Harper and the Irrelevant

I was sitting here the other day, after having read some drivel about Harper's fiscally responsible and morally upstanding party mismanaged this or misrepresented that, and thought to myself: 'how could Harper make himself, his party, and any ideas he might have even more irrelevant for Canadians?' Well, he seems to have found a way:

[G]uess who’s been hired as Stephen Harper’s new speech writer? [...] OK, I’ll just say it: It’s Nigel Hannaford! (via Slap Upside The Head).

Now you might not know Hannaford, or have just blocked the experience of reading his column from your mind (a kind of intellectual survival mechanism). Here is a quote of his regarding same-sex marriage, back when a Liberal Government was re-writing the Marriage Act to include same-sex marriage, referring to the de-criminalisation of homosexuality nearly forty years before:

Leave gays alone? Fair enough. But, let ‘em be Boy Scout leaders? Have each other’s benefits? Adopt kids? Marry each other? Ridiculous. Anybody seeking political office who suggested it would have been laughed off the hustings. Yet, the Liberals are ready to legalize gay marriage. How did we get to this point? (reported by various sources)

Really now. Ridiculous? Hannaford is of course suggesting that in 1969 recognising the essential humanity in homosexuals and affording equal protection and benefit under the law would have been 'laughed of the hustings.' Fair enough. But, predicate on society the same backward views that were held 40 some years ago? Continue the oppression of homosexuals by marginalising them by excluding them from a great deal of public life? Show ourselves now to be captured by ideas that couldn't be properly defended then? Ridiculous. Whether Hannaford likes it or not, s15 of the Charter affords protection under the law from discrimination. Despite the childish and impotent objections that 'sexual orientation' isn't written there, the Supreme Court of Canada has taken the time to interpret the law the way any fair minded person would care to do: s15 does not include an exhaustive list of protected classes (just look at the grammar of the sentence; it really isn't rocket science). S15 is to be interpreted (and I use my own formulation here) as affording protection to those who would be discriminated against for morally irrelevant reasons. Being gay isn't immoral. Participating in a sexual, adult, and consensual relationship isn't immoral. You can finish the argument for yourselves.