Reconsider position

Dear sir:
I am writing to Thunder Bay-Rainy River MP Ken Boshcoff regarding the legislation that was tabled in the House of Commons last week around the definition of marriage.
I am aware that he previously has stated an intention to vote against such legislation—and I would request that he reconsider this position.
Some voices in the debate on the issue would have us believe that marriage, as we now understand it, is both biblically-based and always has been the same.
This is simply not so. Marriage is a human institution that has evolved and changed greatly over the generations.
For example, in Western society, we no longer make use of arranged marriage, marriages are not (generally) seen as a way to cement a business contract, and the bride is not seen as property to be given away.
In point of fact, the church historically became involved in marriages simply because often the clergy were the only ones who could read and write, so they could register the business transaction.
It was not because it was always seen as a religious event. Only later did marriages move from the church doorstep to the altar.
The core of the debate on marriage definition is, for me, to look at what the purpose of marriage is. Marriage is not solely for procreation. Marriage is not defined by gender of the people who are involved.
When I gave this issue thought and prayer some years ago, I realized that the defining aspect of marriage is the quality of the relationship. Marriage is about relationships that are exclusive, loving, faithful, and intimate.
Obviously, both homosexual and heterosexual couples are capable of such relationships (and just as obviously both are capable of falling short of them).
Some have said that marriage is under attack with this legislation. Given what I consider to be the defining points of marriage, I simply cannot see how this is so. If my gay and lesbian friends have the right to marry, how can that possibly impact my relationship with my wife?
Furthermore, although I certainly approach marriage from a religious/spiritual mindset, I am convinced this is an issue of equality rights. Therefore, I reject those voices, including federal Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who advocate for “civil unions.”
Separate but equal is simply not equal.
Given the meaning that many faith groups assign to the word marriage, I only see one possible alternative should one wish to defeat the proposed legislation. That is to remove marriage as a legal term. This would mean that nobody—whatever their sexual orientation—is “legally married.”
The only legal option would be for a civil union. Marriage would purely be a religious term used within faith communities for those couples who wish to add that aspect to their union.
This is a drastic change, but I see it as the only alternative if people insist that orientation is part of the definition of marriage.
I understand many people of faith have trouble with this legislation. However, since it is really about equality rights, not religious norms, that should not block part of our society from being treated equally.
Faith communities have the freedom to set their own marriage policies and that should be so. But all people have the right to have their relationship viewed equally in the eyes of the law. That means the same term is used to describe it.
Therefore, I once again ask that you, Mr. Boshcoff, reconsider your position on this legislation.
Shalom/Salaam/Paix/Peace,
Rev. Gord Waldie
Atikokan, Ont.