Societal morality goes ballistic

Disappearing absolute values throw us onto shifting ethical sands

Opinion

By SEN. DOUGLAS ROCHE
Special to the WCR

These two issues do not seem to be related. They are being handled by different sets of actors within government. But I see them in a linked fashion because they represent, in a vivid manner, the changing ethical perspectives in our country. They both challenge conventional wisdom and attack cherished beliefs. There is no commonality of support or rejection of each, but each perplexes many legislators as they try to figure out the correct moral stance.

At the very least, they show how dramatically our society is changing and how much we need the assertion of moral values to guide us.

Same-sex marriages has suddenly become a major issue. The courts of three provinces, Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, upheld the claims of homosexuals seeking to be legally married. The federal government, without appealing lower court decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada, announced it would bring in legislation changing the definition of marriage so that homosexual marriages across the country would be legal.

The government intends to refer the legislation, when it is drafted, to the Supreme Court for an opinion, then to conduct a free vote in Parliament (though Cabinet members will be compelled to vote for this government bill).

Some parliamentarians are strong supporters of homosexual marriages, others are adamantly opposed. Many, if not most, are caught in a moral dilemma. While they do not want to see the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman tampered with, they are sensitive to the Charter of Rights, which proclaims equality for all. They fear being tarnished as intolerant or unfair if they refuse to allow homosexuals to legally marry.

It is a strange situation indeed that has now evolved. I never thought I would live to see the day when upholding the definition and rights of marriage as an institution so essential to the well-being of Canadians past, present and future would be considered discriminatory. It appears that we, upholding the centuries-old manner in which our society has operated, must now give way in the name of Charter equality.

If ever there was a need for strong spiritual leadership to reaffirm the moral basis that public policies must be built on - that time is now.

The government is taking the position that religions can continue to protect the religious sanctity of marriage. If you are Catholic, or United, or Jewish, or Islamic, go to your place of worship to have your marriage conducted if you desire. But if you are homosexual, go to whomever is authorized to conduct your marriage and it will be legal. So, the government says in effect, everyone should be happy.

This changed legal base of marriage certainly reflects a new set of values. This ethical shift is of the same sort that would allow embryonic stem cell research, yet another matter that is before Parliament. We have entered an age when new technologies and new claims for rights and freedoms are taking us into uncharted waters. What is all this doing to the right of the family as the foundation of our society? Where are we going as a society?

In the ballistic missile situation, we have the Canadian government now entering formal talks with the United States to determine whether Canada will participate in building the new defence system. It seems unlikely that Canada, having come this far, will say no unless there is an outpouring of public opposition.

Here again, there is a moral quandary. It can be argued that the government has a responsibility to protect the public against nuclear weapons attacks. So isn't it moral to construct a defensive shield?

The fact is that defensive shields always provoke new developments of offensive weapons. History is full of such examples. For a very good reason, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was inaugurated in 1972. But now we have entered a new era when the Bush Administration does not want to rely on treaties for disarmament, but wants to use its overpowering military force to impose a "Pax Americana" on the world.

Missile defence will inevitably lead to the weaponization of space. There is no doubt that technologists are preparing the way for the sanctity of the heavens to be the battlefield for the 21st century. In its rush to dominance, the U.S. is ignoring a basic fact that the only absolute guarantee against the use of nuclear weapons is their total elimination.

Thus the consequences of Canada's decision to join into a new military system have immense moral consequences. It appears to me that the government is moving with the sliding moral perspectives of our time.

Absolute values are now challenged and MPs and senators have to figure out what is right and what is wrong. The old signposts are gone.

The absolute definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman - the bedrock of society - is gone. The absolute value of disarmament under the rule of law is swept aside by renewed militarism that countenances preemptive attack.

Both of these issues show the shifting sands of our society. If ever there was a need for strong spiritual leadership to reaffirm the moral basis that public policies must be built on - that time is now. It sometimes seems to me that legislators are being asked to play God, and I don't like it.

(Douglas Roche, an independent senator from Alberta, is author of The Human Right to Peace, to be published by Novalis in September.

Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 -- Western Catholic Reporter