A reader writes:
I noticed you do not comment a lot about politics in Canada and with
the recent legalizing of gay "marriage" there, I was wondering why
you have not said too anything about it? Do you have some sort of
policy about commenting on foreign countries?
Actually, I generally don’t comment that much about politics in other countries (or even particular political fights here at home) that much.
Partly this is due to the fact that I don’t follow what’s going on in other countries, and I don’t like to comment on things I don’t have a good handle on.
Partly it’s due to the fact that I prefer commenting on issues rather than individual political fights.
It’s also partly due to an experience I had about nine or ten months ago. If you cast your mind back that distance, you’ll find yourself right in the middle of the U.S. election. You remember: The one between the Texan and the Evil Guy?–the one who would have only appointed Supreme Court justices committed to locking in slaveryabortion for the foreseeeable future?
Well, during that election, some foreigners decided to try to weigh in an influence the U.S. election. One "newspaper" in England even "adopted" a town in the U.S. and had its readers write letters to people in that town to urge them to vote for the Evil Guy.
I didn’t like that, and not just because they were supporting the Evil Guy. I didn’t like it because this was a U.S. election and people from other places ought to let us sort out our own leadership, thankyew.
Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I realized, and so I have generally refrained from commenting on political matters in other countries.
I have done so a few times. For example, I wrote about the need to reject the European Constitution due to its civilization-destroying and totalitarianism-imposing effects. I wouldn’t be opposed to Europeans getting together and forming their own country if they wanted to. That’d be fine. But this constitution would have been bad news and accelerated the European civilizational deathspiral. I was concerned to see European countries retain enough autonomy to be the kind of laboratories needed to experiment and find ways to save themselves from the destruction that would occur if they all fossilized the current European "social model," which is killing the continent at present. Once Europeans see countries in their own neighborhood saving themselves from destruction, they’ll be inclined to follow suit, and everyone will be better off.
But that’s a kind of meta-political issue not attached to the particulars of party politics. Indeed, I wrote in hopes of doing my teeny, weenie little part to help preserve room for different parties to try different solutions.
As a result, I generally don’t comment on particular political fights. For example, much as I’d love to see the president of a certain European country whose name starts with "France" get his arrogant obstreperousness handed to him on a silver platter come election time, I expect that I’ll sit by the sidelines, keep my mouth shut, and not write "Anybody but Jacques!" blog posts.
It’s that "Do unto others" thing, y’know?
Since the Canadian homosexual "marriage" thing is an issue, though I could comment on it except . . . I’m not sure what I’d say about it except that it’s bad, that it’s a tragedy, that it’s an outrage, etc., and it might come off like kicking Canada when it’s down.
I don’ wanna be kicking other countries when they’re down.
Will Catholic Answers have some Canadian speakers on to explain the
situation? Because to me, it looks like a pretty serious human rights
violation (freedom of religion, freedom of speech) and it is similar
( I think) to what is happening in Europe now.
That’s a good idea! I’ll mention it to the folks who plan out the schedule. Maybe they can get a show put together on it!
In the meantime, if folks (Canadian or otherwise) want to comment on the Canadian homosexual "marriage" situation, feel free to do so.
I’m Canadian and I don’t mind commentary from foreignors when it comes to morals and ethics, even when it is on specific political fights. Honestly, I mind less when it is an American doing the commentary than others but I do agree there is a line (sometimes fuzzy). I don’t mind as much because that developments in either of our countries affect the other (obviously the US affect Canada far more).
And Jimmy, it’s also a little different for you because, as a very public lay Catholic, you can speak to Catholics. Canada and the US closely share our culture, whether Canadians like to admit it or not, so as Catholics we should join together and be a positive influence on it.
This gay marriage issue in Canada does effect the US. The upcoming gay pride events in Vancouver are expected to have record number of Americans who will come and get “married”. Though it will not be recognized in most of the States, even giving it that slight amount of legitimacy could have a dangerous in the US.
For any Americans who would like to keep up with the gay “marriage” issue in Canada, lifesite.net keeps track of all the goings on.
Things are going very badly here right now.
As a regular American, I like our 51st State. They are kind of like Texas except they insist that their anthem (they call it a national one I guess) be played, they carry another currency with them, and you won’t hear a Texan speak French (except possibly in Austin which isn’t a part of “real” Texas). I realize the election was tough, but I really don’t think we can treat Canada as if she wasn’t a State. That would be just plain ignorant. 😉 (I don’t know how to do a bigger wink.)
My feeling is that a small majority of my fellow Canadians dislike gay ‘marriage’, a small minority is actively supporting it, and an even smaller minority is actively opposing it.
The small minority who dislike it, but don’t care enough to make it a political issue, combine with the supporters to ensure that a majority of the population will not oppose gay ‘marriage’.
If the government had instead called them ‘civil unions’ or the like, what little protest there was would have been even smaller.
There’s not much point in commenting on it since it is a decided issue. We’ll see what happens in 25 years or so when we’ve had a generation grow up with gay marriage and presumably a number of kids in every classroom with gay parents. My prediction: nothing.
Mr. Akin,
What is your position on the Iraq War? I know that the late Holy Father as well as the current Holy Father were opposed to it. I just don’t believe it qualifies as a just war. Where is your evidence that it qualifies? Why do you think it’s a good idea for Catholics to support it? Have you lost your mind?
I wonder what you think of my website?
Erik
By the way, your position of same-sex “marriage” is good. However, neoconservative foreign policy is not. I don’t see why just because you’re an American you have to support immoral war policy.
What is your position on the Iraq War?
Have you lost your mind?
Don’t you think its rather rude to not only ask the latter question, but also to ask it before getting the answer to the former? Have you lost all sense of politeness and decency?
By the way, your position of same-sex “marriage” is good. However, neoconservative foreign policy is not. I don’t see why just because you’re an American you have to support immoral war policy.
<
Jimmy: Partly it’s due to the fact that I prefer commenting on issues rather than individual political fights.
I’m the same way. I just had to see that ^^ above ^^ in writing again. I can take issues–gladly. What I can’t take is, niggling political bull where people are putting on their tinfoil hats and imagining absurd motives behind just about *everything*. I’m getting way too much of that in the last few years. It’s hard to sift through Bull, but it can be done.
Jimmy,
I am a Canadian, very much opposed to what has happened here, I have made my views known to local politicians and wrote the PM, and to quote you: “I’m not sure what I’d say about it except that it’s bad, that it’s a tragedy, that it’s an outrage,..” I could not agree more.
Here’s a guest on the subject of Canada/gay unions/etc. that I’d love to see on the show: Father Raymond J. de Souza. Fr. de Souza is a priest in the Archdiocese of Kingston, Ontario, and I’ve enjoyed reading his insightful commentary on the situation in First Things magazine.
For anyone interested in this topic, check out “Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism” by Fr. de Souza in the April, 2004 issue of First Things.
According to polls (as reported in news stories), the majority of Canadians support same sex marriage. Multiculturalism and immigration has certainly done a job on Canada.
I wonder how they worded the polls…
(Ex. See seperate surveys on American thought on the Terri Schiavo case.)
Father Thomas Dowd here, from Waiting in Joyful Hope blog. I actually wrote quite a bit on the topic here to try and help educate our people on the issues at hand. You can check out my posts by going to my main blog address and clicking the links in the “Connecting the dots on same-sex marriage” box.
The polls I saw were not directly asking “Do you support same sex marraige?”
Instead they were questions like “Do you think the business of government should be delayed until the same sex marraige bill is debated?”, or “Do you support the use of the notwithstanding clause to prevent gay marraige?” – where the notwithstanding clause is a kind of super-power that the government could use to override any law – as if the US Congress could choose to override the Constitution if it wanted.
The comment about multiculturism ‘doing a job’ on Canada couldn’t be further from the truth – there were exactly two major factors opposing gay marraige legislation in Canada. The Catholic Church was one, and ethnic groups, especially from the Middle East and south-east Asia, made up the other. Look at the ridings of the politicians who voted against the bill and you’ll find most of them have very multicultural populations.
It would be more accurate to say that the idea of “tolerance” is what has led to the current situation here in Canada, as opposed to multiculturalism.
Mr. White,
It is my understanding that multiculturalism has progressed even further in Canada than the US – for example with “hate crimes” laws that result in criminal prosecutions of those who make annti-homosexual statements. And its precisely this kind of multicultualism that leads to the claim that we have to be “tolerant” of everyone, even same sex couples who want to marry.
It doesn’t follow that because many of those who were against the law were immigrants, that the majority of immigrants or second generation immigrants were against the bill. For example, if you went to a pro-life rally in South Texas, you would probably conclude that all hispanics are pro-life. Yet public opinion polls show that hispanics are not more socially conservative than non-whites.
You’re correct; we can’t say that immigrants as a group are more likely to oppose the bill. The only specific research on that area that I’ve seen was done with people who recently (10 years or less) came from Middle Eastern countries, and they were generally more conservative on all the big social/sexual issues asked about.
The hate crimes laws are a difficult subject – the best known case involves Leviticus 20:13, which may be interpreted to state pretty plainly that sexually active gays should be put to death.
Now, if someone were to go on TV and say “If you have homosexual relations, you should be killed”, that would clearly be immoral and illegal, and the speaker would rightly be punished.
Going on TV or some other medium and reading Lev 20:13 is harder to judge and has to be seen in context. Then there are the innumerable problems of interpreting the Bible – does the Mosaic law apply to us at all anymore? I think Jimmy says it doesn’t.
In this case the court ruled that it was a violation of the law to place a listing of the Leviticus verse and some others next to a crossed-out picture of two stick men holding hands.
I think the ruling was correct because an uninformed person who read Leviticus out of context would get the message that gays should be put to death. If someone published a picture of a Star of David with an X through it and a reference to Mein Kampf, it would be pretty clearly an incitement to hatred.
It’s only because we do have religious freedoms that there is any difference at all between the anti-gay and anti-Jew pictures. An honest Christian calmy explaining the Bible’s teaching on homosexuals doesn’t deserve to be punished. Someone like that guy with the “God Hates Fags” signs deserves to be in prison.
Comment by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on the approval of Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes. 20 July 2005.
http://www.cccb.ca/PublicStatements.htm?ID=1689
Resources on Marriage
http://www.cccb.ca/Backgrounders.htm?CD=&ID=1342
Austin Gay Pride
at the Gay Pride 2001 Houston Gay Pride 1999 Dallas Gay Pride 2003 Jump To: Friend