Canadian Unitarianism: An Idea of a Possibility

Confluence: No. 2
A Lecture Series Sponsored By
The Unitarian*Universalist Ministers of Canada
Canadian Unitarianism: An Idea of a Possibility
Presented by Rev. Ray Drennan
At The Annual Conference and Meeting of
The Canadian Unitarian Council
Edmonton, Alberta, May 22, 2004
Only when the centre is truly empty
can the full possibilities of deep spirituality enter among us.
Ray Drennan

PART ONE

Last year the Rev. John Baros Johnson inaugurated this lecture series on a very high note. He’s a hard act to follow. With some fear and trepidation, let me begin this year with a short story from the Hasidic tradition. A man was heard reciting the alphabet in a synagogue. He then said, “Dear God, I don’t know how to pray, yet with these poor letters from my alphabet I am sure that you will be able to compose a great prayer.” Today, from these poor letters of my alphabet I trust that you, my learned listeners, will be able to compose a fine lecture. It is an honour to be here today, to give this the second, in what we hope will be an annual, lecture in our series called Confluence. The purpose of this lecture series is ”to provoke thinking (imagine that) and in so doing inspire action and engender wholeness and integrity” (VIA Journal, Vision-in-action). I am grateful that you have thought it worth your while to be here to listen to my thoughts on the topic of Canadian Unitarianism: An Idea of a Possibility. If I don’t speak too long I hope we have some time for discussion.

A WORD ON THE TITLE:

Perhaps you were curious about the title. It’s not unique to me. Part of my recent sabbatical was spent visiting more than a dozen of our congregations. I did a very unministerial thing. I went to listen. I asked a lot of people what makes Canada, Canada, and what makes Unitarianism north of the 45th or the 49th parallel Canadian – much as the CUC’s Principles and Sources Task Force is now doing. Some people answered very personally while others, claiming to speak for all, actually spoke only for their particular spiritual/social/political sub-group which they believed defined the centre. Whether humanist, cosmologist, NDPer, environmentalist, Christian or Pagan, each tried,”with varying degrees of eloquence to define the challenged centre”. Neil Bissoondath said something like that about Canada itself (Selling Illusions). It was Gilbert Bouchard though, from right here in Edmonton, who won the prize in my books. He answered, “Canadian Unitarianism is an idea of a possibility.” Thanks Gilbert. Your answer resonated with me and stimulated more than a little reflection.

---

To read the full lecture (in PDF format), click here (the document will open in a new window).

Once you've read the lecture, please come back and post your comments by clicking on "COMMENTS" or "POST A COMMENT" below.

Ignoring the facts to achieve 'truth'

By Gilles Marchildon *
October 25, 2006

There's an old saying out there that one shouldn't let actual facts get in the way of "truth". The religious right in Canada seems to adhere to this as part of its credo.

Yesterday, Defend Marriage Canada held a lobby day for the religious right on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. The initiative was led by Charles McVety of the Canada Family Action Coalition.

McVety, you might recall, has threatened various sitting Members of Parliament with "grass-roots" campaigns to unseat them. (Here's a great example of where the label "Special Interest Group" truly deserves to be applied.)

He was also responsible for the outcry against Famous Players Media for allowing a paid ad campaign, which promoted equal marriage, to be screened prior to film screenings.

McVety declared the purpose of the lobby day, called "National Marriage Caucus", was "to address the various concerns that are out there." More specifically, they are opposed to the equal right of same-sex couples to get married and are goading MPs into re-opening equal marriage. Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems very willing to do their bidding.

The "various concerns" alluded to by McVety are not actual questions being raised by ordinary Canadians. Instead, they are the results of his own fear-mongering which conveniently ignores the facts.

His website declares that because of equal marriage, "sodomy is equated to normal heterosexual relations. Clergy, acting as marriage commissioners are forced to marry same-sex couples. Religious institutions and facilities have no protection".

It's very compelling for uninformed folks, concerned their way of thinking is shared by an increasingly smaller group of people. It's also an effective pitch for money.

But let's review the facts.

Fact: No clergy member, acting as a religious official, has EVER been forced to marry a same-sex couple.

Fact: Religious institutions and facilities are fully protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court even clearly said so. This means faith communities do NOT have to marry same-sex couples, rent out their sacred spaces or otherwise assist with their marriages.

Fact: Clergy are free to determine who they will marry and under what conditions. For instance, couples of different faiths or where one person is divorced, cannot expect to be married by all clergy. Clergy and religions set their own rules.

Fact: A majority of Canadians don't have a problem with equal marriage. After all, how does it personally affect them? According to Environics, most people think it's time to move on and leave this issue alone.

Fact: The religious right lobby day actually causes harm to religious freedom in Canada. Many faith communities want to keep their right to decide who they can marry. In some cases, this includes same-sex couples. Religious right leaders, by trying to impose their own narrow way of celebrating marriages, want to curtail the freedom of other faith groups.

While these facts don't support their arguments, McVety and others from the religious right are not letting them get in the way of their "truth".

----

* Gilles Marchildon is Executive Director of Egale Canada, a non-profit organization that advances equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified people, and their families, across Canada.

Does 'coming out' still need its own day?

By Gilles Marchildon *
Oct 11, 2006

Today is the annual "National Coming Out Day". It's mostly underlined in the United States but in Canada, a handful of student groups and other organizations mark it, usually without much fanfare.

Does this point to significant culture differences between Canada and the U.S.? Perhaps.

A quick overview suggests that Canada has a greater percentage of openly gay and lesbian elected officials, per capita, than the States. Mind you, sexual orientation of candidates is no longer making headlines as it previously did so it's challenging to research exact numbers.

While both countries have "out" public personalities, four relatively recent events in the U.S. underline just how sensitive a topic homosexual orientation remains.

Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey is in the news (again). You may recall the ex-Governor stepped down in 2004 after revealing he had cheated on his wife - with another man. The public admission he was gay made him the only openly gay governor (and according to Wikipedia, the "only openly gay man to serve as a head of government anywhere in North America").

McGreevey was back in the news recently, appearing on Oprah and promoting his new memoir book, already topping bestseller lists. In part, the book's sales success can be attributed to America's obsession with salacious scandal and homosexuality.

The other recent event is the mid-summer "coming out" of celebrity Lance Bass, a performer who was part of the popular '90s band 'N Sync. As with McGreevey, Bass "came out" in a highly public way, through an interview with People Magazine.

Apparently, Bass stayed in the closet for years because he didn't want to affect the band's popularity. He told People Magazine: "I knew that I was in this popular band, and I had four other guys' careers in my hand, and I knew that if I ever acted on it or even said [that I am gay], it would overpower everything. I didn't know: Could that have been the end of 'N Sync?" Many music industry folks said indeed, it would have ended the band's high soar in the charts.

Thirdly, the Brokeback Mountain phenomena also underlines the still-present sensitivity surrounding homosexuality. There is no denying the fact it was a well-crafted movie with a powerful, ill-fated, love story. But there is also no denying that because the love story involved two male characters, in an untypical setting, this attracted more attention.

It was revealing to witness the considerable efforts by the film's marketing to downplay the gay angle and also, to emphasize the real-life heterosexuality of its two male leads.

Finally, the fourth and most recent event is the political storm surrounding former Florida Republican Representative Mark Foley. The revelation he sent sexually charged electronic messages to a former (under-age) male page prompted his resignation but the controversy continues weeks later.

Coming back to the initial question, does "coming out" still need its own day?

Obviously, people should pick their own day and way of coming out, as suits their circumstances and comfort level.

But they often cannot, because of societal constraints and fear of negative repercussions. It's therefore still relevant to have a Coming Out Day.

Coming Out Day does not mean everyone should leap out of the closet at the same time. The shock in mainstream society might be too much to handle! Instead, Coming Out Day underlines the fact many people can't or won't.

----

* Gilles Marchildon is Executive Director of Egale Canada, a non-profit organization that advances equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified people, and their families, across Canada.

Here We Go Again...

By Gilles Marchildon*
September 25, 2006

It's back-to-school month and time for a little history lesson.

Two years ago, on September 16, 2004, Manitoba became the fifth jurisdiction in Canada to recognize equal marriage for same-sex couples. A week later, on September 24, 2004, Nova Scotia followed. This was months before federal Parliament adopted legislation which extended this recognition across Canada.

Justice Douglas Yard of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench probably didn't do it on purpose. Still, the timing of his September 16 decision two years ago was appropriate... and very ironic. Why?

Exactly one year before the Manitoba decision, Parliament voted September 16, 2003, on a marriage motion put forward by the Canadian Reform Alliance Party of Canada (or C.R.A.P., an unfortunate but perhaps fitting acronym).

The Alliance motion used the same wording as a motion put forward in 1999 by the Reform Party (same folks, different name). It proposed that: "marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada."

In other words, the motion sought to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage. Fortunately, it was defeated 137-132. Ten points if you recall who tabled the ill-fated motion.

The motion was introduced by Stephen Harper, then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister.

The day after his motion was defeated, Harper joined in voting against MP Svend Robinson's Private Member's Bill C-250. The latter aimed to add "sexual orientation" as a protected ground under hate propaganda laws.

Many religious conservative groups opposed to same-sex marriage were also critical of Bill C-250, falsely suggesting that quoting the Bible could be considered hate propaganda. The same people, who already enjoyed protection against hate propaganda, were opposed to the idea of extending that same protection to a historically persecuted group.

Fortunately, Harper's view did not carry the day, once again. On September 17, 2003, the House of Commons voted 141-110 in favour.

Fast forward to today.

Media reports suggest Harper's government is planning to introduce a motion to re-open the issue of equal marriage.

Over a year after equal marriage was adopted by federal Parliament (in July 2005), Stephen Harper refuses to let go. There was extensive public discussion for over 2 years and a majority vote in Parliament in Summer 2005.

Moreover, Harper refuses to face the fact that Canadians want him and other MPs to move on. According to Environics polls, two-thirds of Canadians would prefer elected officials use their time and energy on other pressing matters.

We shouldn't have to be revisiting equal marriage and our national government should not be trying to roll back the clock on equality.

A thin majority of MPs seem unprepared to follow Mr. Harper into re-opening this debate. We should be urging them not to. (Visit www.equal-marriage.ca.)

----

* Gilles Marchildon is Executive Director of Egale Canada, a non-profit organization that advances equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified people, and their families, across Canada.

Alberta Bill Redux

By Gilles Marchildon*
September 7, 2006

Like a bad horror movie, in which the monster refuses to die despite repeated attacks, an Alberta Private Member's Bill keeps returning to haunt us - and the "undead" will apparently be back next Spring!

This past May, Conservative Member of the Alberta Legislative Assembly (MLA), Ted Morton, proposed Private Member's Bill 208. It aimed to protect Alberta's marriage commissioners from being compelled to perform same-sex marriages, despite the fact the province's government has already committed itself to this.

Bill 208 also included provisions to allow teachers not to talk about same-sex marriage, and students to withdraw from any part of a course where same-sex marriage would be discussed.

In other words, it would have allowed some people to stick their heads in the sand, pretending they can hide from the outside world and its realities... just like the ostrich reputedly tries to do.

Of even greater concern, the Bill aimed to protect people from being subjected to the Human Rights Code on the basis of their religious beliefs. This would have established a dangerous situation where potentially, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified (LGBT) people could be fired or evicted from home if their employer or landlord felt their own religious beliefs were violated by their employee's or tenant's homosexual orientation.

Bill 208 was not given the time of day to be adopted or even debated last May because the clock ran out on the Spring session.

But on August 28, Morton released his monster again. Once again, it was killed in its tracks by Opposition MLAs who used procedural tactics. Yet Morton refuses to let it die, vowing the Bill will be back.

One could say Morton's Bill, agree or disagree with it, should have an opportunity to be voted on. Certainly, the Speaker of Alberta's Legislature and Morton himself feel this way.

But must a legislature entertain and spend time on any bill put forward by a member? Clearly, many MLAs felt Morton's bill was not worthy. Liberal house leader Laurie Blakeman felt Morton did not deserve "special treatment to get his bill up" and that he was "not going to help Dr. Morton queue jump so he can get special treatment".

NDP Leader Brian Mason declared: "I think it's a bill that's basically attempting to legalize discrimination that's already been prohibited by the Supreme Court of Canada and Parliament."

Liberal Leader Kevin Taft echoed that view, stating: "The bill itself is intolerant. It's probably illegal and it goes against the whole grain of Alberta and Canadian society."

Even Conservative Premier Ralph Klein didn't clearly support the bill, saying he received advice the bill wouldn't stand up to legal challenge.

Ted Morton has a long history of opposing equality rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified (LGBT) people. It so happens Morton is also running to replace Klein as provincial party leader and premier.

The controversy has given Morton, quite conveniently, a higher degree of visibility. It is unfortunate he's chosen to distinguish himself this way, instead of proposing more useful and progressive legislative measures.

----

* Gilles Marchildon is Executive Director of Egale Canada, a non-profit organization that advances equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified people, and their families, across Canada.