Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here all day long and appreciate the opportunity to make a couple of comments and ask the hon. member a question.
I listened quite intently to her speech. I guess the problem I have with it is that, if I understood it correctly, her main points were along the lines that she feels quite strongly, and I believe in her sincerity, that this is an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of fundamental equality. I think she called it true equality.
I want to use an analogy that one of my constituents remarked to me some time ago. He talked about two pieces of furniture, a table and a chair. They are made out of the same wood and have the same grain. They both have four legs and are used for the same purpose, but they are not the same. They are not equal. No matter how much one might think they are the same, they are not.
I wonder if there is not some middle ground here because as she said, the country is deeply divided on this issue. We all recognize that, both sides of the argument.
I do not believe that redefining marriage is a way to address what she views is discrimination. I think that by redefining marriage and changing the age old definition of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman, it will discriminate against those who believe in that definition. While they want to avoid discrimination on one hand, that discrimination might apply to others.
Would the member not agree that there are ways to address this through civil unions or domestic registered partnerships? It is already happening at the provincial level without redefining marriage in statute.