CKNW Editorial
for April 7, 2000

It would seem that the question as to whether or not Gay couples should have the same entitlements as married couples is all but settled by proposed federal and provincial legislation. I am opposed to some of that in principle – but not a religious principle. I look upon entitlements as they pertain to families an intrusion which I have accepted because the state clearly has an interest in seeing itself perpetuated, the ancient institution of marriage being the way that’s best handled. But that argument is now, I concede, moot. We have not only permitted but encouraged governments to step outside the marriage vows and grant entitlements to others, not the least of which are common-law arrangements. That being the case I believe we should now find a way to legally dignify relationships which are not marriages, which should be left to licensed clergy. My plan leaves the word and institution of marriage to God and transfers all others to the state. I would call the new institution a "bond" and the act of doing it, "bonding". The ceremony would be secular in nature and would bring all who seek it into the same legal state as married people. The laws of common property would prevail, to end the relationship would require a legal "unbonding" upon the same grounds as divorce, and custody and all other similar matters would proceed as they now do for married people.

Bonding would not be just for Gays – not by any means. Common Law relationships could be so state sanctioned even where one or more of the parties is not able to marry. It could include brothers or sisters who choose to make their lives together, or parents and children – it would be open to any couples that wish to undertake the legal ramifications "bonding" would entail.

Marriages would then fall back to where they always should have remained – in church. It is essentially a religious institution and there it should rest. If churches refuse to marry divorced people – as many do – or refuse any sort of church blessing on relationships outside marriage, so be it. The institution of bonding would be open and would provide everything a marriage does except a priest or rabbi’s blessing.

Where does the objection to this lie? Surely religious people, now having the marriage institution firmly in their hands would rejoice that the issue of gay marriages and other couplings are left to the state. My own Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, would still be debating whether or not Gay unions ought to be blessed but that’s, surely, just where those sorts of debates should remain. In fact I support such a move but many of my co-religionists do not.

This would, it seems to me, remove the biggest barrier set up by religion to non heterosexual unions. No one would suggest that such unions are marriages and they wouldn’t be called that. What it does, however, is recognize that in today’s society there are many forms of coupling, marriage being but one of them. All coupling so desiring it would now have legal rights and obligations attached and all would be the same. It would remove the awkward necessity of non heterosexual couples from bring proof to the local bureaucrat, a simple bonding certificate being sufficient.

What about common law couplings where one or other of the people involved doesn’t want to be bonded? Simple – you simply say that in questions of custody, division of assets etc that those laws and statutes can, if the evidence supports it, be applied to such couples as if they were married or bonded. That’s essentially what the law does now.

I don’t know why but I expect that this editorial will bring howls from those who will oppose it on religious grounds. I will be accused of being gay myself in spite of my unassailable record to the contrary or at the very least as promoting the gay agenda, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

All I’m proposing is a regularizing of what has become a social reality and one which, if not recognized by the law already, certainly is not condemned.