Once same-sex marriage finally becomes legal throughout Canada, my mother
will breathe a sigh of relief. Her only daughter will have no more reason to
object to the idea of formally tying the knot.
It's not what you think. Barring the possibility of my falling in love with
a woman for the first time, the person I marry will most likely be a man.
Still, same-sex marriage might lead to at least one heterosexual marriage -
mine.
The bible-bashers and I agree on one thing: gay marriage changes the
definition of marriage.
The difference is, I see that as a positive development affecting all
couples, regardless of orientation.
I used to say I'd never get married. After all, the term "husband" comes
from the same roots as "animal husbandry." It used to mean "master of a
house."
I am not a cow. I don't need to be husbanded.
Etymology aside, marriage has historically been largely about economics, not
love. Why else would so many marriages in so many cultures throughout the
ages have been arranged?
When most of my female ancestors reached a suitable age -- 17, in my
grandmother's case -- they were married off to suitable men.
Good economic prospects? Check. Appropriate social status? Check. No obvious
genetic disease in the family? Check. Love wasn't really part of the
equation, although with luck, affection might grow alongside children and a
sense of duty.
Traditional marriage made a woman her husband's responsibility as well as
his chattel. He had to provide for her; in exchange, she became Mrs. John
Doe, her identify all but erased.
Until the 19th century, any property a woman might own passed automatically
to her husband upon marriage and any wages she might earn after marriage
also became her husband's.
In Ontario, it wasn't until 1872 that married women got to keep their own
wages, and not until 1884 were they able to own their own property.
Yes, that was the 19th century. But consider this. Until 1983, a Canadian
husband could legally rape his wife. If that doesn't say a woman was her
husband's property, I don't know what does.
Of course, marriage hasn't just been about ownership. It's also
traditionally been about sex, procreation and religion.
But the world has changed. People don't need a licence to have sex anymore.
And when's the last time you heard the phrase "living in sin?"
People have children without getting married, while others get married
planning never to have children. Those who want rug-rats can obtain them
through adoption, in-vitro fertilization or surrogates.
Churches no longer have a monopoly on marriage. Any heathen can get married
without the whole religion bit.
Now that wedding bells aren't a prerequisite for "getting some," women
aren't anyone's chattel and couples don't necessarily need to reproduce,
there's only one reason left for marriage: love.
In a world where people get married solely because they love each other and
want to spend the rest of their lives together, there's no good reason why
they can't be two men, two women or, indeed, two people who choose not to
identify themselves with either sex.
And for the couples who happen to be one man and one woman? Legalizing
same-sex marriage means marriage is, at last, a partnership between equals,
bonded by love.
When the federal government declares marriage open to my gay and lesbian
friends, it'll become an institution I'd be proud to participate in.
Now, all I need to do is find someone to marry. Karen Kawawada