Pamela Dickey-Young (PDY): Hi

Bill Good (BG): Are you serious: take marriage out of the Church?

PDY: Well, I'm serious that that is a very live option. I am not saying that that is the only possible option. But I am interested in because churches did not actually get into the marrying business until the 16th century, and so I'm interested in the argument that churches have always done this, it's not historically true, so why not rethink it in a different kind of way?

BG: You say that churches have been misrepresenting marriage as a religious concept.

PDY: Well, I think churches have a legitimate interest in marriage, as they do in other social relationships, but my interest is this whole notion that marriage has always been a church function. And so that is the piece of research that I have done. Marriage hasn't always been a church function. It's relatively new, and so that's the piece of it that I've added to that discussion.

BG: Now I didn't know until I read your comments in the Globe and Mail that churches don't perform marriages in France.

PDY: Well, no, In France you have to have a civil marriage before you can go to the church. They actually call the second ceremony 'religious marriage', but you can't have a religious marriage unless you've actually been to City Hall and done the civil marriage thing.

BG: So what's the difference between performing a marriage ceremony and blessing a marriage?

PDY: Well, in Canada, at present at least, churches and other religious institutions do both of those things. Everyone who is a clergyperson or another religious functionary is also licensed by his or her province or territory to perform a marriage ceremony. So there are two things going on at the same time at the moment. Churches enact or perform the marriage the same way that marriages get enacted or performed if you go to a justice of the peace or to city hall. And so churches at the same time in that religious ceremony bless those ceremonies.

BG: Have you had much reaction to your comments?

PDY: Quite a bit actually, although I first made them five years ago, and nobody was interested then, but all of a sudden people are interested as the debate changes shape and form.

BG: Reverend Ed Hird is with me in Studio. He is the Rector of St. Simon's Anglican Church in North Vancouver. What is your reaction to what Dr. Dickey-Young is saying?

Ed Hird+ (EH): I would respect her perspective. I would see it as a Trojan Horse suggestion. Dr. Don Faris, a very famous United Church minister, who is called Canada's bravest politician, a former NDP politician, he says that this ideology is dismantling the United Church. It is bringing in the ideology of self-regarding individualism, and it is fragmenting our culture. I was married in the United Church myself 28 years ago. My father-in-law was a United Church minister, one of three brothers (in the United Church ministry). In the 1976 United Church Service Book, it says that the solemnization of marriage is a civil contract, but then it goes on to say that for Christian people, marriage is also a religious rite. I think that to dismantle the religious component of marriage, since the vast majority of Canadians still get married in Church, would be a serious mistake.

BG: Do they? The vast majority of Canadians do still?

EH: Yes the vast majority still do. The ones that get married.

BG: The ones that get married, okay.

BG: Dr. Hickey, In the case of same-sex marriages, would it be up to the Church to decide if it would bless a same-sex marriage.

PDY: Well, of course this is a matter of whether churches approve of same-sex marriage, whether they will perform same-sex marriages, is a matter of religious freedom, and the draft legislation makes it quite clear that churches will have those choices.

BG: So who would actually decide that?

PDY: It depends on the church. Different churches have different forms of organization in terms of who would make the policy to decide that, and so it would vary from church to church, and from religious organization to religious organization.

BG: So it would be the Rector of St. Simon's Anglican Church?

PDY: Not as I understand it. Reverend Hird could speak better to that, but as I understand in the Anglican polity, the Rector of St. Simon's couldn't do it alone.

BG: (addressing EH) Would it be your decision?

EH: The Anglican Church is in crisis. Over this whole issue, sometimes they call it same-sex blessings; sometimes they call it same-sex marriage. If it walks like a duck and talk like a duck, I think that it is a duck.

BG: So it's marriage.

EH: Yes, blessing or marriage, it all comes down to the same thing.

BG: Do you decide whether to bless the marriage or not, or is that a decision made further up the chain?

EH: It actually is a decision made further up. There are some locally who are doing so-called same-sex blessings, which is a look-alike. There is a supposed conscience clause. In fact, clergy who have disagreed with this and taken a stand have had their churches closed; their marriage licenses have been taken away. The supposed tolerance of liberalism doesn't cut in both directions. As a matter of fact, Stephen Harper said yesterday: "In my view, the onus is on those who want to overturn such a fundamental social institution to prove that it is absolutely necessary. He says that it is about preserving one of the cornerstones of our society and its many cultures. I believe that Canada has two main core institutions. One of those is hockey and the other one is marriage. Hockey is in serious trouble. Why dismantle our second core institution?

PDY: Well, I think that Mr. Hird and I would clearly disagree about that, and in this case, I think that over and over again, the court decisions have found this to be a matter of human rights. Clearly he and I disagree about what is going on in this whole debate.

EH: Yes, and I (go ahead)

BG: No, I am a serious hockey fan, but aren't you minimizing the importance or the significance of this issue when you relate marriage to hockey?

EH: Not if you talk to my sons. Quite frankly they are passionate. There is a passion about hockey that is greater than most people's passion for marriage. I am committed to marriage. Quite frankly our nation has lost the meaning and theology of marriage. And the look-alike substitutions are crippling it. Stephen Harper said yesterday in relation to what Dr. Hickey-Young referred as a human right: "The Prime Minister cannot, through grand rhetoric, turn his political decision to change the definition of marriage into a basic human right, because it is not. It is simply a political judgment...Same-sex marriage is not a human right(...)" And I would agree. I think what we are dealing with is politics and power abuse. And that's at the core of what is happening.

BG: Let me go to the phones on this. I am really curious to hear where people are coming from on this one. And Dr. Pamela Dickey, I am glad that it was you who suggested that we take marriage out of the Church. No, seriously. A theologian, somebody who heads a department of religious studies.

PDY: Now I want to make it clear that this is my personal opinion and I am not speaking for any institution or Church group here.

BG: No, I understand, but you take religion seriously

PDY: Yes, I do.

BG: And to you, this is a legitimate issue. Will it solve the debate in any way over same-sex marriage?

PDY: Well, certainly as the current legislation is drafted, this is a non-starter. This is not one of the current ways of thinking about it in the Canadian sphere. But one of the things that it would solve is that in the debate over same-sex marriage, a number of the churches who are opposed same-sex marriages have worried about their religious freedoms being violated, have expressed opinions that they might be forced to marry same-sex couples. Now, while I don't think that is true, and I think the legislation guards against it, certainly the separation of church from marriage, or religious organization from marriage, would solve that problem before it even got started.

BG: Well, I have some trouble with that, because legislation can be changed.

PDY: Of course, it can. I am just talking about the way that the current legislation can be(...)

BG: Two or three years ago, some of the politicians now deciding that same-sex marriage is on, were saying that marriage was definitively between a man and a woman.

PDY: Right. A number of things have changed in those two or three years.

BG: So the religious freedom could change too.

PDY: Well, of course, but the way that a number of things have changed in those last several years is by appeal to charter rights. Freedom of religion is a charter right. It's guaranteed by the Charter. Any decisions that are going to being made around that are going to have to appeal to the charter as well. Right? So there are basic guarantees of freedom of religion that can't just willy-nilly be overturned.

EH: Could I say something?

PDY: Sure

EH: If the Charter of Rights actually protect freedom of religion not just for clergy but for the ordinary individual, then why is it that the marriage commissioners in BC and Manitoba and many other places are being forced to resign because they refuse to do same-sex marriages. There is no protection. So with the myth of protection, why is it that the Roman Catholic Church is being taken up before the Human Rights Commission in BC because they won't rent a hall to a same-sex marriage couple.

BG: The Roman Catholic Church, as I understand it, doesn't marry divorced people. That's never been challenged.

EH: But they have been brought up before the Human Rights Commission in BC. My sense is that the so-called protection of the Federal Government is very thin, and it is largely an illusion, and many reporters, including Susan Martinuk, are suggesting that this is largely a hoax. We will find out in a few years, but I am actually expecting that there will be a serious argument in five to ten years for the marriage of bisexual polygamists. We are not there yet, but it's just a matter of what we get used to.

PDY: I think that that is a terrible red herring in this debate. I think what we are talking about is same-sex marriage, and that is what we should talk about.

EH: Yes, why stay with two?

PDY: I think that somehow this is going to lead down a slippery slope is fear-mongering rather than a serious argument.

EH: Many serious scholars say that because of the involvement of Muslims in our nation, that this is no longer a sideline issue. It is a very real issue. There are top Muslims who are arguing for polygamy to be accepted and endorsed in our country, and once you accept it, given the cross-gender nature of bisexual polygamy, I think that we can get used to it.

PDY: I am not here to talk about polygamy, but I did want to make a comment about the difference between private space and public space, and private exercise of religion (that is the freedom to exercise religion) and one's duty as a servant of the public. And I think that in both the case of renting space (if you put a sign out that says your hall's for rent), you imply that that is a public space that members of the public can rent. That is a very different thing; it seems to me, than providing a service of worship within a religious context where freedom of religion would be guaranteed. Those are two quite different things, it seems to me, and there is some confusion, it seems to me, over that public/private nature of the thing there.

BG: I just want to make one comment, because we are getting close to a break, and we will address this after we come back after the news with calls, but I find it odd that we leap from same-sex marriage to polygamy because polygamy tends to be a heterosexual circumstance while same-sex marriage has two people of the same gender wanting to enter in to a monogamous relationship for life.

BG: To calls(...)Reverend Hird, do you have a comment?

EH: I would be sympathetic to a referendum (on same-sex marriage); I doubt that it would happen; I don't know if the climate is right. I think that the dismantling of the significance of marriage is crippling our culture, and we are going to pay a very heavy price socially.

BG: Tell me why, because I struggle with this personally, and I feel for the politicians who are dealing with it. I've been married 31 years.

EH: Has it made a difference?

BG: Pardon me?

EH: Has it made a difference in terms of social stability and health?

BG: Well, it's worked for me, but at the same time, if two men or two women decide that they want to enter into a marriage and they live down the street from me, I don't see how it changes my life or my marriage one bit.

EH: Yes, I understand what you are saying. People have a right as Canadians to make free choices in terms of their sexual and relational connecting. I don't object to that. What we object to is a redefining of the historic concept of marriage, which actually does go back far further than the sixteenth century. Tertullian in the year 200 clearly described marriage: the kiss, the joining of hands, the crown/ring, and the veil. It is a myth that marriage is just a recent religious invention. Christianity is Jewish in nature, Judeo-Christian, and they have been involved in marriage for thousands of years. For us to dismantle it is to dismantle our Canadian roots.

PDY: (...) it would seem to me that adding people to the marriage roster actually adds to its significance rather than dismantles marriage.

EH: And why stop there? The more we add, why stop with two? We're just not used to it as Canadians. You see, Jesus affirmed the Jewish view. He said: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife (Genesis 2) and the two will become one flesh. Clearly (this is) the marriage commitment in Judaism. And then Jesus said: "What God has joined together, let no one put asunder." I used to think that marriage was just a piece of paper. I was very secular. I skied on Sundays on Mount Seymour.

BG: So you found religion?

EH: Yes, I met Jesus on a personal basis, and when I met him, I started to read the Bible. I had never read the bible before because I was a good Anglican.

BG: How did you meet him? Were you skiing?

EH: I met him through High School. I had friends who were happier than I was. They had joy, and I said to them: "Why are you smiling?" They said: "Come watch a movie, and I realized that a relationship with Jesus Christ could fill me up. So I took that chance and it made all the difference.

BG: Does that mean that you are born again?

EH: Well, I was asked that question by (the TV Host) Laurie Laperriere: "Was I born again?" And I said: "What does that mean?" It means that you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It's the new birth. It means that you've gone from death to life. It means that you have said 'yes' to Jesus. Yes, I'm born again. It's called the new birth. It's a negative(...)People think it's an American term.

BG: No, I don't. I don't think that it's a negative term. And I've known other people who claim to be born again. So I'm curious about what that process is, what it means. I'm not negative about it. I'm curious.

EH: Well, all it means is you're turning, as we say in baptism: turning from sin, from self-centeredness and turning to Christ, and making him your Lord. You're basically opening your heart. He's knocking at the door and you're opening your heart. (...)

CALLER: (...)in the catacombs, there were celebrations of (Christian) marriage occurring, hidden under the ground(...)

EH: I would have to agree with our friend. In the sixth century, Christian solemnization of marriages took place right in the communion service. And there were actually prayers of blessing. Sure, it's developed, but...

PDY: Prayers of blessing, or prayers of actually making the marriage a marriage. They are two very different things.

EH: Prayers of solemnization. You see, sometimes we can get so scholastic that we can actually kill things with nit-picking.

CALLER: If the State (rather than the Church) got out of the business of marriages, that would probably satisfy most Canadians(...)

EH: 18 months ago, I had the privilege, being invited by the Federal Government to make a presentation on traditional marriage on behalf of the North Shore Clergy Fellowship. This Federal Commission traveled across the nation and ignored their results. But they were openly contemplating at the time of getting out of marriage. Now this has been flipped in the other direction: Let's get the Church out of it. Maybe we could get both the Church and the Government out of it. My feeling is that we are dealing with the dismantling of fragile and sacred institutions. It isn't going to help. The children are going to suffer(...) It's flipping in both directions.

PDY: (...)I also want to make it clear that not all religious persons in Canada are opposed to same-sex marriage(...)

EH: Yes, I was married in the United Church by my father-in-law who was a United Church Minister, one of three brothers ordained in the UCC. My father was raised in the United Church. The United Church is not what it used to be. We almost have two separate religions that have happened. Even in the Anglican Church, with supposed freedom of religion, in our local area our ex-bishop has been trying to close down churches and throw people out of their buildings in the name of religious freedom. So the myth that there is going to be tolerance: it doesn't cut in both directions(...)

BG to PDY: What Mr. Hird is saying is that they seems to be a lack of tolerance for the other point of view (i.e. his), and it is being displayed by Michael Ingham where he is basically wanting to shut down dissent to his point of view.

PDY: Well, I guess that different church groups deal with diversity and dissent in different ways. But that would seem to me to be an inner, an inter, you know, a within-the-church discussion that he is talking about. And the Church has to figure out how to work that out.

EH: It is about crushing legitimate dissent, and the United Church has also crushed legitimate dissent. That's why they are the fastest shrinking denomination in Canada. I have a lot of good United Church Clergy friends(...)

CALLER: (on Renting Church Space and same-sex marriage)

PDY: It seems to me that if an outfit, including a church, advertises its building for rent, then it is for rent for all comers. But if it has a policy about the use of its worship space that would protect against it, I don't see that the fear is justified(...)

BG: You seem to be saying that it is worship space if you are using it for worship, but it is public space if you are renting it out.

PDY: Right, if you have a sign that says that it is for rent, then I could be excused if I thought that it was everybody, rather than people that I select.

EH: But 98% of churches rent out to local groups, to the scouts, daycare, etc. Therefore they are vulnerable on the line of that argument.

BG: How are they vulnerable? Because they are not being asked to take part.

EH: Because they would have to allow something that would violate their conscience, such as a same-sex marriage reception which goes against core values for people, because supposedly this becomes public space.

BG: Well, It is public space. They are not being asked to take part in the celebration, they are not being asked to conduct the ceremony. But if they rent their space to the cub scouts, they also would be obliged to rent it for a reception for same-sex marriage.

EH: Exactly. Now I am predicting that this will be a legal quagmire.

BG: Why would that be a problem for the Church if it is not taking part in the event?

EH: Well, let me give you an example. In our church, what's happened recently is there has been an attempt to take over the buildings by our ex-bishop and people, and actually change locks. They have done that for a couple of churches. If we rent it out to a same-sex couple, you give the keys to them, and before you know it, the very sanctity and protection of your place is at risk. We're dealing with a major assault on conservatives.

PDY: The whole notion that a same-sex couple could challenge the sanctity of a space seems to me at worst intolerant and, you know, somewhat laughable that a single same-sex couple could call the sanctity of a space into question.

EH: Yes, Well, I don't find it tolerant of you to say 'laughable and intolerant'. What I am referring to is the changing of the locks on churches that is actually happening in the Greater Vancouver area.

BG: But it is the Church that is doing that.

EH: Our ex-diocese is trying to actually close them. Yes. That is done in the name of religious tolerance. That isn't laughable. That is offensive.

BG: We're out of time. My thanks to the Rev. Ed Hird and to Dr. Pamela Hickey Young, and to you for your calls.

END