Pettigrew's pettiness

On Thursday (Jan 27), Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pierre Pettigrew, jumped into the homosexual marriage debate to suggest that the Catholic Church must be silent and not get involved in the affairs of the state.

But, church members, and people with religious beliefs, like any Canadian citizen, enjoy the same rights under the Charter, whatever their religious persuasion or lack thereof. Pettigrew calls himself a proponent or supporter of the division between church and state. But he does not seem to recognize the subtleties of the "division." It was never meant to silence peoples of religious beliefs as the minister rather ignorantly suggests.

Bishops are not speaking as simple individual citizens, said a friend of mine who supports the redefinition of marriage in favor of homosexuals. They are advertising the position of the Church, they are not neutral and they are in an influential position of power. This is true. But is there any sort of neutrality on the issue? There might be. Some people say not to care one way or the other.

Most, however, do. If members of institutions such as churches are not permitted to pronounce their preference or express their opinions, if all institutions are expected to be neutral, that injunction must also cover government. In other words, why is minister Pettigrew allowed to use his powerful position: his seat in the House of Commons and his seat at the Cabinet table to promote his opinion in favor of one side over another?

Prime Minister Martin said that he is calling a free vote on the question. This means that Members of Parliament can vote according to their conscience or according with the wishes of their constituents --but there is no party compulsion. Cabinet members must vote FOR the bill, however. That is not freedom, and that is not neutrality.

And if neutrality is the requisite for people to participate in discussions on this issue and to express one's opinion, then the proponents as well as the opponents of homosexual marriage should be silenced. What kind of a democratic debate would that be? Surely, the minister would not be in favor of such an extension of his oppressive crooked logic.

Pettigrew is attacking the Church because he recognizes that their position is appealing to Canadians, whether they are Catholic or not. He sees the Church and Catholics as a threat. Why, for example, does not the minister attack other religious leaders in the country who have explicitly opposed the government's plan to change the traditional definition of marriage? Why is the Minister not attacking those who oppose him in his own caucus? The ministerial pettiness and intolerance are clear. In some sense, it is fortunate that no one is about to see Pettigrew attack the Moslem Council, or Sihks, or Buddhists, or Jews.

In the end, what Pettigrew proposes is not a tight division between religious ideas and political imperatives. What he proposes is not even to silence all voices who speak from religious convictions, for his intolerance knows some bounds. What he is advocating is the silencing of the Catholic Church, and he got away with such bigotry.