Since the June 10, decision of the Ontario Court of Appeals, a great many Canadians from all faiths, cultures, and backgrounds, have objected strenuously to the proposed redefinition of marriage. Due to the encouraging and effective opposition from this group, some politicians and pundits are attempting a more nuanced position on the issue: because they wish to ingratiate themselves with the ever-growing coalition against same-sex “marriage” they oppose those measures that would change the time-honoured definition. However, in an attempt to appease the clamorous homosexual lobby, they have proposed a legal parody of marriage: same-sex civil union.

This compromise, which appeals mainly to those who are indifferent or undecided on the subject, has been rejected by both active sides in the debate. Homosexual activists know that their allies in parliament can win them more than a mere marriage equivalent. And those defending the unique character of marriage are even less enamoured with the possibility of same-sex civil unions. Marriage would cease to be unique; rather, it would be one of a pair: not sacred, just different.

Furthermore, if any civil union legislation was made law, activist judges, who have no compunction with legislating from the bench, would rule civil unions unconstitutional before the parliamentary ink was dry.

Although it would seem that recent events, such as the failed Sept. 16, vote to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, have rendered the question of same-sex civil unions moot, there are still those who endorse this compromise. Moreover, it is the motivation which gave rise to the concept of a same-sex civil unions compromise, which is still too much with us; it is this thinking which still resonates in public debate on the subject.

By employing the language of the disenfranchised, and by appealing to the high-minded principles of human rights and equality, homosexual activists seek to portray same-sex “marriage” as something which they are owed. Although many still think it unjust to change the definition of marriage, there is, in the minds of some, a feeling that giving homosexual activists no concessions is unfair. But if marriage is truly above the caprice of law, it cannot abide legal lookalikes.

Marriage is not an issue of equality and it is not a right: it is a privilege available only to two heterosexuals who seek the wholeness and holiness of the married state. While same-sex “marriage” is an injury to marriage, same-sex civil unions are an insult.