commitment and personal sacrifice it takes to make marriage work. We have lived through years of personal want for the sake of others’ needs. We have loved until our hearts broke and then stayed committed, endured, and loved some more. We have nursed spouses and children when they were sick. We have been taxi-driver, ferry operator, nurse, doctor, principle, banker, cook, maid, upholder of the law, referee, judge, dishwasher, teacher, lover and protector as well as being professional Administrator, Educator, Social Worker, Corporate Executive and Community Volunteers. We commend the committee for looking at the issue of the definition of marriage, rather than leaving it up to the provincial courts and the Supreme Court of Canada to decide. However, the proposed amendment of the definition of marriage as exclusively heterosexual to including same-sex unions would destroy the institution of marriage as it has been understood cross- culturally since the beginning of recorded history. This is foolhardy and dangerous. The social ecology of conjugality will be shaken, destabilized, and destroyed -- not developed -- in the push for a re-configuration of marriage that will delete heterosexuality from its core definition. It will have long-term, negative implications for Canada. Derek Rogusky, vice president for family policy with Focus on the Family Canada, contends, however, that the judiciary is not the place to handle such matters. Parliament is. Others have spoken before us of many reasons why opening the doors to force homosexuals into the contract of marriage must not happen now or in the future in our country. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada’s Mr. Justice Gerard La Forest in Nesbit and Egan (1995) 2 S.C.R. 513: The heterosexual sexual relationship is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage. He concluded at para. 25 that the family unit based on father, mother and child, “is the only unit in society that expends resources to care for children on a routine and sustaining basis.”
Same-Sex Unions Are Not Functionally Equivalent to Marriage Advocates of same-sex unions argue that these relationships are functionally equal to those of marriage. They argue that times change, that legal definitions must change too, and that loving relationships of two men and two women require a similar accommodation for intimacy and economical support. Same-sex relationships, however, are different and should be recognized as something different, not as a marriage. In a marriage, there is set in motion a deep and permanent sexual and emotional bond between one man and one woman which is usually a life-long, complex, intimate, cohabitational, day-to-day, bonding of two sex-opposite lives. Heterosexual couples enter their relationship both expecting to be and generally remaining sexually faithful to one other. Marriage is tailored to the complex challenges and struggles of long-term heterosexual bonding and the rearing of biological offspring. The sexual act in a marriage, which can generate procreation, weaves men, women and offspring into a complex genealogical history and kinship, and their relationship forms a bridge between past, present and future generations. Across all cultures marriage has been a unique and evolving form of life that struggles to negotiate the challenges of long-term opposite-sex bonding. It bridges the sexual divide within the human species. It promotes a social ecology that supports the rights of children to know, to be connected to, and to be in a stable relationship with their natural parents. It is a genealogical bond that reaches back into time through its ancestors and forward to the future through its descendants. It fosters rich and complex lines of kinship that weave through human community. This complex social institution evolves and develops to uphold these characteristics of marriage, not to dismantle them. Same-sex unions differ from marriage according to a comprehensive study conducted by. a homosexual couple - a psychiatrist, Dr. David McWhirter, and a psychologist, Dr. Andrew Mattison, who had been cohabiting together for a twelve-year period at the time they studied 156 other homosexual couples. Their findings were described in their book, The Male Couple, published by Prentice-Hall in 1984. The study shows that same-sex unions are essentially different from marriage, in structure, values, practices and longevity. There are very few such studies available. Although the book was published a few years ago, there is no reason to believe that the conclusions reached would be different today, especially since we now live in an even more permissive society than when the study was conducted. Moreover, no one can claim that their study is biased, as it is written by homosexuals for the benefit of homosexual couples. According to the authors, the values and practices that are the cornerstone of heterosexual relationships are generally absent from male unions. In fact, according to this book, some of the qualities identified with stability and intimacy between opposite-sex partners are actually detrimental to homosexual couples. Same-sex unions differ from marriage in the following ways: Sexual infidelity; Limited duration; Differences in financial management between male partners; Skills compatibility difficulties; and Male couples’ lifestyle, e.g. drug use.
Sexual Infidelity Few homosexual couples remain sexually monogamous throughout their relationship. According to the study, ninety-five percent of the couples studied had an arrangement whereby the partners had sexual activity with others outside their union. Only seven couples had totally exclusive relationships, and these had been together for fewer than five years. Simply stated, all homosexual couples in the study with a relationship lasting more than five years, had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationship. Obviously, multiple sexual partners are not consistent with the best interests of any child who resides in the home. The study also found that outside sexual encounters for male couples were regarded as stimulating and improved relationships by broadening and varying the couples’ sexual repertoire. Many homosexual couples maintained their sex life together by deliberately introducing other sexual partners into their relationship as a third party sexual union and experimented with other sexual opportunities. According to the authors, "fidelity" to male couples means an emotional commitment, but not sexual exclusivity, and that far from undermining the relationship, the outside, sexual contacts contributed to the stability and longevity of the same-sex union. Male couples who have remained together the longest and who report the most satisfaction, usually have a wide disparity in ages. The authors believe that "gay men''s homing fantasies and longings for liaisons with their fathers may prove accurate for some male couples." Moreover, the authors found that another characteristic of the homosexual partners was that they had experienced little or no male bonding during their formative years. This suggests that a homosexual''s attraction to other men is based on psychological needs, not met as a child from his father and other male influences, rather than genetically based, as claimed by some homosexual activists. Limited Duration The median for the length of time same-sex relationships were maintained in this study was 5.0 years. However, according to the authors, other researchers have found that male relationships commonly end after the third year. How many of these break-ups will end up in court, clogging further our already overburdened court systems and facilities, especially considering the difference in financial management between homosexual and heterosexual couples?
Differences in Financial Management Between Male Partners Another difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples is that "equality" between two men is very different from that of opposite-sex couples in financial matters. Upon marriage, the husband and wife often place their money in a common “kitty” or bank account to maintain the home and family. Lacking a difference in gender and usually children, however, the expectation in same-sex unions is that each partner will take care of himself financially. Consequently, the partners do not place their monies into a joint financial arrangement as is done in traditional heterosexual unions. Instead, each partner puts in 50%, regardless of his income. In short, male couples apparently do not believe that they are "in this together" financially as a single unit. Truthfully, are there many homosexuals in Canada who would want to submit themselves to a typical, hetersexual-financial arrangement with their partner where “what is mine is yours”? What will happen when these typically short-lived relationships dissolve and the assets will have to be split 50/50? Skills Compatibility Difficulties Since there are no set "husband and wife" roles, each man can usually perform all necessary tasks at some level of competence. As a result, one of the male partners must develop what the authors describe as a "planned incompetence" so as to unlearn his level of competence in order to show appreciation for his partner, and to satisfy the other partner''s wishes and/or needs. Finding "compatibility" in skills which does not occur naturally, as it does between different sexes, is frequently one of a male couple''s greatest challenges in keeping their relationship intact. Male Couples'' Lifestyle, e.g. Drug Use Drug and alcohol use are an integral part of a same-sex union lifestyle. According to the authors, the majority of the male couples and individuals use drugs as a regular part of both their social and sexual lives. That is, extensive use and availability of drugs at the majority of social gatherings are a part of the homosexual sub-culture. According to these authors, the widespread availability and use of drugs among homosexual men is due mainly to the fact that the use of drugs has the reputation of increased sexual enjoyment. The authors state: The use of the nitrites, both amyl and butyl, has become common over the past decade. The ready availability of butyl nitrite as a legal, over-the-counter "incense" or "room deodorizer" has greatly increased its usage . . . some of the younger participants have tried other drugs, such as methaqualone (Quaaludes or ludes), which has the reputation of being a potent aphrodisiac. Among all drugs, alcohol is far and away the most commonly used substance. Same-Sex Unions are Consensual Sexual Liaisons, Not Marriages Homosexual activists want to make marriage "user-friendly", tailored to the needs and wants of self-interested adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Their cultural message is clear: marriage must have no essential relationship to long-term heterosexual bondings and children, but must be reduced to a cluster of perks and benefits for adults who happen to be in a consensual sexual liaison. This slanted academic approach reflects broader cultural trends. According to Anthony Giddens, Britain’s most renowned sociologist, popular culture is creating a new grammar of intimacy. In The Transformation of Intimacy and, more recently, in the prestigious Reith Lectures, Giddens argues that we are moving from a “marriage culture” to a culture which celebrates “pure relationship.” A “pure relationship” is a relationship that has been stripped of any goal or end beyond the intrinsic emotional, psychological, or sexual satisfaction that the relationship brings to the adults involved. In this new world of “relationships,” marriage is placed on a level playing field with all other long-term sexually intimate relationships. Similar values and processes govern their initiation, maintenance and dissolution dynamics. Marriage does not merit special consideration or attention. Accordingly, exploration of the distinctive conjugal character of marriage tends to be pushed aside in favour of a more general discussion of the dynamics of initiation of any close relationship
Review Marital permanence is central feature of the conjugal bond. The steep declines in conjugal permanence over recent decades have seriously altered marriage and family culture. Judith Wallerstein’s acclaimed study of the effects of divorce on children points to the complete absence of serious research into the possible impact on children in the construction of no-fault divorce legislation during the late sixties. During this period experts assured us that divorce reform would not adversely affect divorce rates, it would only make it easier for hard-pressed divorcing couples to exit from unworkable relationships. However, divorce rates did spike upwards far beyond any predictions. Social science research indicates high divorce rates entail large private and public costs. Sober assessments of the impact of divorce on children and spouses are just beginning to emerge. This research may point in new directions for law and public policy. The promotion of homosexual marriage has little to do with expanded regard for marriage and everything to do with an attempt to gain social approval of same-sex unions. The latter relationships are different from traditional marriage, and their expectations of their relationships in marriage are different. These differences strike at the very core of the concept and nature of marriage. If there is any accommodation to same-sex marriage, the concept of the legal institution of marriage will be reformed in fundamental ways, including: (a) Loss of Sexual Fidelity and Monogamy Sexual fidelity is not an expected or typical characteristic in same-sex relationships, especially among gay men. Even in so-called “monogamous” gay relationships (those who live together as cohabitants and sex partners), most partners are not sexually monogamous. If same-sex unions are legalized, the monogamous ethos of traditional marriage will be transformed by the sexual “openness” of same-sex unions. This is not in the best interest of children who are forced to live in these situations. (b) Marriage Will Be Opened to Radical Reform The characteristic that defines same-sex partners as a group and, as couples, is not belief or biology, but behaviour — a particular kind of erotic behaviour. Sexual and sex-like behaviour is not an inherent personal characteristic, such as race or gender, nor is it an exercise of conscience, like religion or speech. Homosexual behaviour incidentally, is not comparable to race as a basis of marriage regulation, since race is irrelevant to the capacity to marry. However, heterosexual behaviour is directly related to the fundamental purpose of marriage laws, which regulate sexual behaviour and protect the mores that define the core identity, boundaries, structure, and order of society. In short, skin colour is a benign, non-behavioural characteristic. Sexual orientation is a human behaviour characteristic. Comparison of the two is a convenient, but invalid argument. If the guiding rule to marriage is behaviour, then there can be no valid, reasoned, or principled argument to exclude other sexual relationships from the definition of “marriage,” such as brother and a sister, a father and adult daughter, or perhaps three or more individuals together In a marriage (polygamy). In short, if we accept behaviour as the guide, then there can be no meaningful limits to such “marriages”, which can only lead society to social and moral confusion. As an example of this I can point out the case of a London Ontario boy whose biological mother and father are seeking to declare the mother’s lesbian lover a parent of the two-year old child. As reported in the World Net Daily News on Thursday March 13, 2003, the Judge has admitted he is favourable toward the request. Is this where the committee wants to direct public policy for our nation? If we go to
Judith Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis, Sandra Blakeslee. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce New York: Hyperion, 2000. There is a debate whether divorce reforms merely reflected or reinforced a “culture of divorce.” However, even cautious analysts argue that “no-fault divorce” was one contributory factor to the rise in divorce rates. See L. Friedberg, “Did Unilateral Divorce Raise Divorce Rates?” American Economic Review 88 (1998) 608-627. The scholarly debate on divorce is far from over.
three parents, then why not four or five. . . This is not in the best interest of our nation, nor in the best interest of our children. How will this affect corporate benefits programs? Spousal benefits? Retirement benefits? Health care? Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, believes the case''s implications are monumental. "Once we cross the border into legalized multiple parenthood, we have virtually arrived at the abolition of marriage and the family," he said in a column for National Review Online. "The logic of gay marriage leads inexorably to the end of marriage, and the creation in its place of an infinitely flexible series of contracts," said Kurz. "Monogamous marriage cannot function if it is just one of many social arrangements." Claims for same-sex marriage logically presuppose a rejection of traditional marriage because they are based upon fundamentally incompatible concepts of marriage and humanity. Lesbian theorist Ladell McWhorter puts it well pointing out that if gay people are allowed to participate as gay people in the communities and institutions they [heterosexuals] claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices enough to undermine their preferred version of heterosexuality and, in turn, they themselves will not be the same. They [heterosexuals] are right, for example, that if same-sex couples get legally married, the institution of marriage will change, and since marriage is one of the institutions that supports heterosexuality and heterosexual identities, heterosexuality and heterosexuals will change as well. Public Policy on Marriage Public benefits should not be awarded to promote personal or special interest agendas. The evidence supporting the claim that the contribution to society of same-sex couples is comparable to that of traditional marriages is lacking. Public laws are intended to protect and promote public interests, not private lifestyle preferences. The question to be addressed is whether the social interest — the public good — is served, not whether some private interests are advanced by same-sex unions. Legal marriage is a public institution established to achieve public purposes. It is not meant to promote private interests. Summary Given the afforementioned propensity to behaviours destructive of a true marriage relationship, we respectfully wonder if our country can afford the financial repercussions which the proposed changes will cost to our society. I am speaking of the costs incurred when these homosexual liasons break up and partners want to split the assets between them in two different ways. Who will pay for the extra judges, court clerks, and legal aid lawyers (because one partner seems always to be entitled to legal aid), and the hard costs associated with their offices, support staff, court rooms and court houses? How demographically significant is the marriage-desiring sector of Canada’s homosexual community? Will redefinition of the institution of marriage really contribute much to gay and lesbian life? This issue is not a mere matter of “tolerance” of other relationships. This is to confuse tolerance with preference. The issue is much deeper. Relations and conduct are categorized in three ways as (1) “prohibited”, (2) “tolerated” or, (3) preferred. Marriage as the union between a man and a woman is not just a tolerated relationship, but is the classic example of a preferred relationship, which is essential for the good of society, and it must be preserved and protected from those who wish to claim it. Conclusion Canadians should work together for a society that treats all persons, whatever their sexual orientation, with profound dignity and respect. However, upholding dignity and respect for gays and lesbians does not require assent to demands for the reconstruction of an institution fundamental to heterosexual bonding and critical to the social ecology of the human life. Legal tampering with core features of marriage has social repercussions. Legalization of polygamy had significant ramifications for the social ecology of marriage in polygamous societies. In our own recent experience, the liberalization of divorce laws did have significant outcomes for spouses and children that we are only just beginning to assess. The issues involved in this discussion should not be brushed aside with emotive appeals to the Canadian sense fairness and tolerance. This may be the time for sober-minded Canadian caution. A profound social experiment is now being pushed through the courts without the extensive research, consultation, and public debate that these issues deserve. A zealous layer of advocacy scholarship has crystallized around the demand for same-sex marriage over the last ten years. It is very thin ice for legal and political decision-makers to be skating on. The drive to reconstruct this crucial institution appeals to values of “tolerance,” “inclusion”, and “diversity.” These values may be appropriate for refereeing functional and political associations, but they may be completely inadequate for handling the complex and primal conjugal reality of marriage. We may press on with this project of reconfiguring the deep purposes of marriage. We may take another large stride in the continued social decoding and derailing of this complex institution. But this generation will not be the ones who will have to live with the confusion, the costs or the possible damages incurred by this formidable act of social engineering. These costs will be born by future generations. The last time I spoke to a House of Commons Committee, it was to the Finance Committee which looked at the issue of family taxation. At that time, the changes which our organization proposed, were sweeping in nature. The Chair of that committee expressed his concern that to make many of those changes, would perhaps change the level of financial revenue which comes to the government to spend, and therefore, the committee was reluctant to propose any change, as every change was seen as an attempt to keep more money in the hands and pockets of Canadian citizens, and put less money in the coffers of the federal government. No substantive changes were made from that committee. With all due respect, we wish to go on record as encouraging this committee, and the federal government, to be as prudent with social change as it has been with tax-relieving fiscal change for the Canadian taxpayer. Our society deserves it.
Back to Briefs

Brief on the Study on Marriage and the Legal Recognition of Same-sex Unions