Come Together, Right Now, Over Greed

I seem to be "lucky" enough to be living in historic times. I have seen historic elections, I am witnessing the worst financial crisis since the depression, and now I see that the Canadian government will likely be replaced by a coalition of opposition parties.

In principle, I am not against coalition governments, they seem to work fine in other countries, such as Switzerland. It fosters cooperation, and in theory represents the majority of the citizens, while keeping the interests of the smaller parties in mind. In fact, I am curious to see how that would work here in Canada; it can be disconcerting to see a minority government trying to get things done by pressuring opposition parties that are too afraid to trigger an unwanted election. But in my opinion, the validity of the idea of a coalition government is not the most significant issue in Canada today.

The most significant issues, in my mind, are timing and validity of the proposed coalition government.

We just had an election, the Conservatives were elected with the idea that the winning party would actually form a government. That's how it has always been (as far as I know). That's how it was assumed before the parties were elected. What would the outcome of the previous election be had the Liberals and the NDP campaigned for the coalition? I personally know people who strategically voted for a party they knew had no reasonable chance of forming a government to offset the power of another; the possibility of a coalition would have almost certainly been a considerable and possibly a deciding factor in their vote. In the end it very uncertain as to what the outcome would have been. Creating such uncertainty, in my opinion, undermines the intent of the voter, and the democratic processes of this country. If coalition was not the name of the game when people were voting, then it should not be formed.

Even if it were fair to have a coalition government, I would certainly not support this particular coalition. My most serious concerns with it are:

1. It can only survive with support from the Bloc Québecois.

I realize that the Bloc are not actually part of this coalition, and would not hold any cabinet positions, but their votes are needed to make it work. I intensely dislike the Bloc, I dislike any party with aspirations to divide and irreparably damage the country. I also dislike any party that only has the interests of a single province in mind. One can argue that political parties favor geographical areas, but the Bloc are intolerably extreme in this regard. Given that Québec has a disproportionally high amount of seats, the Bloc already gains undeserved leverage. If they have the power to hold together a coalition, their leverage within that government to further their own agenda.

2. No Clearly Defined Leadership.

The coalition would be led by the leader of the Liberal Party, Stephan Dion, who previously announced that he would step down. This is the man failed miserably in the last election, not gaining a single seat, but has somehow recently gained the trust of the coalition. Apparently he will still step down within the next year, and the new leader of the Liberal party. Our future Prime Minister, will be elected exclusively by members of the Liberal party. It doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that the future leaders of this country will be a 'choice' between someone deemed as incompetent to lead a political party and some mystery man. Clearly this is not what this country in these uncertain times needs.

I am not happy with the prospect of another election that will cost taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 million, but I feel that it is a price Canadians should be willing to pay for a real democracy. If a coalition wants to run in another election, that's fine, if the people vote for that type of government, then that's what they should get. Despite the fact that voting in the winter is a pain, and that Canadians are sick of election after election; I can take solace in fact that we live in a free country where we are "burdened" by too many elections. People in other nations would kill (literally) to have what we have. Besides, the money we spend might stimulate the economy.

The right thing to do, as far as I can tell, isn't usually convenient or cheap.

C'est la vie... (happy Gilles?)

My Thoughts on Proposition 8

As a Canadian, who lives in a country where same-sex marriage is allowed, I under normal circumstances would not care about a proposition on same-sex marriage in California. Underscoring this is the fact that I am not gay, and am happily married to beautiful young woman. Nevertheless, Proposition 8 has stirred some deep feelings inside of me that are conflicted and somewhat disturbing.

The conflict within arises from the fact that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church. Being a member of this Church entails more than just going to church; it entails taking on a lifestyle. A core belief of the Church is that it is led by Prophets and Apostles, who receive revelation and instruction from God. To illustrate this fact I will quote from the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church which explicitly states that the word of God is the same “whether by [his] voice or by the voice of [his] servants...” (D&C 1:39) In other words, when the leaders of the Church officially say something: it’s gospel.

Typically, the Church does not get officially involved in politics of any country, it proclaims itself as non-partisan. This seems to be in line with the first amendment of the United States Constitution which not only guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but separates Church and State. The Doctrine and Covenants states that “we do not believe in mingling religious influence with civil government…” (D&C 134:9) The Church, in an unusual fashion, had become politically active in supporting proposition 8; going as far as to encourage, but not command, members to actively support the proposition. The Church also joined a coalition of other Christian churches that opposed same-sex marriage. This has been the first time I have ever seen the Church officially get involved in politics. Consequently, this has been the first time I find myself in a political clash with my own religion.

In the past the Church has tangled with the United States government, mostly regarding the definition of marriage. Except in the past, it was the Church that was on the other side of the law. In 1862 Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy act prohibiting polygamy. Lincoln compared polygamy and slavery as “twin relics of barbarism”. The Church did not end the practise of polygamy until 1890, opposing the law for 28 years. In the span of those years there were many trials against Mormon polygamists, who argued that practicing polygamy was within their first amendment right of freely practicing their religion. I suppose that if homosexuality was a religion it could argue the same thing.

I am both in support and opposition of Proposition 8. I support it in the respect that I disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court of California to overturn a previous vote against gay marriage. I do not oppose the concept of homosexual couples having the choice to form a marriage union, but rather I oppose a democratic vote being overturned. As already alluded to, I oppose Proposition 8 because it promotes the idea of society putting constraints on the level of commitment two consensual adults can have for one another.

Personally, I believe that homosexuality, like many other human traits, is not conducive to God’s plan. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice, and I have no idea why some people are homosexual while some are heterosexual. I do not believe that being homosexual is immoral; to me morality implies the element of choice. I do believe that homosexual sexual acts are immoral. However, I do not believe it is right to legislate against it. Before 1969 the act of sodomy was illegal in Canada. Shortly after changes to the criminal code that legalized sodomy, the then Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau said that “there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.”

Regardless of whether homosexuals can marry or not, they are still going to form relationships. They will still live together, in many states they can still adopt children, and they are still going to have sex. It would be foolish to assume that banning same-sex marriage would curtail these things. If one were to argue about tax breaks or property disputes, I would urge them to mind their own business and worry about their own taxes; with an issue as paramount as gay rights, other people saving a few dollars in taxes is a marginal concern.

I take particular exception to the idea that same-sex marriage somehow destroys or invalidates heterosexual marriages. The idea of homosexuals being married somehow pollutes all marriages is revolting. I find that insulting on a personal level, seeing that I live in a country that allows same-sex marriage. The bond I have with my wife is something that I hold dear, and that will stay constant regardless of any legislation. I cannot say that marriage is compromised by legalized same-sex marriage without saying my own marriage is compromised.

My only fear regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage is that religious organizations could be forced to perform them. In Saskatchewan a Baptist minister was fined $1500 for not performing a same-sex marriage. That is also something I would consider unjust and unfair. Something like this makes it very tempting for me to jump on the ban same-sex marriage bandwagon. Currently this minister is fighting the government on this, and I hope he wins.

The conflict within me lies in the fact that I am having difficulty supporting the Church’s stance on Proposition 8 given my very strong views on the matter. The Church’s reasons for supporting Proposition 8, from my view, are as follows:

1) Homosexual relationships are a violation of God’s commandments*

2) Same sex-marriage will eventually lead to the loss of certain liberties of religious institutions and heterosexual unions.*

3) “The disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”^

I don’t feel the need to cover the first point.

Regarding the second point: I feel that this is a legitimate concern, which is highlighted by the example I gave earlier. I cannot see into the future, so I really don’t know if that would become a major issue. I would say that it is my greatest deterrent to opposing a ban on same-sex marriage.

As far as calamities are concerned, I feel that infidelity, rampant divorce, sham marriages, cohabitation, spousal abuse; all committed by heterosexual couples would already put the nail in the coffin in regards to calamities.

This is an issue I could easily sweep under the rug, since I am not a Californian, and am not gay, the issue would never affect my standing in the Church. Ignoring the issue is something I refuse to do, not thinking about it and just going with what the Church says is something I am not willing to do. I believe God game me a brain and the ability to reason with the intent that I would use it for my benefit and for the benefit of others. I do not think it is wrong to question things that the Church does. I do think it is wrong to act on those questions without thinking and prayerfully considering the issues.

Though I have many reasons to oppose a ban of same-sex marriage, there are many factors I am not aware of; particularly the future implications of legalized same-sex marriage. If I truly believe that the Church is true, then I would concede that they are more aware of these things, and would be justified in supporting a proposition such as Proposition 8. Given that my own information is imperfect, and given that I actually do believe that the Church is true, I will trust their judgment. Though it would still be extremely hard for me to vote for such a proposition, I do not conclude that the Church’s support for this proposition invalidates its integrity or truthfulness.

I am not on a crusade against the Church, I wrote this article for myself, examining both sides of the issue and weighing it with my faith. I feel I am a better person for it.

* See church broadcast on the subject:
^ Proclamation on the Family