|
Muslim have an interest in Tolerance too
by Mohamed Elmasry
While researching her excellent book, "Homosexuality and World
Religions," Prof. Arlene Swidler visited China and asked scholars there
about the status of homosexuals. Were there any laws against
gays/lesbians? she enquired. The answer was No. Then were there perhaps
laws that, intending to protect families, worked against the rights of
gays/lesbians? After a long debate among themselves, the Chinese
specialists ended the discussion by declaring categorically that there
was no problem; there are no homosexuals in China, period.
By contrast, Edith Cresson, France's first female Prime Minister, made
international headlines in 1992 by claiming "one in four British men is
homosexual."
Laws about morality have existed from time immemorial. And problems
arising from (de)criminalizing (im)moral acts, or even accepting them as
part and parcel of legitimate contracts between consenting adults, have
challenged courts and judicial systems for just as long. Courts cannot
function in a vacuum, disregarding considerations which are often extra-
legal in character; and these considerations include the moral values
held by society.
According to the teachings of most world religions, homosexuality is an
immoral act. This of couse does not mean that homosexuality was and is
not practiced, but since the issue became politicized more than 30 years
ago, the practice of same-sex relations has been decriminalized by many
countries, from Canada to Egypt.
More recently, both in Canada and in much of Europe, contracts between
two consenting gay/lesbian individuals have been accepted as valid
equivalents to the traditional man/woman "marriage." This has led
governments to extend social benefits to same-sex couples.
Today in Canada it is illegal for three consenting adults, such as a man
and two women, to be husband and wives. They can, however, be husband,
wife, and mistress. They can even be part of a legal contract, in effect
a husband and two "wives." But the law cannot allow a man to "marry" his
mistress if he already has a wife, even if his faith allows it. Why?
Because the issue has not yet been politicized.
So what do you do in a liberal democracy when the moral beliefs and
traditions of different groups collide? It seems the best way out may be
a multiplicity of laws to accommodate them all.
The Netherlands was the first country in the world to give gay/lesbian
couples the same legal rights as straight couples, including the right to
marry. But in Canada, the situation is more complicated.
Our federal government drafted its controversial same-sex legislation
only after two provincial superior courts (Ontario and B.C.) ruled that
it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The
proposed federal legislation replaces the common-law notion of a union
between a man and a woman with a new definition that states: "Marriage,
for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion
of all others."
That definition clearly excludes marriage between more than two persons,
yet affirms religious freedom by recognizing the right of all faiths to
allow or refuse marriage to same-sex couples according to their own moral
teachings.
The federal government has referred its draft legislation to the Supreme
Court of Canada to ensure that its contents are constitutional. A free
vote will then be held in Parliament this fall.
The proposed legislation is opposed by many faith leaders, including
those of the Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu
communities; and if it were not for Catholics taking the lead, few other
religious leaders would dare to voice any public opposition to it.
During debates over same-sex marriages in the Netherlands, a
fundamentalist Christian Protestant politician who compared homosexuals
to thieves, was taken to court, but eventually acquitted. And an Imam was
warned by the BVD (Dutch internal intelligence service) that he could be
expelled from the country on charges of working against the integration
of ethnic minorities into Dutch society, after he described homosexuality
as a disease which can be cured.
Opposition to same-sex marriage legislation in Canada received recent
support from President George W. Bush, who declared that the legal
protections of marriage should apply only to the union of a man and a
woman, adding that U.S. government lawyers are exploring measures to
legally define marriage in that way. "I believe a marriage is between a
man and a woman," he said. "I think we ought to codify that one way or
the other."
If Canadian MPs vote this fall according to the views held by their
constituencies, the new legislation will not pass. But this will not
solve the problem, because the federal government must then introduce a
new compromise. And if the Supreme Court of Canada were to rule that the
prerogative of all faiths to allow or refuse marriage to same-sex couples
is unconstitutional, this would be worse still.
The fundamental basis of Law, any law, can be traced back to religious
roots, for religious teachings promote law and order by stating that each
individual is predestined or "saved" for eternal salvation or damnation.
Furthermore, religious teachings from most faith traditions state that
while an individual has no way of knowing his or her destiny, a sign of
impending salvation has always been respect for and adherence to moral
values.
So should Canada now look for a new term, other than "marriage," to
describe same-sex unions? Linguists and theologians, please help!
Mohamed Elmasry
is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of
Waterloo and national president of the
Canadian Islamic Congress.
He contributed above article (an abridged
edited version of this article appeared in the August
6, 2003 Globe And Mail) to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from
Ontario, Canada.
Source:
by the same author:
|
