On July 19th, just days ago, Canada became the fourth nation to fully legalize same sex marriages. During the stormy national debate that preceded it, one young Canadian Sikh lawmaker garnered significant notoriety and considerable abuse from his fellow Sikhs for supporting this legislation. Canadian gurdwaras immediately weighed in with condemnatory statements. The highest seat of Sikh temporal authority, the Akaal Takht in Amritsar, India, also joined the fray; its Jathedar quickly condemned the Canadian law and exhorted Sikhs to reject it.

Sooner or later this Pandora's box had to be opened. This question of "gay marriages" will neither go away, nor should it. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and now Canada have taken their bold step after considerable hesitation and soul searching. Others like the United States seem poised at the brink but find the first step terrifying. The issue remains mired in state versus federal rights. For instance, voters in Maine are will soon be going to the polls in referendum which will decide, for the third time, whether to add sexual orientation to the state's human rights act that already prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, marital status, religion, ancestry or national origin.

I approach this matter today with even greater trepidation. What I aim to do is not to propound a view written in stone, but to explore the issue from a Sikh humanitarian perspective - in other words to promote a debate. Judgments and decisions will evolve but that time is not now and not yet. It is time to explore, to debate and discuss. What is the Sikh position to be?

We like to think of marriage and family to be indivisible as horse and carriage. But the institution of marriage and family, like the horse and carriage, are in constant flux, evolving and changing dramatically over time.

Marriage and family was at one time a politically and socially mandated economic institution, protecting the rights of men, women and their children, while delineating the duties of each. It was necessary for families to have children, if for no other reason than to increase the labor pool. In support of this contention I offer the fact that in the upper classes a man was expected to acquire a second wife if there were no children from the first, while in the poorer classes in Europe, peasants would not marry until there was proof of a premarital pregnancy. The question of same sex marriages was moot, although same sex couplings have existed probably as long as humans have, and even longer in the animal kingdom. Although ancient Greeks received attention for bisexual and homosexual behavior, I doubt that other cultures were free of such behavior. In most cultures including Indian, until very recently gays were effectively closeted and were never publicly acknowledged.

But social and economic realities have changed, spurred largely by the industrial revolution and advances in reproductive technology. Now having a child is a choice, as is the decision to marry or to continue with a marriage; these are not matters dictated by economic or societal imperatives. Couplings are now increasingly driven by love or as mergers dictated by other considerations, where the roles of the individuals are negotiable and flexible.

What societal changes have done is to allow gay and lesbian couples to argue that they can participate in modern society as a family unit just as well as the heterosexual couples. This opens the door to the argument of gay and lesbian couples that to deny them such opportunity is to abridge their human dignity and their rights of citizenship.

It is difficult if not impossible to deny that gay citizens have equal rights in a just and free society. There is mounting biological evidence of propensity to gay behavior, if not for a gay gene. I don't know if homosexual behavior is entirely or partially driven by differences in DNA or if being gay is the sin that some bible-thumpers would have us believe, but to deny the gays any of their basic human rights would certainly be.

A marriage is a civil union when a court or some such legally recognized authority performs it. Such act speaks of a legally binding, contractual obligation that is needed for protection of the individual participants as well as the society. I could, therefore, argue that there is no basis for denying gays and lesbians such civil licenses, even though traditionally marriages have been defined as between heterosexual partners. Even common law marriages are legal recognition only of heterosexual coupling.

Sikh tradition and teaching speaks of human dignity that is inviolate, and of relationships that are not exploitive or manipulative. I believe, therefore, my position to allow same sex unions to be consistent with this.

The next question is whether Sikhism would allow same sex marriages to be performed within a gurdwara by the same rites (Anand Kaaraj) as heterosexual marriages. And here we are in absolutely uncharted territory.

The Guru Granth and Sikh teaching do not offer us a slate of unambiguous do's and don'ts; Sikhism does not micromanage our life. What it does offer to us is an ethical framework of universal values within which to negotiate our ethical dilemmas.

But marriages also remain, for most people, sacraments that must be solemnized in sanctified space where the presence of the unifying higher power of God can be felt. So most people, even if they visit their places of worship no more than twice in their lifetimes, define as absolutely essential the imprimatur of their religion before they feel decently married. Keep in mind also that religions provided the earliest organized structure for human societies with codes of conduct for their adherents that antedate civil societies.

Most religions have categorized a vast array of acts of omission and commission that place their followers outside the realm of those accepted to be in grace. Until they atone for their departure from the path some promises of the religion may be withheld and members may be barred from some participation. For example a divorced Roman Catholic may not easily receive communion or be married again in the Church.

Since family - consisting of the mother, father and children, if any - form the nucleus and the smallest functioning unit of society - most religions have sanctified this unit at the core of their teaching. But even though they do look to a universal loving Creator, religions have to be lived here on earth. In the view of most religions then gay and lesbian couples do not fit the definition of an acceptable unit of society. Most religions thus would have difficulty sanctifying or accepting the union of same sex couples.

The question of same sex unions has not yet surfaced in Sikh society, not because gay Sikhs do not exist, but probably because in the Indian Sikh culture they remain closeted and do not occupy public space or public consciousness. I have come across only one article (in Punjabi) by Gurbaksh Singh Kala-Afghana on this issue. In its scripture or its tradition, Sikh teaching appears to say nothing at all about same sex couples but it does speak at length of core ethics wherein the dignity and rights of every human are sacred; where compassion and fairness govern human conduct. It follows then that the rights of those who follow a gay lifestyle should be equally acknowledged and never abridged.

Should homosexuals be discriminated against? I would say no, for I think the Gurus would say no. Judge not others, the Gurus would say, but make your own life sublime. This would mean judge not those who follow a different beat. I would think, therefore, that Sikhism would be tolerant and non-discriminatory.

So homosexuality should be accepted and tolerated but not necessarily held as a laudatory model lifestyle. If we recognize that some people are different (biologically, behaviorally) we can then accept their difference. And in practice, Sikhism I believe has been quite tolerant for one rarely hears of homosexuality and never of any discrimination. But then this may be the natural result in the Indian culture where sexual intimacies are never publicly discussed.

On the other hand, much of Sikh teaching is couched in metaphors from the family life. Even adoration of God is explored in terms of the closest relationship that human can comprehend - that between a man and a woman. The heterosexual relationship is defined as sacred in Sikhism; an honest family life is described as the first duty - the primary religion of humans.

From the perspective of nature, clearly same sex unions are at best sterile, non-productive unions. A heterosexual union, on the other hand, holds the promise of being naturally productive. Let's apply Kant's categorical imperative here: If everyone were to do what I recommend would the world be a better place? If everyone were gay the world would surely end, because the gay union cannot be biologically creative or productive. Sex is meant to be creative reproductive force. I think it is this reasoning that lies at the core of religious rejection of same sex unions. I know that modern reproductive technology can conquer such limitations, and also that not all heterosexual unions produce successful parents or productive children.

Does this call for religious condemnation of same sex union? It is this that surely puts us in a pickle.

It seems to me that institutional religions such as Christianity, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism etc must preach, as they do, kindness, compassion and equal acceptance of all people regardless of their lifestyle or sexual orientation. But each religion must also be able to withhold its imprimatur to a certain way of life in its institutional framework.

Since religions have the right to determine if certain sacraments are to be denied to a follower judged as not being in a state of grace, a denial of the right to a religious wedding, it seems to me, is not a human rights issue. It is matter to be decided by the adherents of a religion according to their traditions and teachings. A denial of recognition of same sex unions within a religious practice, I believe, would be outside the jurisdiction of the civil judicial process.

The Sikh Code of Conduct (Rehat Maryada) speaks volumes of marriage but only of heterosexual couples; same sex unions remain unmentioned and this could be viewed as a rejection of such conduct. My interpretation of the question here - same sex unions - is deliberately narrow. For instance, it cannot be stretched to approve polygamy as practiced by some societies, such as the Mormons. In Sikh belief such relationships, in this modern world would, by their very nature, be manipulative and exploitive or diminish the relationship of its sacred intimacy.

In other words a religion may deny a religious ceremony for same sex couples in a church or a gurdwara while at the same time insisting on equal rights for them.

I know that I am leaving the issue somewhat unsettled. Let's join the discussion and see what evolves. Then it might be time to draw lines in the sand.

I am indebted to Hakam Singh (California), Ravinder Singh (Ohio) and Jasbir Singh (London) for their discussion and critique.