Under the Rainbow

Abstract

LONG AGO and far away, I worked with an esteemed colleague who resisted every attempt to extend equal benefits and opportunities to female teachers. John had grudgingly accepted common salary scales for male and female teachers, but proposition of equal pensions for women was one advance many. You can take this equality thing far, he warned. Ten years after this conversation, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that pension benefits must be determined by contributions and eligibility, not gender. Taken to its logical extension, equality leads to, well, um, equality. Fast forward to 2005. With substitution of sexual orientation for gender, debate over equality of state-protected entitlements is back on. Important legal rights for gays and lesbians in Canada have been achieved over last decade, including addition of sexual orientation to list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Same- sex partners now enjoy same benefits, including survivor pensions and health insurance, as opposite-sex partners. But courts' interpretation of right to marry has proven to be most remarkable advance. Since 2003, eight provinces and territories have held that denying civil to same-sex partners is unconstitutional. As a result, 82% of Canadians now live in jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are performed regularly. Predictions that legalized polygamy, bestiality, and pederasty would befall nation seem to have been a mite exaggerated. Because legal definition of is a federal matter, Liberal government has been lobbied ferociously from both sides to clarify definition of marriage. By submitting three reference questions to Supreme Court, a wily governing party was able to postpone controversial legislation until after 2004 election. The Court's response was ambiguous, but then again, so were questions. The returned minority government chose to announce that, to comply with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it was obliged to amend definition of civil to include same-sex partners. An act redefining civil as union between any two persons will soon be before Parliament. Its success is very probable, although some members of all parties are expected to dissent from their parties' official positions. Failing an unexpected development, within weeks Canada will join Belgium and Netherlands as only countries where partners of same sex can marry. Each advance in equality for gays and lesbians has been met by requisite predictions that Armageddon was nigh. Yet most Canadians seem to have accepted extension of spirit and letter of Charter to cover sexual orientation. A small majority of all Canadians (52%) and 60% of those under 25 years of age tell pollsters that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. An even higher 65% of national sample believe that adults in committed relationships, whether gay, lesbian, or heterosexual, should be treated equally.1 Given this general spirit of acceptance, it is somewhat surprising that a bare majority associate equal treatment with right to marry. Almost 50% of population oppose same-sex marriage, apparently viewing such a step as taking equality too far. But women, those under 35 years of age, and better-educated and less-religious Canadians are significantly more supportive of same-sex marriage.2 According to pollsters, public's opinions on same-sex depend on how issues are framed. Divisive, hot-button phrases such as preserving traditional marriage and family values are being used to galvanize social conservatives in ways that are relatively unfamiliar to Canadians. Opposition has been fueled in part by American organizations with deep pockets, including Focus on Family and Knights of Columbus. Smelling a wedge issue, Conservative Party (now Official Opposition), has appealed to immigrant and minority communities to protest the threat of same-sex marriage. …