Dr. Daniel Cere - Institute for Study of Marriage, Law and Culture
IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE DEBATES THAT ARE REALLY THE HOT BUTTON IN OUR CULTURES, THEY REALLY REVOLVE AROUND THE QUESTIONS OF GENDER, EQUALITY OF GENDER, SEXUALITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, REPRODUCTIVITY, ABORTION IS ALL PART OF THAT PACKAGE. SO WE HAVE HAD A WHOLE BASKET OF ISSUES THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SORT THROUGH IN THE AREA OF SEXUALITY, GENDER AND NOW MARRIAGE. AND THESE ARE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN WITH US FOR SOME GENERATIONS NOW AND PROBABLY WILL BE WITH US FOR MORE GENERATIONS WE ARE MOVING THROUGH A LARGE DIFFICULT PERIOD IN TERMS OF RETHINKING THESE ISSUES AND RELIGIOUS TRADITION I THINK ARE FRONT AND CENTRE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.

VO/  This is one of Canada’s brightest minds on the history of marriage.   Dr. Daniel Cere - his research into redefining it is filled with caution: 

You brought to the committee meeting an argument from an anthropological explanation. Can you describe that for us?

Dr. Daniel Cere /  Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture: 

“THERE HAS BEEN A HEFTY BODY OF RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE LAST 5-10 YEARS ON THE QUESTION OF MARRIAGE, LARGELY COMING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY. IT IS A RICH BODY OF LIT...AS YOU WORK THROUGH (possible to start here?)THERE IS ONE HUGE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT IS LEFT OUT OF THE DISCUSSION AND THAT IS THE PHENOMENON OF HETEROSEXUALS, HETEROSEXUAL BONDING, ITS MASSIVE SIGNIFICANCE IN HUMAN LIFE, THAT IT HAS THIS ORGANIC ELEMENT TO IT, IT FUSES AND IT CREATES LIFE. 

THESE REMARKABLE FEATURES OF SEXUALITY, IN HUMAN CULTURE MARRIAGE IS TRIED TO MANAGE THAT COMPLEXITY. THE TROUBLE WITH HET. SEX IS THAT IT IS BIG, IT IS COMPLEX AND IT DOMINATES IN TERMS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, LARGE PERCENTAGE, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT PROBABLY 95 PERCENT OF HUMAN BEINGS ARE HET. SEX. ORIENTED. THERE ARE ALWAYS DEBATES ABOUT THE NUMBERS BUT SOME OF THE BEST DATA WE HAVE SIGNALS THAT IT IS WAY UP THERE...

IT IS THE PROCREATIVE MAINFRAME OF HUMAN LIFE...SO INSTITUTIONS LIKE MARRIAGE ARE NOT JUST FUNCTIONAL INSTITUTIONS, THEY ARE NOT BOXES. ONE OF THE ANALOGIES SED YESTERDAY WAS WELL, MARRIAGE IS LIKE A BARN WHERE PEOPLE COME IN AND OUT AND YOU CAN JUST SHOW ON ANOTHER DOOR LET MORE PEOPLE COME IN. 

BUT INSTITUTIONS LIKE MARRIAGE, PRIMAL INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT JUST EMPTY BOXES, THEY HAVE A CONTOUR LIFE TO THEM AND PURPOSES THAT THEY STRUGGLE TO SERVE. 

So explain why heterosexual bonding is different than all other sexual unions?

THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT PLATFORM OF SHARED EXPERIENCE IN A SENSE THERE IS TWO DIFFERENT SEXES IN THE RELATIONSHIP, THAT CREATES A CERTAIN COMPLEXITY IN THE RELATIONSHIP THAT IS UNIQUE. 

THE PROCREATIVE ELEMENT IN THE HET. SEX. BOND THERE IS ALMOST AN ORGANIC ELEMENT, LIKE THESE TWO BEINGS COME TOGETHER FOR SEXUAL BONDING AND THE BIOLOGY FUSES IN A CERTAIN SENSE. THERE IS AN ORGANIC DIMENSION TO HET. SEX. BONDING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE.

THE FACT THAT MARRIAGE IS A CULTURAL FRAMING OF ALL OF THIS STUFF ALSO TRIES IN A SENSE TO HOLD THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CHILDREN THAT ARE THE PRODUCT OF HETEROSEXUAL SEX BONDING WHETHER THAT BONDING OCCURS IN A MARRIAGE OR WHETHER IT OCCURS IN A SAME SEX 

It’s the rights of children that both sides are using in this debate.

Lorna So explain what are the birthright issues for children in marriage?

AGAIN ANOTHER ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM ISSUE, IS THAT WHEN WE CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, IT IS GOING TO HAVE SOME FUNDAMENTAL IMPLICATION AT HOW WE SEE PARENT HOOD, CONNECTION OF CHILDREN TO PARENTS, BECAUSE AS A SOCIETY WE ARE SENSING THAT WE ARE NO LONGER PRIVILEGING, NO LONGER NUDGING, WE ARE NO LONG AFFIRMING THIS SPECIAL CONNECTION OF CHILDREN TO THEIR NATURAL PARENTS, THAT CHILDREN HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CONNECTED TO THEIR NATURAL PARENTS, THEIR ORGANIC ROOTS IN THAT SENSE, TO BE CONNECTED AND TO KNOW, TO BE IN A REAL ONGOING RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR NATURAL PARENT.

MARRIAGE DOES THAT, MARRIAGE AS AN INSTITUTION HAS DONE THAT VERY WELL, TO SHARE THAT RIGHT. 

Lorna:  Now you have some views that marriage preexists religion. can you explain that?

WELL, I CAN EXPLAIN IT BY A BIBLICAL PASSAGE. GEN 2, I THINK RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS INTUITIVELY KNOW THIS AND THEY OFTEN WRITE IT INTO THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES. IN THE GEN NARRATIVE, YOU HAVE THE CREATION OF HUMAN BEINGS MALE AND FEMALE IN GEN 1, GEN 2 IN SECOND CHAPTER WE HAVE THE EXPLORATION IN A SENSE OF THE 8TH DAY, A DAY AFTER GOD’S REST IS NOW THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE , IN MARRIAGES, SO THIS IS THE FIRST SOCIAL EVENT OF THE HUMAN CONDITION, IT IS THE  INSTITUTION OF MALE AND FEMALE BONDING. 

THE BRIDGING OF SEX DIFFERENCE AND WE HAVE THE SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC SPECIES AND THAT DIFFERENCE IS BRIDGED IN THIS PRIMAL LINK BETWEEN MAN AND A WOMAN. SO IN THE OLD TEST NARRATIVE, THAT’S THE STATEMENT, THIS IS THE FIRST THING ABOUT HUMAN SOCIETY, IS THIS BRIDGING OF THESE MALE AND FEMALE DIFFERENCE AS FUNDAMENTAL AND AT A LATER STAGE, ISRAEL IMMERGES AS A RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY, EMERGES ON THE BACK OF THIS FAMILIAR, IT IS A PATRIARCHAL TRADITION, IN A SENSE OF THE PATRIARCHS WHICH ARE THE FAMILIES THAT CARRY THE FAITH.

SO VERY FUNDAMENTAL.

WHEN JESUS IS QUESTIONED IN MARK 10 ABOUT THE DIVORCE LAW, BASICALLY HE WAS SAYING THIS DIVORCE STUFF IS A FUNCTION, A RELIGIOUS LAW, AND IT WAS TO ACCOMMODATE IN A CERTAIN SENSE THAT YOU GUYS WERE NOT GETTING IT RIGHT, YOU WERE NOT TEACHABLE ON CERTAIN THINGS, AND WHAT ARE THE BASIC THINGS: GOD CREATED MALE AND FEMALE, HE CREATED THEM, SO IT COMES TO THOSE SEXUAL BASICS, SEXUAL DIMORPHOSE, YOU ARE SPECIES YOU ARE SEXUALLY DIFFERENTIATED SPECIES, AND YOU COME TOGETHER, YOU BOND, THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE, THERE IS AN ORGANIC LINKAGE BETWEEN THE TWO, AND HE CONCLUDES, WHAT HAS BEEN JOINED TOGETHER, DON’T SEPARATE THESE THINGS.

But what about those who don’t hold to those same religious values? What is the argument that makes marriage heterosexual?

I WOULD ARGUE THAT JESUS WAS MAKING A NON RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT, HE WAS ARGUING THIS IS THE WAY THE SPECIES IS, IN A CERTAIN SENSE, HE WAS MAKING A BASIC OBSERVATION ON THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM HERE. THAT THE HUMAN SPECIES ARE SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC SPECIES THAT THE SEXUAL BONDING IS A HUGE, MASSIVE PART OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE. 

AND MARRIAGE HAS BEEN A CULTURAL FRAME, A CULTURAL AFFIRMATION, A STRUGGLE TO MOVE THAT IN A DIRECTION,.IT IS A CONSTANTLY DYNAMIC INSTITUTION, CONSTANTLY FORMING AND RE FORMING, STRUGGLING AS IT FORMS AND REFORMS TO MANAGE THIS MASS EFFECT. 

WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IN THE SAME SEX PROJECT IS A FUNDAMENTAL REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE THAT ESSENTIALLY SIDELINES BASIC FEATURES OF HETEROSEXUAL EXPERIENCE.

Cut out or keep in?
(THE ONTARIO AND QUEBEC COURT JUDGEMENTS ARE PROPOSING A DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE THAT MAKES A PERFECT SENSE IN TERM OF SAME SEX EXPERIENCE, IT IS A DEFINITION IF MARRIAGE TUNED TO SAME SEX EXPERIENCE, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN HETER.SEX EXPERIENCE. TO LIMIT PRO-CREATIVITY O MARRIAGE WHICH TH E ONTARIO JUDGES HAVE ARGUED FOR AN THE QUEBEC JUDGES HAVE ARGUED FOR, WELL THAT MAKE A PERFECT SENSE IN THERM OS SAME SEX EXPERIENCE ITS BIZARRE IN TERMS OF HETEROSEXUAL EXPERIENCE BECAUSE IT IS ENTIRELY PROCREATIVE AND HETEROSEXUALS SPEND MOST OF THEIR TIME TRYING TO DEVISE TECHNOLOGIES TO CONSTRAIN PROCREATIVITY SAME SEX HAVE TO TRY TO DEVISE METHODS OF CIRCUMVENTING THE INHERED NON PROCREATIVITY OF SAME SEX EXPERIENCE
TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF BOND, VERY DIFFERENT SOCIAL ECOLOGIES, VERY DIFFERENT OUTCOMES)

Lorna: Is marriage a human right?

WELL, IN A CERTAIN SENSE, RIGHTS IN THIS AREA ARE VERY COMPLEX. MARRIAGE THIS IN A SENSE WHERE WE NEED MORE ANTHROPOLOGISTS NOT LEGAL THEORISTS, BECAUSE THIS IS A PRIMAL INSTITUTION. IT’S NOT JUST A FUNCTIONAL REALITY THAT YOU ADD AND SUBTRACT TO AS YOU WANT.

SO THE RIGHTS LANGUAGE, AND LANGUAGE OF EQUALITY AND IMPARTIALITY, THOSE WORK WELL WITH OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE AN ASSOCIATION WITH THE KIND OF DEPTH AND COMPLEXITY TO IT LIKE MARRIAGE I THINK YOU NEED TO BRING OTHER VOICES INTO THIS DISCUSSION. 

THERE’S A SENSE IN WHICH RIGHTS LANGUAGE APPLIES TO MARRIAGES, A SENSE OF THE RIGHT TO MARRY, BUT THAT IS A COMPLEX RIGHT. YOU CAN LEGALLY HAVE A RIGHT TO MARRY BUT IN A CERTAIN SENSE THAT RIGHT IS ONLY REALLY GIVEN TO YOU WHEN A PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX SAYS YES. SO THAT’S ONE WEIRD COMPLEXITY TO MARRIAGE. BUT I THINK HERE TOO THE RIGHT HAS TO DO WITH THE NATURE OF THE INSTITUTION. AND THE NATURE O THE INSTITUTION IS TRYING TO MANAGE THIS ARENA OF OPPOSITE SEX BONDING.

STRICTLY SPEAKING, INDIVIDUALS OF ANY SEXUAL ORIENTATION HAVE A RIGHT TO MARRY - RIGHT TO ENTER INTO AN OPPOSITE SEX BOND. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST HOMOSEXUALLY ORIENTED IND. TO ENTER INTO THAT BOND. SO ON THAT LEVEL, IT’S NOT AN ISSUE.

Explain your concept of how this destabilizes marriage?

MARRIAGE IS ALWAYS IN CHANGE, AND CONSTANT EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT. IT’S A VERY CREATIVE AND DYNAMIC INSTITUTION. BUT THERE’S ARE CHANGES THAT ARE DESTABILIZATIONS, AND WE’VE SEEN THAT IN HISTORY. 

CHANGES LIKE THE MOVE TO MONOGAMY. MANY SOCIETIES WERE POLYGAMOUS, TO THIS DAY, MONOGAMY SEEMS TO HAVE A VERY POSITIVE IMPACT IN STABILIZING OPPOSITE SEX RELATIONSHIPS AND MOVING THEM FORWARD. 

THE MOVEMENT TOWARDS MORE PERMANENCE IN MARRIAGE. WE’VE SEEN RECENTLY WITH THE REFORMS TO THE DIVORCE LAW, WHEN YOU TAMPER WITH SOME OF THESE CORE ELEMENTS LIKE PERMANENCE OR MONOGAMY, OPPOSITE SEX BONDING, RIGHT AWAY WE SEE IMPACT. LIKE SPIKES IN THE DIVORCE RATES, NO FAULT DIVORCE, THE TAMPERING WITH PROCREATIVITY IN MARRIAGE, THE UNIVERSALIZATION OF ABORTION. ALL THE EXPERTS BACK IN THE 1960S ABOUT DIVORCE OR ABORTION SAID THIS IS JUST GOING TO HELP A FEW HURTING PEOPLE WHO NEED TO HAVE ABORTIONS, OR NEED TO GET DIVORCED. WHEN PEOPLE RAISE QUESTIONS LIKE WILL THIS HAVE A BIGGER IMPACT. 

THEY SAID THAT’S JUST FEAR MONGERING AND IT WON’T DESTABILIZE THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. WELL IT DID. ABORTION RATES SPIKED, RATES OF PROCREATION DIVED, DIVORCE RATES SPIKED AND THE INSTITUTION WAS DESTABILIZED BECAUSE YOU’RE TAMPERING WITH CORE FUNDAMENTAL FEATURES OF AN INSTITUTION.   INSTITUTIONS HAVE A CERTAIN KIND OF LIFE. THEY HAVE A CHARACTER TO THEM. THEY HAVE A CERTAIN KIND OF INNER DYNAMISM THAT HAS TO BE WORKED WITH AND DEVELOPED.

(Potential add-on)
WE’LL HAVE TO LOOK CLOSELY AT THE SITUATION IN THE NETHERLANDS AND BELGIUM OVER THE NEXT 10 OR 20 YEARS. SVEND ROBINSON RAISED A QUESTION AT THE END OF THE SESSION, SAYING WE HAVEN’T SEEN THIS. WELL WE’RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE OF YEARS. IN THIS ARENA YOU DON’T SEE CHANGES OVERNIGHT. YOU SEE CHANGES IN A GENERATION. A GENERATION IS A LONG TIME TO WAIT TO SEE HOW AN EXPERIMENT IS WORKING OUT, WE GIVE A DRUG COMPANIES 5 YEARS TO EXPERIMENT ON A DRUG THAT WILL AFFECT SOME SMALL ASPECT OF OUR PHYSICAL WELLBEING. I THINK WE’LL NEED A LONG TIME TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE SOCIAL REVOLUTION WILL PLAY OUT IN COUNTRIES LIKE HOLLAND. AND I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE SOME SERIOUS EVIDENCE DOWN THE ROAD THAT HAS AN IMPACT.

This began because of our provincial courts actually putting a time line, saying you have a two year deadline to figure this out.  As an ethicist how do you feel about that kind of judicial activism?

WELL I THINK THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CONCERN OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS OVER JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN OUR COURTS AND THE WAY IN WHICH THE CHARTER HAS BEEN USED TO MAKE AND REMAKE LAW. I THINK THIS MAY WELL TURN OUT TO BE THE MOST OUTSTANDING EXAMPLES OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM THAT WE’VE YET TO ENCOUNTER. 

BECAUSE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT AN INSTITUTION THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO NOT ONLY CANADIAN SOCIETY, BUT HUMAN SOCIETY. THE SUGGESTION THAT THE COURTS, A HANDFUL OF JUDGES, IF IT GOES TO THE SUPREME COURT - 8 OR 9 JUDGES, REDESIGN THIS INSTITUTION FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. I THINK IT WOULD BE AN EXTRAORDINARY ACT OF JUDICIAL AGGRESSION. 

AND THE PLACE TO ARGUE THIS, AND IT NEEDS TO BE ARGUED IN FULL ROBUST WAY IN A PUBLIC DEBATE AND IT SHOULD, AND ALSO WITHIN THE ACADEMY THERE HASN’T BEEN ONE THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS A SUBSTANTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CURRENT LAYERS OF ADVOCACY, DEBATE PUT FORWARD ABOUT SAME SEX MARRIAGES. AND IT WILL COME. THESE THINGS DON’T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. ACADEMIC TRENDS TEND TO GO OVER DECADES SO WE CAN EXPECT WITHIN THE NEXT TEN YEARS OR SO SOME INCREASING AND SUBSTANTIAL RESPONSE TO THE KINDS OF ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD. 

WE NEED SOME SERIOUS TIME HERE. THE COURT IS PLACING A 2 YEAR LIMITATION, IS UNBELIEVABLE. IT’S JUST AN UNBELIEVABLE MOVE. AGGRESSIVE IS PROBABLY A SOFT WORD TO USE ABOUT THAT KIND OF APPROACH. 

The last time redefining marriage came to a vote in Parliament was two years ago. The  vote was 216 to 55 in favor of keeping marriage heterosexual.  MP’s voted in response to the views of their constituents and need to hear again from you.  There are only a few weeks to make submissions on marriage to the Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Appeal The Marriage Decision

Submit your views to:

The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Block
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
Phone: 613-992-4211 
Email: pm@pm.gc.ca

The Honourable Martin Cauchon
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Justice Building,
Kent and Wellington Streets
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H8 
Phone: 613-957-4222
Email: Cauchon.M@parl.gc.ca