Links to Pages in this 

New Home Page

Old Home Page




Contact Us

Essays. Speeches, and Other Compositions

& Related


Help for



News and Views 

ling in the

Opposing the Pro-

Sex Education--
Issues Regarding

Standing Up for the Threatened Rights of a Free Society

Take Backo
the Schools


"Life Views"
British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life Website


Table Contents for this Page:

Premarital sex and greater risk of divorce

Top Attorney Quits Firm to Continue Defense of DOMA

A warning of intimidations to come

. . . Obama Administration Bails on Defense of Marriage

In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card

Federal Judge Rules California Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

Closing Arguments in Historic Marriage Challenge Begin [in California]

Gay Marriage Leads D.C. Archbishop to End Foster Care Program  

Prop. 8 Trial Begins Today: "Roe v. Wade" of Marriage Battle  [January 11, 2010]

Supreme Court Blocks Recording of Prop. 8 Trial

Marriage is Good for Men and Women [Research]

Gay "Marriage" Vote Killed in NJ Senate

Maine voters latest to turn down gay marriage

California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage 

Miss California Features in New Pro-Marriage Ad

Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Marriage Law

We Should Know and Remember How Canadian MPs Voted on Marriage
on December 7, 2006

Spanish Protest Calls for Defence of Family

Sweden Proposes Moving from Civil Unions to Legalizing Homosexual 'Marriage'

Tories pushed to call royal commission on marriage: Social conservatives want Conservatives to 'mend fences' with traditional supporters

Muzzling free speech:  Why can't people speak against same-sex marriage?

Pope slams "dismal" theories on gay marriage rights 

Left Apoplectic Over Dr. Dobson's Time Platform

Ireland High Court Rules Against Gay 'Marriage' Citing Harm to Children

Canada's PM Won't Try Again on Marriage and has No Plan to Protect Religious Freedom

Canadian Government Motion to Reopen Debate on Homosexual "Marriage" Defeated 175 to 123

"Democracy Denied on Same-Sex Marriage Vote; Referendum Demanded"  --REAL Women of Canada

Government Abandons Marriage, says CFAC

Catholics and Evangelicals Say Marriage Battle Not Over

"The Marriage Battle Continues," says Campaign Life Coalition

Opinion: A Statement Worth Considering

Conservative Party Marriage Motion Wording Revealed

Tories plan December vote on same-sex marriage

REAL Women Cite “Horrendous” Media Bias in “Gay Marriage”

"Defending marriage Take up the pen!"

Canada’s Pro-Marriage Groups Urge Grassroots Political Action Now, While MPs in Ridings

Seattle Archbishop Condemns Gay “Marriage”, Fears State-made Theology, Lawsuits

Marriage Amendment Stopped in U.S. Senate

Prime Minister Harper says Same Sex "Marriage" Vote Coming this Fall

Canadian Religious Leaders Urged to Action on Vote to Re-open Marriage Debate

Hargrove Blasts Harper on Same Sex Vote

French Government Report Says No to Homosexual "Marriage"

Harper's Debate Comment on Not Using the Notwithstanding Clause to Deal With Same-Sex Marriage Issue--and Responses to Harper's Comment

Same-Sex Vote Backed

California Governor Schwarzenegger To Veto Gay "Marriage" Law - Open to Redefinition by Courts

22 same-sex couples marry vs 35,000 hetero couples  [in Spain]

Trade unions “played a critical role” in “same-sex marriage law”

Canada Gay "Marriage" Bill to be Signed Into Law 

EFC Laments the Passage of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act
  [EFC press release]

Catholic Bishops on Gay 'Marriage' Law - "Catholics are to Continue to Oppose It"

Catholic Cardinal Warns Senate of Impending Anti-Christian Prosecution With Gay 'Marriage'

Cardinal tells senators that same-sex marriage threatens religious freedom 

Saskatchewan Marriage Commissioner under Investigation for Unwillingness to Perform Gay 'Marriages'

Canadian Senate Passes Second Reading of Gay 'Marriage' Bill

"Anti-marriage politicians will pay"
[by David Kryden]

Report on and Summary of Presentation to the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-38 by Dr. Chris Kempling 

Pat O'Brian Quits Liberals

Bill C-38 Fast-Tracked Despite Intense Opposition

Large Marriage Rally Set for Monday May 23 at Queen’s Park, Toronto

Canada's Liberal Governent Survives Confidence Vote - No Election, C-38 Likely to Pass

Legislative Committee on Bill, C-38 Issues Report with Recommended Changes

"Canadian Government Admits Religions Not Protected Under Federal Gay ‘Marriage’ Legislation"

O'Brien Issues Ultimatum Over Same-Sex "Marriage" Bill

Christian Legal Fellowship Submission to Committee on Gay “Marriage” Bill C-38

Catholic Bishops Present Brief to Parliamentary Committee on Homosexual "Marriage" Bill

Marriage Defenders Give Moore a Message

"15-20,000 Attend March for Traditional Marriage on Parliament Hill" 

"Tory motion on gay marriage bill is voted down"

Stockwell Day's Speech on the "Civil Marriage Bill" --Bill to Redefine Marriage-- in the Canadian House of  Commons, March 24, 2005  

"Freedom of Conscience, Tudor Style"

Liberal Minister in Video Against Same-Sex Bill 

"Immigration Minister Won't Guarantee Religious Freedom"

Same-Sex "Marriage" a Health Risk Doctors Warn Parliamentarians

Focus on the Family Launches Ad Campaign to Protect Marriage

Boycott Announced Against Famous Players Theatres for Promoting Anti-Marriage Message

Website for Same-Sex "Marriage" Contains Valuable Information

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Says Churches Must "Not Get Involved" in Same-Sex Marriage Issue

"Taxpayers Fund Gay Legal Challenges for Same-Sex Marriage"

"Another Gag Law"

"Five Reasons Why Evangelicals Must Boldly Defend Marriage"

"Pastoral Letter to Catholics in Canada on Redefining Marriage"

      Speech by the President of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life at a  Pro-Marriage Rally in Surrey, British Columbia on January 29, 2005

"A Declaration on Marriage" (by Dr. William Gairdner, from the "Enshrine Marriage" website)

Toronto Cardinal Ambrozic Warns Gay 'Marriage' Will Expose Children to Gay Sex-Ed

 Cardinal Gives Direction to Priests and Faithful on Supporting Traditional Marriage

Marriage Commissioners Stand Their Ground

Canadian Supreme Court Says Ottawa Can Institute Same-Sex "Marriage"

Canadians Deceived on Same-sex Marriage Issue

Fight over Homosexual Marriage Heats Up in Canada

 Canadian Justice Minister Says Same-Sex "Marriage" Law Could be Ready by January

Canada:  Committee Rejects Appeal to Allow Voting on Marriage Definition Bill
CFAC comment on this

  U.S. Voters on November 2nd, 2004, Voted on Marriage as Well as  for Representatives

Bishops Warn Supreme Court of Threat to Religious Freedom if Marriage is Redefined

       Canada's Yukon Territory Forced to Legalize Homosexual Marriage by Judicial Fiat

  "Stalwart Clergy Can Still Save Marriage" [an opinion piece by Royal Hamel]
"Perform Same-Sex Marriages or Resign, BC Tells Commissioners"

"Unity Proposes Conscience Legislation for Marriage Commissioners"  [press release]

  George W. Bush on Marriage and Abstinence in State-of-the-Union Address

 A Sample Letter to British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell

  Canadian Alliance Motion Supporting Traditional Marriage is Defeated

  Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper's Speech on Marriage

New York Times:  Many homosexuals don't believe in marriage  and
Another Example of Homosexuality Activists' Showing Contempt for Free Speech?

BC Court of Appeal Orders Immediate Same-Sex Marriage

REAL Woman Statement: Judicial Activism by British Columbia Court of Appeal  

Statement on the Status of Marriage in Canada

BC Allows Homosexuals to Marry

House Committee Favours Same-Sex Unions

       "Ontario Supreme Court Imposes New Definition of Marriage" 

          Action Alert from REAL Women of Canada--June 10, 2003

          Activists for Same-Sex "Marriage" Want Not Tolerance, But a Stamp of Approval

          Material to Assist You in Defending Marria

         "Liberal 'Free Vote' Proposal on Same-Sex Marriage a Sham"--Alliance Justice Critic


Premarital sex and greater risk of divorce

By Glenn T. Stanton, Focus Insights,  May 26, 2011

Does premarital sex have practical consequences for future marital happiness?

It’s a question many young people ponder. Even those raised in a belief system that teaches premarital sex is wrong often wonder what practical difference it makes to engage in sex before marriage, beyond the risk of unmarried pregnancy or contracting an infection.

One answer lies in the data that has emerged consistently for decades: premarital sexual activity seems to be associated with a significant elevated risk of divorce.

Since most people entering marriage want it to last, this is not a small consideration for teens and young adults. Here’s a quick look at the findings of a few leading population-based studies exploring this issue.  . . . 

  [Read the whole article on Focus Insights.]





The "Defense of Marriage Act"  issue in  the U.S. A.":

Top Attorney Quits Firm to Continue Defense of DOMA

by CitizenLink Staff
Apr. 25, 2011

The bottom line is that former Solicitor General Paul Clement will continue to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — at a new law firm.

Just a week after the U.S. House of Representatives selected Clement and his firm, King & Spalding, to defend DOMA against multiple challenges in federal court, his law firm dumped the case Monday, saying “the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate.”

Clement resigned and was quickly hired by Bancroft PLLC, a small firm in Washington, D.C., where he will continue to defend DOMA.

“I take this step not because of strongly held views about this statute,” Clement wrote in his resignation letter. “Instead, I resign out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular decisions is what lawyers do.”

DOMA is being challenged in at least 10 court cases, and President Obama has ordered his Department of Justice to stop defending it.

King & Spalding, which was facing protests from gay activists and their allies, was celebrated today by those seeking to redefine marriage. . . .

[Read the whole of the above article on CitizenLink.]

A warning of intimidations to come

April 26, 2011 ( - The defense of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] got a little more complicated yesterday as the law firm that the House of Representatives had hired to defend the law withdrew from the case. As The New York Times stated bluntly, the firm dropped the case “amid pressure from gay rights groups.”

The Atlanta-based firm, King & Spalding, had agreed to take the case, and one of its lawyers, Paul D. Clement, was to lead the legal effort to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman in terms of federal recognition. The law also prevents any state from being forced to grant legal recognition to a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Robert D. Hays, Jr., chairman of King & Spalding, released a statement in which he said: “In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. … Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”

Clement, a former solicitor general of the United States under President George W. Bush, immediately resigned from King & Spalding and will continue to represent the House of Representatives in the case.

As The New York Times reported, Clement said: “I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. … Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it.”

Gay rights groups hailed the law firm’s decision. Activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign had lobbied King & Spalding to drop the case. The Weekly Standard obtained copies of emails sent by the Human Rights Campaign to supporters that read, in part: “Later that day we announced the elements of our campaign to show King & Spalding’ hypocrisy for taking on Defense of DOMA while touting their pro-gay policies - including their 95% score on HRC’s Corporate Equality Index. … In the meantime we also contacted many of the firm’s clients, LGBT student groups at top law schools and used social media to inform the public about K&S’s wrongheaded decision.” . . . .

[Read the whole article on LifeSiteNews.]

 . . . Obama Administration Bails on Defense of Marriage


Posted by Jennifer Mesko [on CitizenLink ]

With Congress out of town for the week, President Obama took the opportunity today to announce that his Department of Justice (DOJ) has decided to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

He says that DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. DOMA was passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1996, signed into law by President Clinton and has been upheld as constitutional in various courts over the years. Legal challenges to DOMA are pending in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York.

“The Obama administration has been sabotaging DOMA litigation from the outset,” legal analyst Ed Whelan writes at “Today’s action at least has the modest virtue of bringing that sabotage out into the open.”

Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at CitizenLink, said if the government is allowed to choose not to defend its own laws, the U.S. would face legal chaos.

“The Obama administration has been bold in its open aversion to this law, demonstrated by its previous poor defense of DOMA and dismantling of DOMA in administrative policy,” he said. “If the administration can pick and choose what laws it defends, which law is next?

“Voters in 31 states have voted to defend marriage, and Americans ought to be able to count on their president to do the same.” An additional 12 states have laws protecting marriage.

“Tragically, the Department of Justice has chosen to appease a small — but vocal and wealthy — constituency and abandon its duty to the people,” said Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

“It’s unfortunate that the administration won’t defend such an important law passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Either the House of Representatives or the Senate have the legal authority to intervene in pending lawsuits to defend the federal DOMA statute.”

TAKE ACTION  [United States citizens]
Please ask your U.S. senators and representative to use the tools at their disposal to defend the longstanding Defense of Marriage Act.



In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card

By Matthew J. Franck

Friday, December 17, 2010

In the debates over gay marriage, "hate" is the ultimate conversation-stopper.

Some stories from recent months: A religion instructor at a midwestern state university explains in an e-mail to students the rational basis for Catholic teaching on homosexuality. He is denounced by a student for "hate speech" and is dismissed from his position. (He is later reinstated - for now.) At another midwestern state university, a department chairman demurs from a student organizer's request that his department promote an upcoming "LGBTQ" film festival on campus; he is denounced to his university's chancellor, who indicates that his e-mail to the student warrants inquiry by a "Hate and Bias Incident Response Team."

On the west coast, a state law school moves to marginalize a Christian student group that requires its members to pledge they will conform to orthodox Christian doctrines on sexual morality. In the history of the school, no student group has ever been denied campus recognition. But this one is, and the U.S. Supreme Court lets the school get away with it.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a "report" identifying a dozen or so "anti-gay hate groups," some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. Other marriage advocacy groups are put on a watch list.

On a left-wing Web site, a petition drive succeeds in pressuring Apple to drop an "app" from its iTunes store for the Manhattan Declaration, an ecumenical Christian statement whose nearly half-million signers are united in defense of the right to life, the tradition of conjugal marriage between man and woman, and the principles of religious liberty. The offense? The app is a "hate fest." Fewer than 8,000 people petition for the app to go; more than five times as many petition Apple for its reinstatement, so far to no avail.

Finally, on "$#*! My Dad Says," a CBS sitcom watched by more than 10 million weekly viewers, an entire half-hour episode is devoted to a depiction of the disapproval of homosexuality as bigotry, a form of unreasoning intolerance that clings to the past with a coarse and mean-spirited judgmentalism. And this on a show whose title character is famously irascible and politically incorrect, but who in this instance turns out to be fashionably cuddly and up-to-date.

What's going on here? Clearly a determined effort is afoot, in cultural bastions controlled by the left, to anathematize traditional views of sexual morality, particularly opposition to same-sex marriage, as the expression of "hate" that cannot be tolerated in a decent civil society. The argument over same-sex marriage must be brought to an end, and the debate considered settled. Defenders of traditional marriage must be likened to racists, as purveyors of irrational fear and loathing. Opposition to same-sex marriage must be treated just like support for now long-gone anti-miscegenation laws.

This strategy is the counsel of desperation. In 30 states, the people have protected traditional marriage by constitutional amendment: In no state where the question has been put directly to voters has same-sex marriage been adopted by democratic majorities. But the advocates of a revolution in the law of marriage see an opportunity in Perry v. Schwarzenegger , currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In his district court ruling in the case in August, Judge Vaughn Walker held that California's Proposition 8 enacted, "without reason, a private moral view" about the nature of marriage that cannot properly be embodied in public policy. Prop 8's opponents are hoping for similar reasoning from the appeals court and, ultimately, from the Supreme Court.

The SPLC's report on "hate groups" gives the game away. It notes that no group is listed merely for "viewing homosexuality as unbiblical." But when describing standard expressions of Christian teaching, that we must love the sinner while hating the sin, the SPLC treats them as "kinder, gentler language" that only covers up unreasoning hatred for gay people. Christians are free to hold their "biblical" views, you see, but we know that opposition to gay marriage cannot have any basis in reason. Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered from the public square, where reason, as distinguished from faith, must prevail.

Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents. . . . .

[The whole of the above article is to be found, as of the date of posting here, on The Washington Post website.]




Federal Judge Rules California Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

By Peter J. Smith

SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 4, 2010 ( A federal judge has ruled that California's constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is unconstitutional, because it excludes same-sex unions.

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who presides over the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, declared Proposition 8 had no "rational basis" in a 138-page ruling on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case released Wednesday afternoon.

Walker struck down the amendment, which states "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," on the basis that it violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The judge dismissed the amendment, saying its restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples was "nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life." He also added that it seemed to him proponents of Prop. 8 were defending the amendment on the basis of "moral disapproval," which he said was "an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians" and enacted in law, "a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples."

"Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians," Walker also stated, adding that homosexuals have suffered "social and legal disadvantages" from "stereotypes and misinformation."

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," ruled Walker. "Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples."

Walker's decision immediately enjoins further enforcement by California officials of Proposition 8.

The challenge to Proposition 8 was filed by Ted Olson and David Boies, famous opponents in the Bush v. Gore case, on behalf of a male homosexual couple and a lesbian couple, both denied marriage licenses. The case is expected to head to the U.S. Supreme Court and it is feared that it could become the Roe v. Wade of traditional marriage in the United States.

Randy Thomasson of the pro-family group SaveCalifornia responded that "Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California."

Walker, however, is himself an active homosexual, and some conservative critics of the Prop. 8 case contended that Walker would be too personally invested in the case to deliver an impartial outcome. Others pointed out that Walker has not had a history of proven bias in homosexual issues. He sided with the U.S. Olympics Committee in their copyright infringement case against the "Gay Olympics," and also put a lien on an AIDS-stricken organizer's home. But neither of those decisions was as personal as deciding the legal status of same-sex relationships, which Walker repeatedly asserted, were given second-class status by Prop. 8.

Walker also ruled that domestic partnerships did not satisfy the duty on California to let same-sex couples marry each other.

Anticipating Walker's ruling, Pro-family advocates have already filed a motion with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay Walker's decision from taking effect, until an  appeal can be sorted out.

See related LifeSiteNews reports:

Federal Judge's Ruling Boomerangs on California Homosexualist Groups

San Francisco Chronicle: Open Secret That Prop. 8 Judge is Gay 



Closing Arguments in Historic Marriage Challenge Begin [in California]

CitizenLink, June 16, 2010 

After a five-month hiatus, closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger – the challenge to California's Proposition 8 marriage amendment – began today in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court ordered same-sex marriage. In November of that year, more than seven million Californians cast their votes in favor of Prop 8 to defend marriage. The outcome was immediately challenged in federal court.

Ted Olson, the attorney for those challenging marriage protection, argued today before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and there are numerous examples, such as Brown v. Board of Education, in which courts corrected perceived discrimination.

But Charles Cooper, lead defense attorney for, countered that Californians have the right to preserve and protect the definition of marriage against judicial activism.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said if Prop 8 is struck down, it would be a radical upending of the Constitution.

"Christianity and religious liberty are on trial," he said.

[To read the whole article, go to CitizenLink.]



February 22, 2010
[From the Christianity Today "Her.meneutics" article.]

Gay Marriage Leads D.C. Archbishop to End Foster Care Program

Catholic Charities has given its caseload of 43 children, 35 foster families, and 7 staff members to a Maryland-based family-care agency so as not to disrupt client care.

The other shoe has dropped here in Washington, D.C., in a long conflict between the local Catholic diocese and the District of Columbia.

After warning for months that the District's pending same-sex marriage law — slated to go into effect March 2 — put its 80-year-old foster care program in jeopardy, the Archdiocese of Washington formally ended its program February 1.

It is the third Catholic diocese in the country to do so. The archdioceses of San Francisco and Boston stopped their adoption programs in 2006 after their respective states legalized gay marriage (California has since repealed its law) and made it clear that local Catholic Charities affiliates would have to work with homosexual couples.

The District's law would obligate all outside contractors working with the city to recognize gay couples by giving spousal benefits to such couples and allowing them to adopt available children. The Archdiocese of Washington refused to do this. Its Catholic Charities affiliate has turned over its caseload of 43 children with 35 foster families — along with 7 staff members — to Bethesda, Maryland-based National Center for Children and Families so as not to disrupt client care.

The foster care and adoption programs were among the 63 social service programs that the District paid Catholic Charities about $22.5 million to run. Of that amount, $2 million went to the foster care program. Because of the large amounts of money involved, it is highly unlikely that Catholic parishioners could raise enough funds to make up the difference.

When Donald Wuerl became the archbishop of Washington in 2006, many of us thought his main battle would be dealing with pro-choice Catholic politicians. Instead, his Rubicon has proved to be the D.C. marriage issue, a battle I am guessing he did not anticipate. He is now caught between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea. The Vatican is adamant against allowing gay couples to adopt. As for the District, one of the most liberal areas in the country, it is not surprising that, with a Democrat in the White House, local gay activists began pushing for the right to legally marry.

When the D.C. city council passed a bill allowing gay marriage in fall 2009, the archdiocese served notice that the bill did not contain a meaningful religious exemption for contractors who believe marriage is solely between a man and a woman. A storm of invective ensued, mostly from politicians and activists who blamed Catholics for manipulating the political process. Two hundred local clergy, including the local Episcopal bishop, banned together to denounce the archdiocese. Most of the local media trashed Archbishop Wuerl for his stand.

Wuerl and his bishops fought back, insisting they were not abandoning the city's poor nor its children by threatening to pull out of its social service programs. They pointed out the city had changed the rules on the ground, making them ineligible for contracts, grants, and licenses for programs ranging from immigration services to foster care.

The outlook for religious organizations involved in charity work is not good. The Salvation Army lost $3.5 million in social service contracts with the city of San Francisco because it would not provide health benefits to gay employees' partners. The Boy Scouts are not allowed to meet in government-owned buildings because of its stance on gay Scout leaders. A spokesman for a D.C. Catholic Charities affiliate told me that coupled gays are employed among its 850-member work force, so that it's a matter of time — after March 2 — before someone threatens a lawsuit unless his or her gay partner gets health insurance. The juggernaut is here. . . .

[To read the whole article go to the Christianity Today Her.meneutics online article.]


In the United States:
Prop. 8 Trial Begins Today: "Roe v. Wade" of Marriage Battle

By James Tillman 

SAN FRANCISCO, January 11, 2010 ( -- This morning the highly-anticipated  Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial began, a case that some have said could be the “Roe v. Wade” in the conflict between supporters of gay marriage and of same-sex "marriage."

Homosexualist activists hope the case will determine that California's Proposition 8, which amended the California constitution to clarify that marriage is only be between a man and a woman, is an violation of the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection beneath the law.  Should the court rule that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, it could ultimately lead to the overthrow of dozens of state amendments and laws passed defending traditional marriage and to the erasure of years of effort by traditional marriage activists.

"It’s impossible to overstate the importance of this case to the future of marriage in America," said Ron Prentice of  "Not only is the constitutionality of California’s Prop 8 at stake, but so are the marriage laws of 45 other states and the federal Defense of Marriage Act."

Homosexualist activists have attempted to paint the issue in the colors of the civil rights movement.  David Boies, a lawyer for the two homosexual couples that are plaintiffs in this case, has written that "Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing."  He calls homosexuality "a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination." 

Similarly, in his opening statement in the case, his fellow attorney Theodor Olson said that "this case is about marriage and equality. The plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry and equality under the law."  He also said that that Proposition 8 adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination in America. 

In their opposing brief, lawyers representing California argued that “the traditional definition of marriage does not reflect animus against gays and lesbians — in California or anywhere else.  Nor is it in anyway arbitrary or irrational."

They continued: “Rather, it simply reflects the fact that the institution of marriage is, and always has been, uniquely concerned with promoting and regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women to provide for the nurture and upbringing of the next generation.  ... This understanding of the central purposes of marriage has been repeatedly and persuasively articulated by leading lawyers, linguists, philosophers, and social scientists throughout history up to and including the present day."

Although Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown are named as defendants in the suit, both have refused to defend the constitutionality of the amendment.  Private citizens, therefore, have had to step up to defend California's own constitution; attorneys with the pro-family Alliance Defense Fund and have risen to the task.

Aside from the case’s importance, the manner in which District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has decided it will proceed is also notable.   Edwin Meese III, former U.S. Attorney general, describes the difference between Judge Walker's decisions and the decisions of judges who have previously scrutinized marriage laws.  "In those [previous] instances," he writes, "the courts have decided legal challenges to state marriage laws based on legislative history, scholarly articles and testimony by social scientists and other experts. They have, in some cases, looked for evidence of legislative intent in the statements published in official voter information pamphlets."

He continued: "But in this case, Judge Walker has ruled that things like TV advertisements, press releases and campaign workers’ statements are also relevant evidence of what the voters intended. ... Judge Walker has also ruled that the trial will investigate the Proposition 8 sponsors’ personal beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. No doubt, the plaintiffs will aggressively exploit this opportunity to assert that the sponsors exhibited bigotry toward homosexuals, or that religious views motivated the adoption of Proposition 8."

As Andy Pugno, General Counsel for, has written, "as the trial begins, there is no question that virtually every ruling so far has put traditional marriage at an increasing disadvantage. The consistency with which the judge has sided with our opponents is anything but comforting to supporters of traditional marriage."

Judge Vaugn had also previously decided that the proceedings of the case would be broadcast over Youtube; this decision received strong criticism from advocates of traditional marriage, who have in the past been subject to threats, harassment, and violence because of their beliefs.  Less than two hours before the trial began, however, the United States Supreme Court intervened and ruled that the trial may not be broadcast over YouTube until they have further considered the issue.


Supreme Court Blocks Recording of Prop. 8 Trial

By Peter J. Smith

SAN FRANCISCO, California, January 11, 2010 ( – The Supreme Court has blocked a federal judge’s plans to tape the trial on the California same-sex “marriage” ban for public viewing. The Court will review the concerns of attorneys defending the state constitutional amendment, who argue that the standard policy of federal courts prohibiting cameras in the courtroom should be retained in light of the potential for harassment and intimidation of key witnesses.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California had ordered that the federal trial brought against Proposition 8 be recorded for public viewing and the proceedings posted on YouTube.

Walker was taking advantage of a new pilot program developed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow cameras into the courtrooms of federal non-jury civil trials.

The Associated Press reports that chief judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit had the Prop. 8 trial in view when he announced the pilot program on Dec. 17.
Kozinski argued for the program, saying that "being able to see and hear what transpires in the courtroom will lead to a better public understanding of our judicial processes and enhanced confidence in the rule of law." However Kozinski’s rationale has come into conflict with the underlying reason federal courts do not allow live media coverage of non-jury proceedings: to guarantee a fair trial by preventing the manipulation of witnesses through threats, harassment, or other forms of intimidation.

The Supreme Court’s emergency order will stand until Wednesday, when the Court will have enough time to review the matter to make a final decision.

Already one witness, San Francisco resident Hak-Shing William Tam, has asked to be dropped from among the five interveners on behalf of Prop. 8, citing the threats made against his family and his person during the campaign and the vandalism of his property, and his belief that the trial would make these threats worse.

Fears of intimidation and harassment are not unreasonable for the pro-family campaigners that fought for Proposition 8's passage, and a number of supporters were targeted for intimidation by homosexual activists who used the state's public disclosure database to identify backers of Proposition 8.

One egregious instance involved the El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles, which came under siege by hundreds of homosexual protesters because the owner's daughter, Marjorie Christoffersen, had privately contributed $100 to Yes on 8. The rioting became so out of control at one point that the LA Police Department was forced to deploy in riot gear to quell the disturbance.

Although the case is called Perry v. Schwarzenegger, neither Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown are mounting a defense on behalf of the constitutional amendment. Instead the challenge has been taken up by the pro-family groups that fought to make the California marriage amendment a reality.

Theodore Olson and David Boies - famous adversaries in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case - have joined brought the constitutional amendment to federal court to argue that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

The case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and could have far-reaching implications for gay “marriage” bans in 30 states if Olson and Boies convince the high court to decide that these bans stand in violation of the 14th Amendment


Marriage is Good for Men and Women [Research]

 Married people are less likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and substance abuse, according to researchers from the University of Otago in New Zealand.

Researchers looked at 34,000 people in 15 countries and also found mental health disorders increase when a marriage ends through divorce, separation or even death.
. . . .

[From CitizenLink, Dec. 22, 2009]


Gay "Marriage" Vote Killed in NJ Senate
Same-sex marriage advocates switch focus to Assembly

By Peter J. Smith

TRENTON, New Jersey, December 10, 2009 ( - Homosexual advocates in New Jersey snatched a same-sex "marriage" bill from the jaws of defeat on Wednesday, cancelling Thursday's scheduled vote in the state Senate after realizing that they lacked the votes for the measure's successful passage.

The bill's Senate sponsors, Sens. Raymond J. Lesniak (D-NJ 20) and Loretta Weinberg (D-NJ 37) revoked the bill from the Senate's agenda late Wednesday night, and stated that they wanted the General Assembly to examine the bill first before the Senate votes.

Democrats firmly control the N.J. Senate by a 23-17 margin, but a number of Democrats count themselves as opponents of same-sex "marriage." According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-NJ 39) said he was aware of nine Senate Democrats who were intending to vote against the bill and would have doomed its passage.

The maneuver allows same-sex "marriage" activists to lobby the General Assembly heavily, where the passage of a homosexual "marriage" bill stands to have a better chance at passing. Both Sens. Lesniak and Weinberg hope that the Assembly Judiciary Committee will take up the measure, but that committee is not scheduled to return to Trenton until January 7.

A delay that long is risky for same-sex "marriage" activists, as it leaves little more than a week for both state houses to schedule votes before Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine leaves office on January 19. Corzine has promised to sign the bill, while his replacement, Gov.-elect Chris Christie, has promised a veto.

Despite having more potential backers in the Assembly, Democrats show little enthusiasm for acting on the measure.

An affirmative vote in the Senate on same-sex "marriage" would have politically eased the way for the Assembly's members still on the fence over the political consequences of voting for the bill. But the resounding defeat of same-sex "marriage" in the more socially "progressive" states of Maine and New York has not provided incentive for legislators to stake their political fortunes on the issue.

Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts Jr. (D-NJ 5) in a statement said that he was "disappointed that the sponsors have decided to delay the Senate vote" and further indicated that he did not yet have enough members in the Assembly to pass same-sex "marriage" legislation.

Roberts added, "I must emphasize that no hearing has been scheduled and that I am continuing to discuss this issue with our caucus to gauge whether there is enough support for it."

The latest available New Jersey polls show that support for same-sex "marriage" has dropped among state voters, adding to the political liability state legislators risk by enacting unpopular legislation within a "lame-duck" session.

A Quinnipiac poll conducted between November 17-22 found that 49 percent of New Jersey adults oppose same-sex "marriage," while just 46 percent are in favor, with six percent remaining undecided. The poll is a reversal of an earlier Quinnipiac trend that in April showed residents favoring such legislation 49 percent to 43 percent.

A Rutgers-Eagleton poll taken November 6-10 showed that while the New Jersey Catholic bishops are fighting against same-sex "marriage," Christians identifying themselves to pollsters as "Protestant" were far more in line with the bishops' position than Catholics themselves.

A plurality of New Jersey residents who self-describe as Catholics support legalizing homosexual nuptials in the state: 48 percent support same-sex "marriage," while 40 percent are opposed, and 12 percent say they are undecided.

Christians identifying themselves as "Protestant" fared much better when it came to supporting natural marriage: 55 percent oppose same-sex "marriage," with 34 percent in favor, and 11 percent undecided.

The poll, however, does not reveal what impact the bishops' higher profile campaign against same-sex "marriage" has had on Catholic minds. Last Sunday, New Jersey's six bishops ordered a pastoral letter explaining the nature of marriage with an unequivocal condemnation of same-sex "marriage" read at parish pulpits.   

Thirty-two states in the United States have rejected same-sex "marriage" with 30 states banning the practice through constitutional amendment. In three states, same-sex "marriage" was legislated through judicial fiat, and in only two states - Vermont and New Hampshire - is same-sex "marriage" legal through legislative action.

Maine voters latest to turn down gay marriage

Wed Nov 4, 2009

By Ros Krasny

PORTLAND, Maine (Reuters) - Voters in Maine on Tuesday overturned a law allowing same-sex couples to wed, dealing a fresh setback to the U.S. gay marriage movement in a race that attracted national attention.

The law was approved by Maine's Legislature in May but was not implemented after opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue to a "people's veto."  . . . .

Frank Schubert, chief organizer of the "Yes on 1" campaign to reject same-sex marriage in the state, claimed victory early on Wednesday, although his opponents refused to concede.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are the only U.S. states where a same-sex marriage law is on the books. In each instance, the laws were approved by legislatures and judges, not by popular vote.

. . . .

[Read the whole article in Reuters online.]


California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage 

Published: May 26, 2009

The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court’s decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized.

Today’s opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George for a 6-to-1 majority, said that same-sex couples still have the right to civil unions, which gives them the ability to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” But the justices said that the voters had clearly expressed their will to limit the formality of marriage to heterosexual couples.

Justice George wrote that Proposition 8 did not “entirely repeal or abrogate” the right to such a protected relationship, but argued that it “carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law.”

Heated reaction to the decision began immediately, with protestors blocking traffic in front of San Francisco City Hall, their hands locked.

Shannon Minter, the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the decision “a terrible blow to the thousands of gay and lesbian Californians who woke up this morning hoping and praying their status as equal citizens of this state would be restored.” The decision, he added, “made it painfully clear that we must go back to the voters to restore equality.”

Those who backed Proposition 8 were elated. Andrew M. Pugno, general counsel for, the leading group behind last year’s initiative, said he and his allies were “very gratified” by the decision. “This is the culmination of years of hard work to preserve marriage in California,” he said in an e-mail message. “The voters have decided this issue and their views should be respected.”

The same court had ruled in May that same-sex couples enjoyed the same fundamental “right to marry” as heterosexual couples. That sweeping 4-3 decision provoked a backlash from opponents that led to Proposition 8, which garnered 52 percent of the vote last November after a bitter electoral fight.

The opinion marks a new round in the long-running battle in California over the issue, and will almost certainly lead to a counter-initiative intended to overturn Proposition 8, which changed the state constitution, as early as next year.

[Read the rest of the article immediately-above azrticle in The New York Times online.]


Miss California Features in New Pro-Marriage Ad

By Tim Waggoner

WASHINGTON, DC, April 30, 2009 ( - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today released its new TV advertisement featuring footage of Miss California Carrie Prejean's encounter with judge Perez Hilton during the recent Miss American pageant.

Hilton, a homosexual celebrity gossip, had asked Prejean during the pageant about her views on same-sex "marriage," to which Prejean responded that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The answer sparked a controversy and widespread coverage in the media, while Hilton subsequently attacked Prejean on his blog, calling her a "dumb bi**h."

The ad - a continuation of NOM's campaign in defense of marriage - also features footage of a same-sex marriage activist from the Human Rights Campaign referring to supporters of marriage as "outright bigots."

NOM's new "No Offense" ad advances the religious liberty argument by informing Americans that a number of prominent legal scholars, on both sides of the debate, have warned that legalizing same-sex marriage in fact "will create widespread … legal conflict" for individuals, small businesses and religious groups.

This afternoon Prejean threw her full weight behind NOM's commercial, giving a speech at the official launch conference of the ad in Washington DC.  While on NBC "Today" this morning, the 21-year-old was asked about her decision to do so, pointing to the fact that she was "attacked" while on stage at the beauty pageant for merely giving her opinion.

"The National Organization for Marriage basically just respects marriages and people who support it," she said. "That's what I'm here to do today, protect traditional marriage." 

Prejean is standing strong in the face of extreme criticism. After Hilton called her a "dumb b*tch" on his blog, a British political leader made joked on TV that if Prejean is "murdered" everyone will know that it was he who murdered her.

Even Miss California USA pageant officials have criticized Prejean's decision to respond honestly to the judge's question, saying "no reigning title holder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more divisive or polarizing issue," and accused her of having an "opportunistic agenda."
But Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM said, "Carrie only said what the majority of Americans believe: marriage means a man and a woman.  Her example resonates, especially to many young Americans, because she chose to stand for truth rather than surrender her core values."

"The behavior of Carrie's critics raises a question in a lot of folks' minds," he continued, "if this is how they treat good people who disagree with them now, what will they do once they have the power of the law on their side?"

According to the NY Daily News, Prejean said she has been repeatedly asked to "apologize" for her comments, but has refused to, saying, "I was representing California. I was representing the majority of people in California."

To view the ad and read the letters from legal scholars, go to



Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Marriage Law

[From CitizenLink, April 3, 2009]

Seven judges in Iowa have changed the definition of marriage for the entire state by voting unanimously to ignore the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Six homosexual couples had sued in December 2005, demanding marriage licenses. The court agreed today, thus ignoring the Legislature and a majority of Iowans.

“The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled and overwhelmingly supported by Iowans," said Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "There was simply no legitimate reason for the court to redefine marriage."

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the ruling took his breath away.

"The justices brazenly asserted that their role was not only to redefine marriage, but also to legislate whatever new social agenda they favored, 'free from the influences' of a society resistant to such change," he said. "Such an admission is breathtaking in its arrogance and scope."

Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action, called on Iowa to join the 30 states that have amended their constitutions to protect marriage.

[Read the whole article at  .]

We Should Know and Remember How Canadian MPs Voted on Marriage
on December 7, 2006

In view of the distinct possibility that there will be a federal election within the year, we should be sure we know how our Members of Parliament in the House of Commons voted on December 7th, 2006, in the crucial vote on the motion to restore the traditional legal definition of marriage.  Remember that the Yeas voted for the restoration of that definition of marriage (requiring a man and a woman), whereas the Nay votes were for retaining same-sex marriage.  Click here to go to the record of votes in Hansard.


Spanish protests [sic] calls for defence of family

Reuters UK website, Sun., Dec. 30, 2007
By Jason Webb

MADRID (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of Spaniards demonstrated in favour of the traditional family in the centre of Madrid on Sunday, in a show of force by Catholics in what is now one of the most liberal countries in Europe.

Organisers said more than one-and-a-half million people packed Colon Square and surrounding streets for the event, which was addressed by Pope Benedict in a live video link.

While they said they had no political motives, the huge demonstration came just over two months before general elections in which a Socialist government which has legalised gay marriage and made divorce easier bids for another term in office.

Under the shadow of Colon Square's huge Spanish flag and just a short walk from the gay bars of Madrid's Chueca district, families and churchgoers bussed in from all over the country heard speakers call for the defence of the traditional family.

"Founded in the indissoluble union between man and woman, it is the place in which human life is sheltered and protected from its beginning until its natural end," said Pope Benedict.     [Click here to read the whole article on the Reuters UK website.]



Sweden Proposes Moving from Civil Unions to Legalizing Homosexual 'Marriage'

By Gudrun Schultz

STOCKHOLM, Sweden, March 23, 2007 ( - A one-person committee appointed by Sweden's government recommended Wednesday that same-sex couples be given all the rights of marriage, the Associated Press reported March 21.

While the country permits homosexual civil unions under legislation passed in 1994, same-sex marriage is not allowed.

"Two men or two women should be able to wed, and in the future be called spouses," said Hans Regner, who carried out the commission. "All the rules for heterosexual spouses will be applied also to homosexual couples."

Under the proposed legislation, same-sex couples already in civil unions would automatically be considered married. The new law still needs Parliamentary approval, but with homosexual "marriage" receiving widespread support in the country the measure is expected to pass.

While homosexual couples in civil unions have already been granted most of the same rights as married couples, a couple may only obtain a civil union if both are at least 18 years old. If given the right to legally marry, same-sex couples could request an exemption to the age requirement--currently only available to heterosexual couples--opening up the possibility of homosexual 'marriage' involving minors, according to the AP.

The Roman Catholic Church in Sweden denounced the proposal. Church leader Per Samuelsson said marriage is a sacrament, and that the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman is shared by all world cultures and is part of "humanity's cultural inheritance," Sweden's The Local reported.

While the Lutheran Church of Sweden continued its support of same-sex couples in a statement, saying individual priests would be permitted to perform legally-binding ceremonies for homosexual couples, the Church said it would not support same-sex partnerships under the term "marriage," saying that term should be reserved for heterosexual couples.

The legislation would permit individual members of the clergy to refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies. Homosexual activists responded angrily to that proposal, calling it discriminatory.

"They are proposing that it should be possible to discriminate. Churches and religious groups are to be allowed to refuse, and we are critical of that," said Sören Andersson, chairman of the Swedish homosexual activist group RFSL.

"You can't pick and choose from Swedish law," he said.

A consultation process will begin now that Regner's report has been released. If passed, the law would make Sweden the sixth country in the world to recognize homosexual "marriage", after Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain and South Africa.




The Ottawa Citizen - Jan. 2, 2007:

Tories pushed to call royal commission on marriage: Social conservatives want Conservatives to 'mend fences' with traditional supporters 
By Peter O'Neil, The Vancouver Sun

Canada's social-conservative movement, still stinging from
last month's refusal by MPs to reopen the debate on gay marriage, wants
Prime Minister Stephen Harper to order a royal commission on marriage and
families. An informal coalition of social conservative groups says a royal
commission would make recommendations on a variety of matters, from family
tax policy to child care. But the coalition acknowledges such a study,
headed by an eminent Canadian, could give the movement a chance to revive
the gay marriage issue in Parliament. The three groups calling for the
commission are Langley, B.C.-based Focus on the Family Canada (through its
Ottawa-based research arm, the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada), the
Ottawa-based Institute for Canadian Values and the Alberta-based Canada
Family Action Coalition, said Joseph Ben-Ami, founder of the Institute for
Canadian Values.

Mr. Ben-Ami said Mr. Harper must not take social conservatives - mostly
religious political advocates opposed to abortion, gay rights and
euthanasia - for granted in the next election. "I think the prime minister,
and I think the Conservative party have to spend some time looking at the
relationship it has with social conservatives, and I think there's some
damage that has to be repaired, some fences that have to be mended," Mr.
Ben-Ami said. "I'm a small-c conservative, don't expect me to go out and
vote Liberal. But I do have an alternative - and that's staying home."

Dave Quist, executive director of Focus on the Family Canada's Ottawa
branch, is more cautious - Focus is a registered charity forbidden from
engaging in partisan politics. But he said a royal commission would give
Canadians time to understand the implications of government measures
affecting families. Gay marriage "may come up as a part of that, but I don't
see that as the main thrust," Mr. Quist said. "Same-sex marriage is one
piece of a big puzzle of the institution of family."

Mr. Ben-Ami said many social conservatives are frustrated that Mr.
Harper went ahead with last month's vote in the House of Commons, in which a
motion to reconsider Parliament's 2005 decision to legalize gay marriages
was soundly defeated. They were infuriated, he said, with Mr.
Harper's refusal to strongly defend traditional marriage in Parliament and
his statement after the vote that he doesn't foresee bringing up the issue

Despite that frustration, he said social conservatives appreciate a number
of steps taken by Mr. Harper, including giving money directly to parents
rather than day care, promising an increase in the age of sexual consent to
16 from 14, and closing Status of Women Canada offices and the Court
Challenges Program. Mr. Ben-Ami also praised the government for strongly
defending Israel in the summertime conflict in Lebanon, as well as the
government's strong defence of human rights and religious freedom in China.
But he said many social conservatives don't pay attention to incremental
steps, and called on Mr. Harper to send a positive signal that he's still
listening to their objections to gay marriage. "I think that the way the
question was handled has created some questions within the
social-conservative movement about the commitment of the government to
keeping social conservatives within the big tent," he said.

Alberta political scientist Faron Ellis said Mr. Ben-Ami and other
government critics will fail to keep the gay marriage issue alive. Mr.
Harper, according to Mr. Ellis, wanted to lose the marriage vote in order to
bury Liberal allegations that he has a hidden agenda to trample on minority
rights. "They will have absolutely no success. He's not one of them," Mr.
Ellis said of Mr. Harper, an evangelical Christian who was considered a
social moderate in the old Reform party. "The gay marriage vote went
according to plan. They had no intention of winning it. And, now it's
settled, like abortion." Mr. Ellis said the social conservatives have no
electoral option, and the threat of simply sitting on their hands in the
next election will only weaken their cause.

Muzzling free speech

Why can't people speak against same-sex marriage?

By Gwendolyn Landolt
Hamilton Spectator( Dec 11, 2006 )

Two views of homosexuality are creating tensions in Canada .

Some believe, on the basis of equality, that there should be no distinction drawn in any way by society between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Others are opposed to homosexuality for practical, medical, moral and/or religious reasons.

The "no distinction" approach has dominated primarily because of the decisions of appointed judges and human rights panellists. It was on this basis that the legalization of same-sex marriages was made.

Even within the parliamentary process, the decision on same-sex marriage has been made by a very few individuals. When same-sex marriage was first debated in Parliament in June 2005, 19 NDP MPs and the 39 Liberal Cabinet members were ordered by their leaders to vote in support of it. The Liberals then rammed through the legislation by disallowing any amendments and imposing closure to cut off debate.

In debate last week, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties again excluded the public from the same-sex marriage debate by requiring its MPs vote along party lines.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was not much better. He begrudgingly allowed a free vote, although making the claim that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental" right under the Charter of Rights.

He was wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision on same-sex marriage, which assumed the leadership role among the provincial courts on this issue, is now under a cloud, due to a complaint laid against Chief Justice Roy McMurtry before the Canadian Judicial Council for serious judicial impropriety and the apprehension of bias for his part in that case.

Same-sex marriage is now public policy and has already triggered some significant changes.

This new definition of marriage has a profound impact on the welfare of children. A large body of social scientific research indicates that children thrive best with a mother and father who teach them gender identity and sex role expectations. This was the conclusion of a committee of the French National Assembly, which recommended, in January 2006, that France not accept same-sex marriage due to its detrimental effect on children.

The French committee criticized studies on same-sex parenting that claimed it had no ill effects on children, on the basis that these studies lacked scientific rigour, included inadequate sampling, and showed a lack of objectivity.

The Court of Appeal of New York and the Supreme Court of Washington last July also rejected same-sex marriage because of concern for the welfare of children.

Same-sex marriages are not functionally equivalent to opposite-sex marriages, but are different in structure, values and practice. It is widely acknowledged that these differences include the fact that sexual faithfulness is not usually regarded as a requirement in same-sex relationships, but is of vital importance in a heterosexual marriage.

Same-sex partners experience a higher incidence of health problems resulting in shorter life spans.

The duration of same-sex marriages is shorter than that of opposite-sex relationships: on average, the former last only two to three years. These factors are detrimental to children who require stability in their lives.

A trend resulting from same-sex marriage is evident in the Netherlands, which has allowed homosexual couples to register their partnerships since 1997 and which legalized same-sex marriages in 2000. Statistics show that the out-of-wedlock birthrate there has increased by an average of 2 per cent a year -- more than in any other country in western Europe. This indicates a marked decrease in a desire for legal marriage and an increase in cohabitation.

The legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has put law and religion on a collision course. The Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus, in Port Coquitlam, B.C., was required to pay a fine for causing "hurt feelings" when it denied the use of the organization's hall to a lesbian couple to celebrate their wedding.

Religion-based social services, such as counselling and adoption services, are now required to conform to the same-sex marriage law.

The tax-exempt status of churches has become the subject of intimidation and harassment. Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary was threatened by the Canada Revenue Agency with removal of the Roman Catholic Church's tax-exempt status if he persisted in speaking against same-sex marriage during a federal election.

Those who favour same-sex marriages are free to speak their views, but those opposed to them are being harassed and coerced into refraining from doing so. This was evident at Ryerson University in June when a respected professor of ethics from McGill University , Dr. Margaret Somerville, who opposes same-sex marriage, was subjected to public attack, including picketing when she received an honorary degree there.

Within school boards, teachers and other individuals are being forced to deny their religious beliefs and freedom of speech by being required to promote same-sex marriage, and publicly refraining from expressing any opposition to it. A teacher and school counsellor in British Columbia , Chris Kempling, submitted a letter to his local newspaper objecting to homosexuality. This resulted in his suspension for one month without pay by the B.C. College of Teachers, which alleged that Kempling's letters "poisoned the school environment."

Subsequently, Kempling was a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party and, in that capacity, had a letter to the editor published in his local newspaper opposing same-sex marriage. He received a further suspension of three months without pay.

School boards in Quebec and Ontario , especially in Toronto , Hamilton and London , now require homosexual "education" in their school systems. Such programs do not provide balanced instruction on the issue, and the medical, psychological and legal impact of homosexuality are not mentioned.

As these examples show, these are monumental consequences to same-sex marriage. Are these the changes that Canadians want? Who knows? We've never been given the opportunity to express our views. A referendum on the issue is clearly required.

Gwendolyn Landolt is national vice-president, REAL Women of Canada


Pope slams "dismal" theories on gay marriage rights

Fri Dec 22, 7:35 AM



ROME (Reuters) - Pope Benedict spoke out on Friday against legal recognition for unmarried couples and "dismal theories" on the rights of gays to marry which he said stripped men and women of their innate sexual identity.


 "I cannot hide my concern about legislation on de facto couples," the Pope said in a Christmas address to the Rome clergy, weighing into a raging debate in Italy over what legal rights should be given to unmarried and gay couples.


Tensions have been rising in recent months between the Vatican and left-wing parties in Prime Minister Romano Prodi's ruling coalition, which has pledged to grant some kind of legal recognition to unmarried couples.


 Some centre-left politicians have scorned the Vatican for speaking out against the initiative, but the Pope said the Church had the right to be heard.


 "If they say the Church shouldn't interfere in these matters, then we can only reply: should mankind perhaps not interest us?" he said.


 The Pope said granting legal recognition to unwed couples was a threat to traditional marriage, which required a higher level of commitment.


 But he saved his strongest words for those who suggest gay couples should be put on the same level as a husband and wife.


 "This tacitly accredits those dismal theories that strip all relevance from the masculinity and femininity of the human being as though it were a purely biological issue," the Pope said.


 Theories "according to which man should be able to decide autonomously what he is and what he isn't," end up with mankind destroying its own identity, he said.


 Two parliamentarians in the ruling coalition this week outraged fellow lawmakers by placing four dolls representing homosexual couples near the baby Jesus in the official nativity scene in Italy 's parliament.


 They said their gesture was to promote legal recognition for unmarried couples and the legalization of gay marriage.




Left Apoplectic Over Dr. Dobson's Time Platform

Dec. 19, 2006]

by Gary Schneeberger, editor

 Academics and gay activists have hurled a lot of epithets at Focus' founder for his commentary on gay parenting -- but none of their charges are sticking.

Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson, no stranger to attacks from the ideological left, has really struck a nerve among some academics and homosexual activists with an opinion piece he penned last week for Time magazine.

 The article, titled "Why Two Mommies is One Too Many," ( appeared in the magazine's Dec. 18 issue -- in response to a request from Time editors for Dr. Dobson's views on word that Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, is expecting a child with her lesbian partner. Although Dr. Dobson made it clear he wasn't attacking Cheney or her partner, Heather Poe, acknowledging he has no reason to doubt they will love their child, his piece did point out that the best environment in which to raise children is a household headed by a married mother and father.

 "Love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development," Dr. Dobson wrote. "The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy -- any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.

"The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains that gender matters -- perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing."

Those simple comments -- supported by sound research -- have driven the left's spin machine into a week's worth of overdrive.

 "The attack against Dr. Dobson has been as unceasing as it has been baseless," said Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issue analysis for Focus on the Family. "The only thing that can explain the vehemence with which gay activists have responded to his commentary is that it galls them for a major publication like Time -- with a circulation of more than 4 million -- to give a platform to someone like Dr. Dobson, who stands for everything they oppose."

 The first attack came in claims from two researchers whose work Dr. Dobson cited in his piece that he had "twisted" their science. They only spoke up, it is worth noting, after being contacted by a gay activist with a long history of personally vilifying pro-family leaders; in fact, he once called Dr. Dobson "a Scripture-spitting, simple-minded, superstitious savage." No matter why the researchers weighed in, though, their objections are off-base, according to Dr. Bill Maier, Focus on the Family's psychologist in residence.

"These are well-respected scientists who probably feel they have no choice but to cry 'foul' because they work in a field that is so dominated by liberal groupthink," Maier explained. "But the fact they aren't happy their data was used to reach a conclusion they disagree with doesn't mean the data was not properly applied. Dr. Dobson never claimed these researchers share his view on this issue -- they clearly do not. But there is no denying that the data they compiled can be appropriately cited to show the unique contributions mothers and fathers make in the lives of their children.

 "Many 'progressive' academics would prefer to ignore these unique contributions and claim that mothers or fathers are 'optional,' " he added. "But anyone who takes the time to read the research in question will find that Dr. Dobson quoted the researchers accurately. While these individuals may personally hold positions on same-sex parenting that are different from his, their findings on gender differences clearly support his thesis.  The sad fact is that gay parenting intentionally -- and permanently -- deprives a child of either a mommy or a daddy."

Questionable rebuttal

The other attack against Dr. Dobson came in the form of a rebuttal op-ed published in Time's online edition last week. It's written by Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of a pro-gay group called Family Pride, and in it she accuses Dr. Dobson of "lying" about the data he cites to support his conclusions.

 Focus on the Family's Earll scoffed at the charge.

 "The truth is, Time's editors fact-checked Dr. Dobson's piece before they published it," she said. "Not one fact he laid out was excised as untrue. Calling him a liar just points to the desperation of those on the left. When they can't fight facts with facts, they fight them with name-calling."

In fact, Focus on the Family research analysts did a point-by-point examination of Chrisler's piece and found it to contain many questionable assertions. The most egregious may be this one: "According to the 2000 census, the vast majority -- more than 75% -- of American children, are being raised in families that differ in structure from two married, heterosexual parents and their biological children."

 Not true, Focus' analysis finds.

 "Anyone can go online to the U.S. Census Bureau's recent data and learn that in 2001, 71 percent of children lived in a two-parent home and 67.6 percent lived with two married parents," the report states. "Of the children living with two parents, 88 percent lived with their biological mother and father, and only 10 percent lived with one biological and one step-parent.

 "In fact, the Urban Institute, a liberal child-advocacy organization, reports that a child is more likely to be living with her married parents today than in the mid 1990s, rising 2.5 percentage points since that time."

 Chrisler also makes the stale argument that "professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have all issued position statements supporting same-sex parents."

What she doesn't say is that the associations that have issued such statements have done so via very small and special-interest driven committees -- hardly representing the views of the groups' entire memberships.

 You can read more of the refutations of Chrisler's work by seeing the "FOR MORE INFORMATION" box below, but the outrage over the attacks on Dobson is more than just a case of Focus on the Family coming to its own defense. Prominent academics have written to Time to back up the conclusions of Dr. Dobson's commentary.

 "It comforts me as a pediatrician when a health-professions colleague of Dr. Dobson's stature presents the science of child rearing so clearly," wrote Joseph Zanga, M.D., a professor of pediatrics and president of the American College of Pediatricians. "Of course children need a mother and a father, female and male, to optimally guide them through all of their developmental stages to adulthood. This is not new science. It was 
taught to me in every year of my education through and including medical school."

Robert George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, noted the issues Dr. Dobson wrote of are "common sense to most people."    Dr. James Dobson's critics call him names ('extremist,' 'liar') but actually confirm his central point," George explained. "Their focus is on the wants and preferences of adults, rather than the obligations adults have as a matter of basic justice to children they may conceive."


To read Focus on the Family's point-by-point rebuttals of the allegations made against Dr. Dobson over his Time commentary, visit the CitizenLink Web site. You can find supporting statements and research for his piece here, and refutations of the points made by Jennifer Chrisler here.
You also can hear more about this subject from Dr. Dobson himself in the January edition of his Focus on the Family newsletter. If you don't receive it at your home, you can find it online beginning Jan. 1.



Ireland High Court Rules Against Gay 'Marriage' Citing Harm to Children
Refuses Recognition of Lesbian "Marriage" Staged in Canada

By Gudrun Schultz

DUBLIN, Ireland, December 15, 2006 ( - The Ireland High Court yesterday rejected a lesbian couple's demand to have their Canadian "marriage" recognized in Ireland, in a landmark ruling closely watched by both sides of the international marriage debate.

Justice Elizabeth Dunne decided against the claim of Dr. Katherine Zappone and Dr. Anne Louise Gilligan, who had argued that the State and the Revenue Commissioners had violated their constitutional rights by refusing to assess them for taxes as a married couple, the Irish Times reported yesterday.

"Marriage was understood under the 1937 Constitution to be confined to persons of the opposite sex," Justice Dunne wrote in her lengthy ruling.

"Having regard to the clear understanding of the meaning of marriage as set out in the numerous authorities opened to the Court from this jurisdiction and elsewhere, I do not see how marriage can be redefined by the Court to encompass same sex marriage."

Dr. Zappone, a public policy research consultant member of the Human Rights Commission, and Dr. Gilligan, who lectures at St. Patrick's College in Dublin, are homosexual activists who have been pursuing a change in Ireland's marriage laws that would permit homosexual couples to legally marry.

When Canada passed homosexual marriage legislation in 2003, the pair traveled to Vancouver, B.C. in September 2003 to 'marry', and then used their Canadian 'marriage' to attempt to force recognition by the Irish government.

Justice Dunne rejected the couple's argument that international acceptance of homosexual 'marriage' was reason enough for re-evaluation of Irish law.

"The Plaintiffs referred frequently in the course of this case to the 'changing consensus' but I have to say the there is little evidence of that," she wrote. "The consensus around the world does not support a widespread move towards same sex marriage. There has been some limited support for the concept of same sex marriage as in Canada, Massachusetts and South Africa together with…three European countries…but, in truth, it is difficult to see that as a consensus, changing or otherwise."

In her 138-page ruling, Justice Dunne expressed concern about the effect of same-sex marriage on children, saying the lack of conclusive research into the results of homosexual parenting made it necessary to reserve judgment on the issue.

"[T]here is simply not enough evidence from the research done to date that could allow firm conclusions to be drawn as to the consequences of same sex marriage particularly in the area of the welfare of children."

The United States-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy commented on the Irish court decision, saying:

'Of particular interest may be the court's discussion about the evidence purporting to show no difference between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by married couples. The judge accepted testimony about the methodological shortcomings of available evidence and said: "It also seems to me having regard to the criticism of the methodology used in the majority of the studies conducted to date that until such time as there are more longitudinal studies involving much larger samples that it will be difficult to reach firm conclusions on this topic."'

'The court concluded that the Irish Constitution's explicit reference to a constitutional right of opposite-sex couples to marry justified the legal distinction between same- and opposite-sex couples in the marriage law. The court further noted, however, that the marriage law was further justified by concerns with the 'welfare of children' since in the absence of good research, 'the State is entitled to adopt a cautious approach to changing the capacity to marry.'"

Justice Dunne said the decision to grant legal recognition to same-sex couples apart from marriage should be up to the legislature, not the courts.

Currently in Ireland, legislation has been proposed that would permit homosexual couples to enter in to civil unions with some of the legal benefits given to married heterosexual couples.

Read the full Ireland High Court decision .

Canada's PM Won't Try Again on Marriage 
and has No Plan to Protect Religious Freedom

Says, "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

By John-Henry Westen
OTTAWA, December 8, 2006 ( - Prime Minister Stephen Harper reacted to the vote in the House of Commons on the marriage issue yesterday saying: "The result was decisive and obviously we will accept the democratic result of the people's representatives."

Groups supporting the traditional definition of the family unanimously rejected the notion that the vote was decisive on marriage since the wording of the motion required acceptance of same-sex 'marriages' already performed.

Harper was also asked by a reporter: "So it is over now? If you got a majority government, would you reopen the question?" Responding, the Prime Minister said: "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

He was also asked if he saw the need for a defence of religions act, to which he replied: "The government has no plans in that regard. As I just said, if there ever were a time in the future where fundamental freedoms were threatened, of course the government would respond to protect them. The government has no plans at this time."

Harper's statement contradicts what he said about the law to legalize homosexual 'marriage' during the Commons debate over the legislation last year where he called current legal protection for religion "laughable" and vowed to attempt to amend the bill to include religious protection.

"The so-called protection that the government has offered for even basic religious freedom is, frankly, laughably inadequate," said then Opposition Leader Harper on February 16, 2005. In the memorable speech in the House of Commons in response to the introduction of the same-sex 'marriage' Bill C-38., he added, "It is totally dishonest to suggest that it provides real protection."

In that speech Harper enumerated many of the threats to religious freedom that would ensue from the homosexual 'marriage' legislation if passed. Already his predictions have been realized as marriage commissioners have been forced either to perform homosexual 'marriages' or resign. A Knights of Columbus hall was sued after it refused to host a homosexual 'wedding'. And school curricula at all levels are being altered to ensure the indoctrination of children in the 'equality' of homosexual 'marriages' and the legitimacy of homosexuality.

At the time, Harper promised, "Should the bill survive second reading, we will propose amendments in areas like these to ensure that in all areas subject to federal jurisdiction nobody will be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs or practices regarding marriage."

In September, Campaign Life Coalition asked the Prime Minister to honour those promises to protect religious freedom should the effort to restore traditional marriage fail. The Conservatives floated a 'trial balloon' Protection of Religions Act, but it apparently did not receive the press they desired.

In the wake of yesterday's vote in the House not to reopen the marriage debate, more groups are demanding the safeguarding of religious freedom, and freedom of speech.

"Now, more than ever, core conservatives will be demanding strong federal legislation protecting children and protecting freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience," said Canada Family Action Coalition executive director Brian Rushfeldt, in a release yesterday.

"We must ensure judges do not continue prosecuting people for holding or expressing views that do not endorse a liberal politically correct philosophy. We must ensure that Canadians are free to express their views on issues of sexuality including homosexual behavior, as well as other foundational issues such as marriage, family, and morality. We must demand that such views are not quenched, oppressed or prosecuted in this democratic nation that boasts of its tolerance."

To express your concerns to the Prime Minister:

See Harper's full speech:


Canadian Government Motion to Reopen Debate on Homosexual "Marriage" Defeated 175 to 123
Only 20 of 308 MPs were in Commons for the Debate

OTTAWA, December 7, 2006 ( - Canada's Conservative government's motion to re-open the debate on same-sex marriage was defeated in the House of Commons today by a vote of 175 to 123.

The margin of defeat was wider than expected with fewer pro-family Liberals voting in favour of the motion. The wording of the motion added to its rejection as it included acceptance of same-sex "marriages" that have already taken place under the current law.

It is widely acknowledged that the measure was not a serious attempt to reopen debate. CanWest News reporter Janice Tibbetts captured that message in two lines of her coverage. Tibbetts wrote: "Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the man who promised to bring the contentious same-sex marriage issue back to the Commons, was absent from the chamber and had no plans to defend traditional marriage as debate opened Wednesday on whether to revoke Canada's same-sex marriage law. The Commons was virtually empty, with about 20 of 308 members showing up."


REAL Women of Canada


“Women’s Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights”


NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations



M E D I A    R E L E A S E


Democracy Denied on Same-sex Marriage Vote

Referendum Demanded



Ottawa, Ontario                                                                                                                          December 7, 2006



The NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties have excluded the public from the same-sex marriage debate by insisting their MPs vote along party lines.  Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has begrudgingly allowed a free vote, although making the claim that same-sex marriage is a “fundamental” right under the Charter of Rights.  He is wrong.  The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision on same-sex marriage, which assumed the leadership role among the provincial courts on this issue, is now under a cloud, due to a complaint laid against Chief Justice McMurtry before the Canadian Judicial Council for serious judicial impropriety and the apprehension of bias for his part in that case.


Moreover, there is no human rights treaty that recognizes same-sex marriage.  In fact, the UN treaties say quite the opposite in that they define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.  Same-sex marriage is not included in the Charter of Rights, nor in the European Convention of Rights. 


Further, the vote in Parliament on same-sex marriage, held in June 2005, was farcical with 39 Cabinet Ministers being denied a free vote, the refusal to accept amendments, and the invoking of closure, which prevented the critical issues surrounding same-sex marriage being debated.  These issues include the impact of same-sex marriage on the welfare of children, the right to religious freedom and conscience by both religious and secular organizations, and the impact of same-sex marriage on education policies.


Elitist political leaders apparently believe that Canada is still in the twentieth century, where political parties ignored the opinion of the voting public.  However, in today’s technologically advanced world, a well-educated public must be allowed to participate in setting government policy, and especially so on the same-sex marriage issue -- the most important issue of this generation.


Arrogant political leaders do not, in fact, know what’s best for everyone. 


The Necessity for a Referendum on Same-sex Marriage


Since the Canadian public has been denied a voice on the issue of same-sex marriage, a very persuasive argument can be made for a referendum on the same-sex marriage issue.  The 1992 Referendum Act provides that the government may call for a referendum on a constitutional issue.  Marriage is an issue under our constitution, as it is set out in S.91 and S.92 of the 1867 British North America Act [BNA].  The time for a referendum has now arrived.




C. Gwendolyn Landolt, LLB                                          Diane Watts

National Vice President                                                Researcher

(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425                                     (613) 236-4001




For Immediate Release

December 7, 2006

 Government Abandons Marriage, says CFAC

  Calgary - After witnessing the weak performance by the small number of MPs that bothered to show up for the so-called “debate” in Parliament on marriage yesterday, some things have become painfully clear.

 Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) says it is not just the opposition parties who have abandoned marriage. “The “progressive” Conservative MPs appear to be taking over the party in their abandonment of marriage” says Brian Rushfeldt, CFAC’s Executive Director.  “Peter McKay, Gerald Keddy, Jim Prentice, James Moore and other likeminded “progressives“ have just set a tone that could result in a Conservative loss in the next election. When a party abandons the values of its core base, it loses support.”

Rushfeldt points out that over a million additional voters went to the polls in the last election. Who were those people?  And what got them out?  Did Gomery drive people to the polls by exposing the corruption of the Liberals? No – many may have not bothered to vote as a result of that issue because they lost trust in all politicians. On the other hand, CFAC believes that Prime Minister Harper’s promise to seriously re-visit the marriage issue did bring many additional voters out.

“The lack of a genuine defense of marriage or proposed solution in this week’s parliamentary debate signals the abandonment of conservative values,” says Rushfeldt. He adds, “The marriage issue must be re-opened regardless of the vote. A study to expose the impact upon children and society of the Liberal redefinition of marriage and the attempt to normalize homosexual behavior has to be done, regardless of this vote.”  

 The old “progressives” have all but guaranteed, at best a Conservative minority next election, and at worst a defeat. “We are well aware that the “old progressives” are unwilling to support any social conservative values or policies.  I would like to remind the party that the old “progressives” under McKay’s leadership held all of 15 seats. And after Mulroney the abandonment of social conservatism they held – two. I would hope the Conservative Party would learn from its own history.”

 “Now, more than ever, core conservatives will be demanding strong federal legislation protecting children and protecting freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience,” says Rushfeldt.  “We must ensure judges do not continue prosecuting people for holding or expressing views that do not endorse a liberal politically correct philosophy. We must ensure that Canadians are free to express their views on issues of sexuality including homosexual behavior, as well as other foundational issues such as marriage, family, and morality.  We must demand that such views are not quenched, oppressed or prosecuted in this democratic nation that boasts of its tolerance.”  Judges must be checked from altering the Constitution whenever their ideology needs to be written into law. We have an amending formula for Constitutional change – I don’t see in it the power of one judge in one case to amend OUR Charter. Will a Conservative government protect the Charter that Dion is so proud to use when it suits liberal dogma.

What will the Conservatives do to regain support and trust of their core base before the next election? asks Rushfeldt. “We believe the Conservative’s only hope for a majority government is to appeal to the majority of Canadians and majority of their core support base.”


"The Marriage Battle Continues," says Campaign Life Coalition
"Unfortunately, there was no vote today on traditional marriage in the House of Commons"
OTTAWA, December 7, 2006 ( - Reacting to the defeat of the Conservative motion marriage motion today, Campaign Life Coalition, which has lobbied MPs to support traditional marriage, commented, "Unfortunately, there was no vote today on traditional marriage in the House of Commons."

Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition Canada (CLC) continued, "Instead, there was a vote on a procedural motion which was both awkward and confusing in its wording, resulting in its defeat."

The motion read: "That this house call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions, and while respecting existing same sex marriages."

In recent months a French government advisory board rejected same-sex 'marriage' for the sake of children.  "Canadians know that a child needs a mother and a father and will accept nothing less," said Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of CLC.

In light of today's vote some are calling for a halt to the marriage debate, however those in favour of traditional marriage are rejecting the proposal. 

"The battle for the right of the traditional family, like the battle for the rights of the unborn Canadian children will continue," stated Mr. Hughes. Contrary to the wishful thinking of the National Post and others, he added, "the issue is far from decided."

Catholics and Evangelicals Say Marriage Battle Not Over
“True democracy does not exist without a foundation of real marriage and the natural family”

By Hilary White

December 8, 2006 ( – Canada’s religious leaders have reacted to yesterday’s defeat of the Conservative government’s marriage motion saying that they will continue to fight for a return to the natural definition of marriage in Canadian law. Many warned also that pressure could now be put on religious organizations by threatening their charitable tax status.

In Wednesday’s debates in the House, MP’s arguing for retaining homosexual “marriage” depended heavily on the theme that the decision was finished and the country wanted to “move on.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper appeared to accept that the vote in the House was decisive and said the democratic process had been honoured. However, today’s reaction from religious groups shows there is still considerable public turmoil.

“That's pure nonsense,” said Rev. Tristan Emmanuel the President of Equipping Christians for the Public-square (ECP) Centre. “Democracy is not a commodity that belongs to political pragmatists so that they can twist it and manipulate it for their own career advancement.

“True democracy does not exist without a foundation of real marriage and the natural family. Until marriage and family are respected, we won't respect yesterday's result,” Rev. Emmanuel said.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) said it “will continue to maintain that the institution of marriage is the public covenanting together of a man and a woman in a loving, enduring and exclusive relationship.”

The EFC reconfirmed a statement on the nature of marriage signed November 9 by over 50 religious leaders from various faiths across Canada – including Roman Catholic, Evangelical and Orthodox Christians and Muslims.

Douglas Cryer, EFC director of public policy called the process used to redefine marriage “flawed.” “In redefining marriage, the government has failed to either study the issue or give consideration to studies completed by other countries,” Cryer said.

Bruce J. Clemenger, president of the EFC. “In the wake of today’s vote, we call on Parliament and all Canadians to respect the diversity of views on the nature and meaning of marriage and to affirm the legitimacy of faith communities to abide by an understanding of marriage that has served the public good.”

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement they are “deeply disappointed” that the House of Commons refused to revisit the issue. The bishops are calling on Canadian Catholics to “guard against further changes to the definition of civil marriage, including polygamy” and urge political parties “to allow their members a free vote on basic ethical and moral questions.”

The Catholic bishops said, “Marriage is an issue intimately related to human nature which has been created male and female.” The bishops urged Catholics to call on government to “safeguard faith groups” from being penalized by their charitable tax status.

Campaign Life Coalition Canada, REAL Women Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League, Enshrine Marriage Canada, Vote Marriage Canada and the Canada Family Action Coalition all vowed yesterday not to give up until natural marriage is restored in Canadian law.

"Politics and Same-Sex Marriage," by Stephen Baskerville is the "feature article" in the current issue (November-December, 2006) of Society magazine.  The following is an excerpt from that article:


 Opinion: A Statement Worth Considering  

"Politics and Same-Sex Marriage," by Stephen Baskerville is the "feature article" in the current issue (November-December, 2006) of Society magazine.  The following is an excerpt from that article:

"Granting gay couples the right to have children by definition means giving at least one of the partners the right to have someone else's children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them or committed some transgression to warrant losing them.  Current law governing divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse render this question open. ... gay marriages and gay adoption ..  the latest of many consequences that inevitably ensued once government officials got into the business .. of distributing other people's children."

  (quotation given on the “Equal Parenting” website)  



Conservative Party Marriage Motion Wording Revealed
By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, December 1, 2006 ( - has obtained the wording of the Conservative Motion to be debated next week. Parliamentary sources have revealed that the motion states:

"That this house call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions, and while respecting existing same sex marriages."


Tories plan December vote on same-sex marriage

The Conservatives will follow through with their election promise to revisit same-sex marriage, with debate expected to begin as early as next week.

The government confirmed Tuesday they will begin debate Dec. 6th with a vote planned before the House breaks for the holidays.

The motion is expected to ask MPs to reopen discussion on same-sex marriage, but will not directly challenge the existing legislation. However, it may ask whether parliamentarians wish to repeal or amend the existing law.

[Click here to read the whole article from CBC online.]

REAL Women Cite “Horrendous” Media Bias in “Gay Marriage” Coverage
The few journalists writing in favour of traditional marriage are being harassed, threatened

By Hilary White

TORONTO, October 13, 2006 ( – The National Post carried an October 5th editorial by Don Martin that REAL Women of Canada says is a symptom of “horrendous” bias in media coverage on the same-sex marriage issue.

Calling it the “same old same-sex marriage battle,” and a “rigor mortis issue,” Martin echoes the attacks on Christians that were heard in the House last week when opposition Members accused Stephen Harper of being willing to protect the democratic rights of expression by Canadians who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons.

Replicating the comments made the same week by Bloc MP Real Menard in Parliament, Don Martin claims that adequate protection for religious dissent already exists. This despite well-publicized evidence of persecution through extra-judicial Human Rights Tribunals of religious people who object to the homosexual political agenda.

“Same-sex marriages are here to stay, as is the Charter-protected right of religions to oppose the concept.”

“Thus,” Martin concludes, “you can gay bash all day from the pulpit and you'll get no complaint from the cops.”

Gwen Landoldt, vice president of REAL Women of Canada, told that Martin’s column is representative of a serious problem. “A number of the columnists who were on our side haven’t had an easy time from their editors in talking about this,” Landoldt said.

REAL Women issued an Alert to their members saying that the media has campaigned against both religious freedom and the movement to protect marriage and suppressed much of the facts in the issue.

The Alert stated that evidence and expert testimony against same-sex “marriage” was ignored and that the Parliamentary committee appointed to study the issue under the Liberal government was not allowed to table its findings.

“The public has been deprived of valuable information as the debate has been deliberately framed in terms of human rights and Charter rights only.”

“The traditional position on marriage did not receive fair exposure except for columns by a few stalwart journalists who put their careers on the line to report the facts against the promotion of same-sex marriage.  Some columnists were and continue to be harassed by their editors for doing so.  Many have received nasty hate mail and threats to their lives and safety.”

“These journalists often stand alone, never knowing when the axe will fall to end their employment as a result of a complaint from a reader whose feelings are hurt.” REAL Women is asking supporters of marriage to contact journalists personally and support them. “Write letters to the editor defending their point of view. .. Brave journalists writing for major media outlets serve their country well during these difficult times for the family, and they need our support.”

See Don Martin column:
Tory strides hurt by a misstep and much, much more.

Back to Top | Email to a Friend



Defending marriage Take up the pen!


Archbishop Raymond Roussin, SM, of Vancouver has written a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper clearly stating why Catholics must reject last year’s passage of legislation attempting to redefine marriage in this country.

The letter thanks Mr. Harper for keeping his campaign promise to reintroduce the issue before Parliament during the fall session now underway.

The archbishop reiterates the fact that marriage has historically been defined as a “life-long covenant of love between a man and a woman” and long understood as the best way to raise and educate children.

Catholics, the archbishop suggests, should alert their MPs to the fact that the debate which led to the passing of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, was unfairly curtailed and pushed through the House and Senate without most MPs being permitted a free vote, leaving their constituents unrepresented.

Attempts to redefine marriage, Archbishop Roussin notes, threaten the protection of religious freedom for all people of faith, ignore numerous studies showing that children do much better when they are raised by a married mother and father, have been rejected by other countries such as the U.S. and France, and open the door to talk of legalizing polygamy and other relationship choices harmful to society.

Bishop Richard Gagnon of Victoria, writing in the Diocesan Messenger, has requested that Catholics in his diocese contact federal party leaders and MPs to express the view that “the traditional definition of marriage should be restored for the good of the nation and for the protection of children.”

Letters defending marriage should also go to newspapers, magazines, and other media, says Bishop Gagnon, and he urges everyone to pray for Canada’s politicians.

The Office of Life and Family of the Vancouver Archdiocese has information on how to contact MPs and B.C. senators posted at Click on the Office of Life and Family. Voting records of MPs on Bill C-38 are also listed on the web site.

Letters or calls to MPs should be polite and non-threatening, and should point out that tolerance and human rights are not the issue, that marriage has always been defined as a union of one man and one woman for life.
It should be made clear that the issue will be a determining factor in the constituent’s future voting decisions.


Canada’s Pro-Marriage Groups Urge Grassroots Political Action Now, While MPs in Ridings
Emphasize that fall vote to re-open marriage debate must be won and can be won

TORONTO, August 9, 2006 ( – In its August newsletter, Campaign Life Coalition, Canada (CLC) presents a detailed list of do’s and don’ts to guide supporters to effectively communicate with MPs this summer about the fall vote to re-open the marriage debate. CLC, in conjunction with other pro traditional marriage groups, working together as Vote Marriage Canada, is telling its members that Stephen Harper’s promised vote in Parliament must be won.

The do’s and don’ts list is being promoted in their various publications by all the cooperating groups. CLC says that winning the upcoming vote “can be done” but also that “It won’t be easy to accomplish” and “We must do everything in our power to ensure that the motion is passed.”

The national pro-life group’s newsletter stresses that between “now and the vote on the motion, pro-family Canadians have two vitally important tasks:
1. lobby their MPs on the marriage issue and
2. become involved in the candidate nomination process to help select pro-life and pro-traditional marriage candidates in all parties”

Candidate nominations are part II to the overall strategy, the lobbying for the vote being considered the most immediate priority since the MPs are still in their riding offices. It is there, among the constituents that elect them, that the Members of Parliament can be most affected, says CLC.

The newsletter article stresses that many MP’s, including even some who voted for traditional marriage in the past, “would like the issue to go away” and therefore personal lobbying in the riding is “crucial”. As well, it is emphasized that some who voted for the change in the definition can still be convinced to change their position to pro-traditional marriage.

As for the nominations, CLC notes that the all Conservative and NDP incumbents “will have to face challengers” and so no MP for these parties, whether for or against traditional marriage, is secure in his nomination. As for the Liberals, whose MPs are protected from nomination challenges, it is noted, “there might be an unusually large number of incumbents retiring from politics.”


Seattle Archbishop Condemns Gay “Marriage”, Fears State-made Theology, Lawsuits

By Gudrun Schultz

SEATTLE, Washington, July 25, 2006 ( – Permitting same-sex “marriages” could lead to a serious loss of religious freedom, Seattle Archbishop Alexander Brunett warned Thursday in a legal brief filed in the ongoing battle over the state’s ban on homosexual “marriages.”

The court hearing the case, however, rejected the brief on account of the fact that it comes over a year too late; oral arguments were heard in the state Supreme Court in March 2005. . . . . 

“The state would be in the position of establishing socially acceptable public theology...Such an intrusion into religious practice should not be permitted,” wrote Archbishop Brunett.

He warned that overturning the ban would set up “an inevitable collision with religion,” saying the church would be in danger of losing the civil authority to perform marriages and could be vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits for refusing to conduct homosexual “marriages.”

Earlier this year Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo caused a stir when he similarly warned religious leaders worldwide that the current secularist direction the West is taking could see the Church hauled before an international criminal court. He explained that "speaking in defense of life and for the rights of the family is becoming in some societies a type of crime against the State, a form of disobedience to the Government, a discrimination against women."

While the brief marks Archbishop Brunett’s first contribution to the legal battle underway in the state, in September 2005 he issued a pastoral letter clarifying the Church’s teaching on marriage. Entitled The Gift of Marriage, A Union Most Sacred, the letter responded to “challenges to the understanding of marriage commonly held in our society.” . . . .

The battle over the state’s ban on homosexual marriage has been in the courts since 2004, when Seattle King County Superior Court Judge William Downing ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage violated the state constitution. Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens said Thursday the decision on the same-sex “marriage” case would likely come September 19, according to the AP.


Marriage Amendment Stopped in U.S. Senate
by Hilary White

WASHINGTON, June 7, 2006 ( – The US Senate today rejected the proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited homosexual "marriage." The motion to close debate and vote on the amendment failed 49-48, 11 short of the 60 required votes to bring the amendment to a vote and move it on to the next stage.
Constitutional amendments require an involved process and must win the support of two-thirds of each house of the U.S. Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures before taking effect.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) said in a statement that their organization supports a federal marriage amendment protecting marriage but indicated that the defeat is not necessarily a bad thing for marriage.
Some groups were concerned that the proposed marriage amendment might have left room for the establishment of “civil unions,” where homosexual partnerings could enjoy every benefit of marriage but the name. CWA’s Chief Counsel, Jan LaRue said her organization “supports a single-sentence amendment that would strictly define marriage as between one man and one woman, and not leave any room for misinterpretation.”
LaRue continued, “A one-line amendment would be virtually invulnerable to misinterpretation, and it would remove cover from those in Congress who use their alleged concerns for civil unions to prevent Americans from voting to preserve marriage.”
Forty-five states have passed laws or amended their constitutions to establish marriage between one man and one woman. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. Supporters believe that a constitutional amendment defining marriage is necessary to prevent courts from overturning state bans.
President Bush and the supporters of marriage in both parties have vowed to keep trying. “Our nation's founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress,” the president said.
"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
“Clearly as time goes on there will be more votes in favour of this," said South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune, according to the Washington Post. "We make a little headway each time this is debated."

Prime Minister Harper says Same Sex "Marriage" Vote Coming this Fall

OTTAWA, June 2, 2006 ( - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he will hold a free vote on re-opening the marriage debate in Canada this Fall.  Carolyn Stewart-Olson, spokesman for Prime Minister Harper, told that when she made the announcement the Prime-Minister noted that this was a campaign promise.

Pro-family groups were seeking a delay, at least till the Fall, on the vote to have time to shore up support for the measure to reopen the debate, but homosexual activists were pressing for a vote as soon as possible.  Parliamentary sources told that opposition parties were going to introduce a motion on the matter as early as next Thursday.

Former Liberal MP Pat O'Brien who left the Liberal Party over the first same-sex 'marriage' vote has repeatedly charged that the procedure for the vote and debate was a farce, noting also that former Prime Minister Martin did not permit a free vote on the matter .  (see coverage:  O'Brien is actively lobbying his former colleagues on the matter and also pointing to new evidence on the subject.  The most salient piece of new evidence is the report by the government of France rejecting homosexual 'marriage' on the basis of the harm it would cause to children. (see coverage:

Should the motion to reopen the debate pass, the Conservative Government is committed to putting forward a bill to restore the traditional definition of marriage.


Canadian Religious Leaders Urged to Action on Vote to Re-open Marriage Debate

By Gudrun Schultz

OTTAWA, April 13, 2006 ( – A coalition of 12 Canadian pro-family organizations has sent a joint letter to Canadian religious leaders urging them to mobilize their congregations to ensure the upcoming vote to re-open the marriage debate is successful.

The Coalition notes that Prime Minister Harper stated during the recent election that he would re-visit the same-sex marriage issue in Parliament and that he stated after the January election this would happen “sooner, rather than later”.

“This vote will also be extremely crucial,” says Defend Marriage, “for religious organizations in Canada, because, contrary to the former Liberal government's assertions, religious groups will inevitably be subject to legal challenges if the legal definition of marriage remains unchanged and continues to include same-sex partners”.

The delay so far in calling the vote is seen by the Coalition as “a window of opportunity to ensure a winning vote in support of traditional marriage” but the group emphasizes that “this will only occur if we are able to effectively marshal articulate voices in defense of children, families, and religious freedom”.

The letter goes on to explain and illustrate the specific threats to religious freedom posed by the current situation and warns “the same-sex marriage legislation has created serious problems which warrant our deepest concern.”

Defend Marriage emphasizes, “The initial vote will be, as the Prime Minister has promised, on a motion to re-open the issue in Parliament. We must win that initial vote. Only then will the issue advance to a next stage which will be the Prime Minister calling for a vote on the actual definition of marriage”.

The religious leaders are given three specific action items to undertake to influence parliamentarians and the public to bring about passage of the initial vote to re-open debate and a subsequent vote to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

The letter was sent to 363 Catholic Bishops, religious leaders listed in the Yearbook of Canadian churches, Jewish synagogues and Bahai leaders and will soon also be sent to Muslim and Hindu leaders.

The members of the Defend Marriage Coalition who have signed onto the letter are:
REAL Women of Canada
Catholic Civil Rights League
Campaign Life Coaliton
Canada Family Action Coalition
Equipping Christians for the Public-square Centre
Enshrine Marriage Canada
United Families Canada
United Mothers and Fathers
Preserve Marriage-Protect Children's Rights
(Préserver le Mariage-Protégeons les droits des enfants)
Association des parents catholiques du Québec
Mariage Canada

The Coalition is encouraging wide distribution of the letter to pastors across the country in addition to the leaders already contacted.

See the complete letter


Hargrove Blasts Harper on Same Sex Vote

April 06, 2006, 1:41 p.m. EST
CAW president Buzz Hargrove sent the following letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on April 6 after Harper announced he is going to hold another House of Commons vote on same sex marriage:
Dear Prime Minister:
How disappointing to read, yesterday, that your government is planning to move ahead on a vote in the House of Commons on same sex marriage.
What, exactly, is your problem with real equality for all Canadians?
Because, Prime Minister, equality is what is at the heart of same sex marriage.
And you’re opposed to it.
You know, as well as the rest of us, about the horrendous history of social approaches that divide people into groups by offering so-called “separate but equal” access to social institutions. Apartheid is the name that was given to this approach, for example, in South Africa. It was also this approach that made it necessary for the courts to declare women “persons” in Canada not so very long ago. “Separate but equal” approaches proclaim that some groups are less equal, less deserving, than others.
Why would any government want to attach itself to such a legacy of discrimination and injustice? Why would you?
I am asking you to put petty politics aside and do the right thing. You are not on the side of justice, you are not on the side of the majority of Canadians and you are not on the side of an honourable history.
Let same sex marriage be. It deserves to be celebrated, not attacked.


French Government Report Says No to Homosexual "Marriage"

. . . .

By John-Henry Westen

PARIS, February 16, 2006 ( - A government commission set up at the request of the President of the French National Assembly has concluded that homosexual 'marriage' and adoption by homosexual couples, and medically assisted procreation for homosexual couples should not be permitted by law.  The decisive factor to the report's conclusions, after an investigation of more than a year, was the commission's decision to act "to affirm and protect children's rights and the primacy of those rights over adults' aspirations."

The Information Mission, as the commission was called, was to propose any change to the law and to administrative practices that were necessary to better protect the rights of the child and to reflect changes in the French family.  The commission's report, the Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, released January 27, 2006 did acknowledge that the French family has altered significantly, becoming "more diverse and less institutionalized", but recommended nonetheless that in the best interests of children homosexual 'marriage' should remain prohibited.

The Information Mission made every effort to hear all views on the subject. It organized 14 round tables and heard 130 people from the diversity of French society.  It travelled to Spain, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada to assess the reforms that have been undertaken in other countries.

The report sets out 100 proposals that require amendments to existing statutory or regulatory provisions.

The Mission considered demands for marriage to be made available to same-sex couples, and was of the view that it "is not possible to think about marriage separately from filiation: the two questions are closely connected, in that marriage is organized around the child."  Said the report: " Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes rights and duties, and that is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child.  Foreign examples demonstrate this: countries that have made marriage available to same-sex couples have all, simultaneously or subsequently, authorized adoption by those couples and developed systems for assisted procreation or surrogate gestation, to enable those couples to have children."

The report stated: "It would in fact be incoherent, if couples were regarded as equal, to remove the prohibition on marriage and preserve it for filiation."

Summing up its decision process on the matter, the Information Mission says, "Making marriage available to same-sex couples therefore presupposes that they will also be given the right to adopt and receive medical assistance for procreation, and even the right to use surrogate mothers, because such couples are not fertile.  The Mission is divided on this subject.  It considered the consequences for the child's development and the construction of his or her identity of creating a fictitious filiation by law - two fathers, or two mothers - which is biologically neither real nor plausible.  Diametrically opposed representations were made by the people heard on this point, and they failed to persuade a majority of the Mission to support recognizing a right to a child or a right to marriage, for same-sex couples.  A majority of the Mission does not wish to question the fundamental principles of the law of filiation, which are based on the tripartite unit of 'a father, a mother, a!
  child', citing the principle of caution.  For that reason, that majority also, logically, chose to deny access to marriage to same-sex couples."

See the full French Parliamentary Report (in French):  

(c) Copyright: is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use

Legislative Committee on Bill, C-38 Issues Report with Recommended Changes
Report 1 - Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes(Adopted by Committee on June 15, 2005; Presented to the House on June 16, 2005)

Catholic Civil Rights League says amendments cannot save Bill C-38

"OTTAWA , June 17, 2005 – The modest official amendments proposed to Bill C-38 are an admission by the Parliamentary Committee examining the bill that it has far-reaching impacts on federal law, CCRL President Phil Horgan commented today. 
In its First Report to Parliament, the Legislative Committee on Bill C-38 requested two amendments to strengthen religious freedom. The first, in the preamble, notes that it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage. The second specifies that freedom of religion and freedom of conscience guarantees in the Charter will protect persons and organizations in the expression of their belief in the traditional definition of marriage. (Full text of amendments.) 
“As our partners in the Defend Marriage coalition note, the passage of Bill C-38 has serious implications for freedom of religion even with these amendments,” says Mr. Horgan. “Much of the impact of Bill C-38 falls under provincial jurisdiction, so Canadians who oppose the redefinition of marriage can expect future litigation if the law passes, in areas including education, property, health care and employment.” 
[Click here for full statement on CCRL Website: "Amendments cannot save Bill C-38, says CCRL."]
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Says "Amendments to Bill C-38 are Necessary but not Sufficient"
[Click here to see the EFC statement in response to the recommendations of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-38.]

"Canadian Government Admits Religions Not Protected Under Federal Gay ‘Marriage’ Legislation"

OTTAWA, June 9, 2005 ( – Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler admitted Wednesday that, under the proposed Liberal same-sex “marriage” bill being fast-tracked through parliament, there would be no guarantees of protection for religious organizations that refuse to “marry” homosexuals.

"When asked whether the provinces have supremacy over matters of marriage, thus overriding any federal protections in the bill, Cotler replied, “that’s right,” according to a National Post report. A vote on the controversial C-38 could happen as soon as next week, with Senators promising to work into the summer to ensure it becomes law."

O'Brien Issues Ultimatum Over Same-Sex "Marriage" Bill
From CBC News online, June 14, 2005:
 "London-Fanshawe MP Pat O'Brien has issued an ultimatum, saying he and an unnamed Liberal MP will vote against the minority Liberal government in a series of confidence votes Tuesday night unless the same-sex marriage bill is delayed."  [Click here to read the full article on CBC online.]
  [See also, an earlier article now posted on the "Marriage" page of this website:
Pat O'Brian Quits Liberals ]

Canadian Government Admits Religions Not Protected Under Federal Gay ‘Marriage’ Legislation

OTTAWA, June 9, 2005 (Excerpt from article from – Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler admitted Wednesday that, under the proposed Liberal same-sex “marriage” bill being fast-tracked through parliament, there would be no guarantees of protection for religious organizations that refuse to “marry” homosexuals.

When asked whether the provinces have supremacy over matters of marriage, thus overriding any federal protections in the bill, Cotler replied, “that’s right,” according to a National Post report. A vote on the controversial C-38 could happen as soon as next week, with Senators promising to work into the summer to ensure it becomes law.

Harper's Debate Comment on Not Using the Notwithstanding Clause to Deal With Same-Sex Marriage Issue--and Responses to Harper's Comment

From a Canadian Press article on the website of CKNW radio station:
Harper same-sex comments an emotional highlight of federal leaders debate
December 15, 2005

VANCOUVER (CP) - A Conservative leader often branded as a rigid conservative
declared he would always love his children - even if they were gay - and
swore not to use a constitutional loophole to overturn same-sex marriage.

. . . .
That personal declaration was followed by a more substantive statement where
Harper swore not to use the Constitution's controversial notwithstanding
clause on same-sex marriage.

It was as adamant as he has ever been on the issue and left only the
slimmest and most legally remote chance that the recent same-sex marriage
law will ever be overturned.

"I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue," Harper said.

The statement will surely infuriate some of his own supporters who hope to
overturn the law.

It would be a long shot without the notwithstanding clause: the
Conservatives would need to win a free vote in both houses of Parliament,
including the Liberal-controlled Senate, and then the Supreme Court would
need to endorse their position despite lower-court rulings that declared
traditional marriage laws unconstitutional. . . . .
Friday, December 16, 2005:

Harper Has Left Himself Little Room to Defend Traditional Marriage - Vows no Notwithstanding Clause
By John-Henry Westen
  OTTAWA, December 16, 2005 ( - Restoring marriage to its proper definition seems off the map in this political cycle.  Conservative Leader Stephen Harper greatly disappointed defenders of traditional marriage during the leadership debate last night by vowing "never" to use the notwithstanding clause to defend the traditional definition of marriage.
During the first of the Leaders debates, a French-language debate, the leaders of the four parties represented in Parliament responded to a question on homosexual 'marriage'.  While the Bloc, NDP and Liberal Leaders tripped over themselves trying to outdo one another in support of homosexual 'marriage', Harper said, "the Conservative party has made a commitment. Voters can now vote and a Conservative government would put forward a motion so that Parliament could freely vote on the issue of marriage. Even if members decided to change the definition and bring it back to the traditional definition, we have to respect same-sex marriages that already exist."
In response to the charge that he would have to use the charter's notwithstanding clause to defend marriage Harper said, "I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue."
Critics have pointed out that the Conservative Leader has moved the marriage issue to a low priority, since the comment does not rule out use of the notwithstanding clause, but only its use to defend marriage.
  Jim Hughes, President of Campaign Life Coalition commented to on the debate saying, "what an appalling situation. Harper) has said he won't use the very vehicle that was placed in the constitution to deal with situations like this."
Admittedly, undoing the damage to Canada caused by the Liberal Government's imposition of  homosexual 'marriage' is a long shot.  Harper has said he would put forward a motion in the Commons on the matter and if it passed would bring forward legislation to enshrine in law the traditional definition of marriage.  However, even if such legislation passed in the Commons, it would likely never make it through the heavily left leaning Senate. 
  Should the legislation somehow be passed into law the Supreme Court would almost surely strike it down as unconstitutional, and now Mr. Harper has ruled out using the method of last resort, the notwithstanding clause, to force the courts to back-off. 
  In related news, Harper also dismayed conservatives in recent days by writing a letter to the conservative Washington DC paper the Washington Times in which he distanced himself from American conservatives.  "And while I have promised a free vote in Canada's Parliament to reconsider the recent change of law to allow same-sex marriages in Canada, and will vote myself for a return to the traditional definition of marriage, I have said any changes must protect the existing status of same-sex couples who have been legally married," said Harper.  He made of point of also adding, "As well, a new Conservative government will not initiate or support any effort to pass legislation restricting abortion in Canada." What he expected to gain from this peculiar initiative is unclear.
Despite the lacklustre appearance of Harper and thus the Conservative Party for social conservatives, the Party remains superior to the other mainstream parties in that they have vowed to allow free votes on moral issues and differ significantly on allowing choice in child-care. 
  However, it remains to be seen if those differences will move social conservatives whose main concerns are life and family to get out to vote.  For most they will be voting based on the views of their local candidate on those issues.  For some however, the mainstream parties' outright animosity toward them and the Conservatives' treatment of them as second-class citizens will drive them to register a protest vote for the Christians Heritage Party.
  Indeed, in a press release responding to the Conservative debate, Christian Heritage Party Leader Ron Gray dubbed the Conservatives "Liberal Lite" saying they have "now deserted all three of the most important issues in this campaign."
Those three issues, he said, are:
o the sanctity of innocent human life;
o the sanctity of marriage;
o the urgent need to defend the Canadian Constitution from judicial usurpation of Parliament's exclusive authority of to write laws.
The CHP stands for the protection of life, marriage, and the Constitution, he added.

The Notwithstanding clause and “same-sex marriage”
By Stephen Gray
“In sum, using the section 33 Notwithstanding power is a perfectly legitimate response to the courts’ usurpation of the legislative responsibility to make laws—in this case, the law of marriage. This is especially true for homosexual marriage, as the courts have added new meaning to the Charter that was explicitly rejected when the Charter was being written.” [1]

The not-withstanding clause was put in the Charter as a check against the judiciary usurping the powers of parliament by imposing laws that were never in the Charter. The Charter would never have come into being without this clause being put there. Yet today we have seen the courts expropriating the powers of our elected representatives and imposing their will on the country. So called “same-sex marriage” is only one of a number of judicial forays into judicial nonsense land. This figment of judicial imagination was never in the Charter. If ever there was a time for the not-withstanding clause to be used it should be on the “same-sex marriage” issue. Yet politicians of all political stripes are abdicating their responsibilities by allowing this imposed judicial jargon to stand as a “right.” Ted Morton who has taught constitutional law and is also a well known writer and author, had this to say, “…the idea that homosexual marriage is a right is a judge-made affair from start to finish.”[2] So what is going on? Do we have some sort of elitist and political conspiracy out there determined to impose their sick will on the country even to the extent of abolishing the not-withstanding clause to get their way?
"The first act of a new Liberal government is going to be to strengthen the Charter and we will do that by removing . . . the possibility for the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause, because quite simply I think governance says that the courts shouldn't be overturned by politicians," Mr. Martin said. [3]
Prime Minister Paul Martin is going “to strengthen the Charter” by abolishing the not-withstanding clause. Wow, is this liberal doublespeak or what? To “strengthen” by abolishing? Only dictators use that kind of language and is that where we are headed if the Liberals’ are returned to power? What if the Conservatives win power what would they do about this nonsensical lie called “same-sex marriage?”
Stephen Harper has said if he comes to power he would “allow a free vote” on same-sex marriage. This sounds nice, democratic and reasonable, except for one thing. This judge imposed claptrap was never in the Charter and a “free vote” is a diversion away from the reality. Firstly it would be a vote on a lie. Secondly it probably would not pass, and if it did it would be challenged in the Supreme Court by the usual suspects who seem to have important friends in positions of power. The only way to bring the Supreme Court back to sanity would be for a new government to use the notwithstanding clause. But Stephen Harper said this on using the clause regarding “same-sex marriage.”
“I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue,” Harper said.[4]
This raises a serious question: Why would Mr. Harper not use this clause, when the evidence is available that the Charter is being subverted by the judiciary? Surely he can see what the judges and unprincipled politicians have done? The not-withstanding clause is there to protect the people from judicial tyranny. Mr. Harper says he “supports’ the not-withstanding clause in the Charter according to this report:
“Harper replied that he thinks the charter provides a balance between Parliament and the courts and that he supports it the way it is.”[5]
So he “supports” it but won’t use it on this imposed lie called “same-sex marriage.” What is the matter with these politicians that they all run for cover when asked to take a stand?
On one hand we have democratically challenged Paul Martin determined to rid the country of the one safe guard against unscrupulous judges, the use of the not-with standing clause. We have Jack Layton, also enthusiastic about “same-sex marriage.” We have Gilles Ducette a separatist whose party supported and helped pass this vote on “same-sex marriage” in parliament; (and this is a party that wants out of Canada helping to impose an aberration within Canada!!! ) Can it get any crazier than this? And finally we have Stephen Harper who has a chance to restore democracy and curtail the power of the Supreme Court of Canada by invoking the not-withstanding clause on this aberration called “same-sex marriage,” and he states he will “never use it.” If Mr. Harper will not use it on this lie, he is in fact allowing non-elected judges to impose their will upon elected representatives of the people. Think about it people, judges rule.
Stephen Gray
January 12, 2006.
[1] F.L. (Ted) Morton National Post, A14, Sept. 4, 2003)
[2] F.L. (Ted) Morton National Post, A14, Sept. 4, 2003)
3] January 10, 2006, Globe and Mail)


Same-sex vote backed

A poll finds 55 per cent of Canadians favour a Commons free vote on the marriage issue.
December 16, 2005

The smoldering same-sex marriage issue was decided in a Commons vote in June, but a Leger/Sun Media poll shows the majority of Canadians consider the issue far from dead.

More than half the 2,013 adults surveyed in the poll -- 55 per cent -- said they favour a free vote on the divisive issue, as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has promised.

The issue is especially critical in Southwestern Ontario, often cited as the province's bible belt, where seven out of 10 MPs voted in June against changing the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.

Three area Liberals, three Tories and Independent Pat O'Brien voted against the controversial legislation.

Leger Marketing chief executive Jean-Marc Leger said the poll shows voters aren't ready to put the issue to rest.

"This debate has not ended," he said.

Considered a mistake by many pundits, Harper promised in the early days of the Christmas election campaign that a Tory government would re-open the divisive debate and allow all MPs to vote freely on the issue.

Conservative MP Jason Kenney said yesterday the new poll proves his leader is in step with Canadians.

"This reflects how the Conservative Party is more in touch with mainstream Canadian thinking and the Liberals are captive to insider political correctness rather than reflecting mainstream majority opinion," Kenney said.

O'Brien, a longtime Liberal who is not running in this election, quit his party to sit as an independent because of his opposition to the Liberal legislation.

O'Brien is now travelling Canada with an organization called Vote Marriage Canada in a campaign to get the issue put to a free vote in the Commons.

"We support in a non-partisan way candidates that stand for the traditional definition of marriage (and) a vote to revisit it," O'Brien said from Edmonton, where he's meeting with supporters .

The highest courts in most provinces have upheld gay marriage, but Prime Minister Paul Martin allowed what the Liberals considered a free vote on the issue in June.

The final vote was 158 to 133 in favour of the legislation, with 32 Liberal MPs joining the Conservatives against it.

But O'Brien insists the vote was never truly free, as Martin had promised, because his cabinet ministers had to toe the party line and weren't allowed to vote their conscience.

It was "one of the most undemocratic moments in (Canadian) history," said O'Brien, noting MPs deserve another vote no matter what polls say.

"I don't care if it's five or 10 per cent of people who support revisiting this issue. . . . People are very understanding that the vote was unfair and undemocratic and the decision was bad for Canada," he said.

In the Leger/Sun Media poll, respondents were asked, "In your opinion, should Parliament have a free vote on gay marriage or not?"

Support for a free vote was strongest among those intending to vote either for the Bloc Quebecois (66 per cent) or the Conservatives (61 per cent). But even a slight majority of Liberal backers (54 per cent) and almost half those intending to vote NDP (46 per cent) also supported a free vote.

Still, some London-area politicians insist gay marriage is a done deal and not a major concern for voters.

"I've heard about it from one person and that's it," said Paul Steckle, a four-term Liberal from rural Huron-Bruce, who's running again.

"I didn't like the decision, either, but reality is reality, and I support my constituents," said Steckle, who voted no on the issue in June.

But Tory Bev Shipley, running in Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, another sprawling rural seat, said the free vote comes up repeatedly at voters' doors.

"Our position is that we support a free vote and people are upset about what happened with the last vote," he said, adding other issues such as government accountability come up more often.

* * *
. . . . 

CHILD CARE: The Leger/Sun Media poll suggests a voter split over the rival Tory and Liberal election vows meant to help families with young children. While 47 per cent say they prefer the Liberal promise to boost funding to an existing day-care program, 41 per cent choose the Tory option that would see young families receive $1,200 a year for each child under age six to spend as they see fit. Support in Ontario for the Liberal option is 51 per cent and for the Tory alternative 35 per cent, the survey indicates.

Click here to go to the full article.

California Governor Schwarzenegger To Veto Gay "Marriage" Law - Open to Redefinition by Courts

LOS ANGELES, September 8, 2005 ( -  California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced through his press secretary late Wednesday that he would be vetoing the gay 'marriage' legislation which received final passage in the Assembly Thursday.

The announcement noted that his decision to veto the law comes in response to the public expression against homosexual 'marriage' in 2000 when 61% of Californians voted to support Proposition 22 - the Defense of Marriage Act. 

However, the statement from Gubernatorial Press Secretary Margita Thompson also indicates that the Governor would be open to the courts redefining marriage and thereby imposing it on the state over the clearly stated wishes of the people.

"Five years ago the matter of same-sex marriage was placed before the people of California. The people voted and the issue is now before the courts. The Governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action - which would be unconstitutional - but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state. We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the Governor will veto AB 849," said Thompson.

Her remarks were predicated noting the Governor's pro-homosexual record. "In Governor Schwarzenegger's personal life and work in public service, he has considered no undertaking to be more noble than the cause of civil rights. He believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship. He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners," she said.

22 same-sex couples marry vs 35,000 hetero couples

  by  Robert Duncan
"Blogger, journalist & human"

The so-called need for legalizing in Spain homosexual marriages has one big problem. Hardly anybody wanted it - that is except the politicians.

That's certainly one way to read the news this past weekend that since July 3 when the government ramrodded through its same-sex marriage legislation - arguing that thousands of gays could now be rid of discriminatory practises - only 22 couples have bothered to get married.

[If you read Spanish,`you might want to read the article from La Razón Digital entitled "Sólo una veintena de parejas gays se ha casado desde que la ley lo permite"]

Trade unions “played a critical role” in “same-sex marriage law”

By Stephen Gray

“With the passage of the federal equal marriage legislation, Canada has taken an important step forward. The labour movement - from local activists to national leadership - stood united with the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community and played a critical role in persuading the Canadian government to pass the same-sex marriage law….The Canadian Labour Congress was a founding member of the broad-based coalition, Canadians for Equal Marriage which led this struggle.”

The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) has been funding and supporting a myriad of special interest groups for years. It is no surprise to me that they were a ‘founding member’ of the coalition “Canadians for Equal Marriage.” Ken Georgetti of the CLC, when he was president of the B.C. Federation of Labour (BCFL), sent out a letter soliciting funds for abortion clinics. Now that he has graduated to the CLC he is still writing letters, only this time it is in support of “same - sex marriage.” He wrote the prime minister in a letter headlined on CLC website, “CLC Supports Same-sex Marriage” and said this:

“Dear Prime Minister:

I want to express my personal support as well as that of the Canadian Labour Congress for your strong stand in support of the extension of human rights to the area of marriage.”

The Canadian Labour Congress is the head office of the trade union movement in Canada. It states on its website that: “The Canadian Labour Congress is the largest democratic and popular organization in Canada with over three million members. The Canadian Labour Congress brings together Canada's national and international unions, the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 137 district labour councils.”

The CLC is financed from affiliation fees paid from the compulsory union dues of compulsory union members. To my knowledge neither the CLC nor any other trade union in Canada has ever polled or asked its members individually if they supported so called “same-sex marriage.” This aberration has been pushed by the union bosses and a few activists within the trade union movement. Trade union time and money has been spent promoting and supporting this claptrap.

Another union boss with a politically correct agenda is Buzz Hargrove who wrote the prime minister and stated:

“Dear Prime Minister: Clearly the debate around same-sex marriage is heating up. I am writing once again to offer the support of our union, the Canadian Auto Workers, and to encourage you to hold strong on protection of minority rights through the Charter and press forward with same-sex marriage legislation….”


And still another union boss inserted himself into the “same-sex marriage” issue. James Clancy, president of the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) wrote the prime minister and sent a copy of it to Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), among others. Mr. Clancy wrote this to the prime minister:

“Dear Prime Minister,

On behalf of the National Union of Public and General Employees, I am writing to extend our support to your efforts to introduce legislation that would achieve equal marriage rights for same sex couples in Canada….Unfortunately, as we both know, a small but highly vocal opposition is becoming increasingly organized and active on this issue….In conclusion, I am urging you and your government to quickly bring in legislation to ensure equal marriage rights for same sex couples. ”

Not to be outdone on this letter writing campaign was Ken Neumann, National Director of the United Steelworkers of America in Canada. Who had this to say on behalf of his compulsory members:

Dear Prime Minister Martin and Minister Cotler:

As the National Director of the United Steelworkers of America in Canada, I am writing on behalf of our 255,000 members in support of your government's proposed legislation to extend the right of civil marriage to lesbian and gay couples across Canada….In closing, the Steelworkers calls upon your government to take immediate and decisive action to ensure passage of the proposed equal marriage legislation,…”

Another letter writer on the subject of “same-sex marriage” was the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), Deborah Bourque. She wrote the following words to opposition leader Stephen Harper:

“Mr. Harper: … The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) supports the position Prime Minister Paul Martin has taken on same-sex marriage. …Just because marriage has traditionally been a “privilege” only heterosexual couples have been able to access does not mean that the human rights violation should continue.”

And the two big brothers at the headquarters of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) had this to say on pressuring the “federal government” on same sex marriage in this letter to members:

“Dear Sisters and Brothers,…We and our community coalitions can rejoice now that same-sex couples in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec can legally marry. In the meantime, we continue to pressure the federal government to do the right thing and legalize same-sex marriage so that lesbian and gay couples can marry, no matter where they live in Canada.”

In solidarity,


National President National Secretary-Treasurer

The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) had this to say on same-sex marriage and its support for “ Canadians for Equal Marriage.”

“The Public Service Alliance of Canada continues to strongly support the extension of access to marriage to same-sex couples. …The PSAC also provides office space and other support to the Canadians for Equal Marriage coalition in Ottawa.”


One could go on and on showing examples of these union bosses claiming to speak for ALL their compulsory members on this invention of words called “same-sex marriage.” The use of union members time and money across Canada on this issue is an affront to democracy itself. Union members in Canada are mature enough to make decisions on this matter individually. They do not need or want union bosses making these political, social and moral decisions for them. If any other organizations in Canada were doing what trade union bosses are doing on behalf of their compulsory members all hell would break loose and charges would be laid. But this is the state Canada is in today where a Labour politburo gets away with the big lie of saying ALL its members support this invented nonsense called “same-sex marriage.”

Stephen Gray

Sept 5, 2005 my website:

Some info on the author: Stephen Gray is a writer and researcher on various topics. He published a newsletter for 11 years exposing the misuse of trade union time and money. He resides in Chilliwack, B.C.



Canada Gay "Marriage" Bill to be Signed Into Law

OTTAWA, ON, July 20, 2005 ( - In a late-night Tuesday vote the Canadian senate voted 47-21 to pass the same-sex "marriage" bill C-38. Three of the 95 sitting senators abstained from the vote. The law will come into effect as soon as royal assent is given to it.

Normally Canada's governor-general, the Queen's representative in Canada, would sign the bill. However, spoke with Eric Richer at the at the Rideau Hall press office who said that governor-general Clarkson would not be signing the bill as she is recovering from illness; instead the deputy governor-general, Supreme Court Justice Morris J. Fish, is slated to sign it later today.

Once the bill is signed into law, Canada will become the fourth country in the world to sanction same-sex marriage, following the example of Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium. Four so-called "hold-out" jurisdictions -- Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories -- will now be forced to acquiesce to federal law against their better judgment.

"We will proceed to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, much to our chagrin, following proclamation of the federal Civil Marriage Act," said Alberta Premier Klein earlier this month.

A press release from Campaign Life Coalition, the political arm of Canada's pro-life movement which has fought the bill since its inception, said that the passage of the bill "reeks of dishonour, dishonesty, and public disdain."

"Usually, when a coup against a society is carried out," said the press release, "it is done under the cover of darkness, with silent forces working surreptitiously. However, the legal 'redefinition' of marriage in Canada constitutes a public coup carried out in the full light of day and without any sense of shame."

Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition, said "The harm that will flow from this unnecessary legislation is incalculable, and may take generations to undo. Decent and fair-minded Canadians deplore this travesty of justice and should resolve to punish the perpetrators at the polls regardless of political party".

Aidan Reid, Director of CLC's Public Affairs in Ottawa, lamented "A cabal of parliamentarians, encouraged by activist courts and abetted by a compliant media, has foisted a new tyranny on Canadians - one that tramples on the true nature of marriage, harms families and ignores the rights of children."

CLC vowed that they will work toward the repeal of the legislation by working towards electing MPs committed to respecting human life and upholding real marriage and defeating those who do not.

"All of this doesn't mean that the question is over once and for all," Conservative Senator Noël Kinsella said after the vote. Conservative party leader Stephen Harper has several times vowed to revisit the same-sex issue if voted into office.


(c) Copyright: is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use

From the website of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada:
EFC Laments the Passage of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act
Press Release:

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) laments the passage of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act


“Parliament is embarking on a social experiment that removes the language of husband and wife from the law and eclipses its ability to champion the rights of children to know and be raised by a mother and a father,” says Bruce Clemenger, president of the EFC.


The EFC has been working to preserve the historic definition of marriage for over a decade. Bill C-38 is a response to court cases started in 2000. 


“Evangelical Christians have engaged on this issue because it’s part of our deeply held religious beliefs that marriage as ordained by God is a union of one man and one woman,” says Clemenger.  “Rather than our concerns being taken seriously, we have been made to feel that our beliefs about marriage are unCanadian and contrary to the Charter.”


The EFC’s director of law and public policy, Janet Epp Buckingham, says, “We believe that religious freedom will be compromised by this change in the definition of marriage. The Supreme Court of Canada noted in the marriage reference that the right to same-sex marriage may conflict with the right to religious freedom. Marriage is both a religious and a civil institution and it’s inevitable that such conflicts will arise.”


Buckingham says, “While amendments to Bill C-38 provide a measure of protection for religious freedom, most of the areas of conflict are within provincial responsibility.”


Clemenger says, “The EFC cannot by reason of faith, conscience, practice and teaching accept this new definition of marriage and we will continue to promote and uphold marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman.


“Our pastors and churches will promote marriage as a covenant before God,” says Clemenger, “and will provide pre-marital and marital counseling. We are committed to supporting marriage and family, and caring for lone-parent families and children without parents.”  


- 30 -


For an interview contact: 

Gail Reid

Director, Communications

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

905 479 5885 x227

Cell: 647 227 3464

Catholic Bishops on Gay 'Marriage' Law - "Catholics are to Continue to Oppose It"

OTTAWA, July 20, 2005 ( - The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) reacted to the enactment of the Canadian law allowing homosexual 'marriage' saying "Catholics are to continue to oppose it, and to ensure that all provincial and territorial regulations on the solemnization of marriages provide full protection for freedom of conscience and religion, as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

The CCCB praised Canadians of all faiths and of none who defended the "universal definition of marriage".  However it had other words for Catholic politicians who supported the legislation.

"Unfortunately, there are also some Catholics who have promoted the redefinition of marriage, including politicians who have voted in its favour," said the CCCB. "In this regard, they are in dissent from the teaching of the Church as enunciated by the Holy Father and the Bishops. This is a serious and problematic matter."

The bishops note that the debate over the redefinition of marriage "is far from over" and "will be a significant issue in the upcoming federal election."

The CCCB revealed that the Roman and Eastern Catholic Bishops of Canada will be studying the immediate ramifications of new law. "Pastors and all the faithful can be assured there will be further reflections by this Conference and from individual Bishops to assist in the ongoing defence of marriage and family life."




Catholic Cardinal Warns Senate of Impending Anti-Christian Prosecution With Gay 'Marriage'

OTTAWA, July 13, 2005 ( - Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec and Primate of Canada made a presentation to a committee of the Canadian Senate today on the homosexual 'marriage' bill.  Speaking for himself and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Ouellet said to the Senators, "we are turning to you in the hope that you will prevent the adoption of this unjust law."

The Cardinal made mention of situations where legal authorities have already trampled on rights of Christians who oppose same sex 'marriage' such as marriage commissioners who were forced out of their jobs for refusing on grounds of conscience to perform homosexual 'marriages.' "These attempts to intimidate persons who do not share the State's vision of marriage may well multiply after the adoption of Bill C-38," said the Primate of Canada. "Once the State imposes a new standard affirming that homosexual sexual behaviour is a social good, those who oppose it for religious motives or motives of conscience will be considered as bigots, anti-gay and homophobes, and then risk prosecution."

Cardinal Ouellet stressed the negative impact the legislation will have on children. "We are also most concerned by the foreseeable impact of a redefinition of marriage on Canada's most vulnerable citizens - its children. We cannot dismiss their needs and rights by imagining that tomorrow's society will not suffer from the repercussions of this legislation," he said. "The principal right of children is to be born of an act of love and to live in complete communion with a father and mother."

The Cardinal explained the reason the State owes recognition to married couples as opposed to homosexual couples saying, "Unlike same-sex couples, heterosexual couples naturally and most often transmit life. In giving new citizens to society, they render an essential social service to the State, which justifies a special status to their union."

Returning to the question of religious persecution Cardinal Ouellet left the Senators with some uncomfortable questions. "The Charter currently protects freedom of conscience and religion; however, in provinces that recognize the validity of same-sex marriage we are already witnessing lawsuits against persons and groups who do not share this vision. Must we now resign ourselves to being victims of discrimination for believing in the historical definition of marriage and wishing to teach, educate and preach according to our faith and conscience? Must a majority of parents accept it as inevitable, that schools and the media will transmit a vision of marriage contrary to their own?," he said.

See the Cardinal's full presentation:


Excerpt from Canadian Press article:
Cardinal tells senators that same-sex marriage threatens religious freedom


OTTAWA (CP) - A Canadian cardinal who had been considered a possible successor to Pope John Paul says same-sex marriage is threatening religious freedom.

Marc Cardinal Ouellet said the threat even reaches into pulpits in Canada. The Quebec City cardinal said priests no longer feel comfortable preaching the morality of their own church for fear of being branded homophobes. "There's a climate taking shape where we don't dare say what we think anymore or we don't dare teach," he told a Senate committee Wednesday.

"Even in the pulpit we feel threatened in teaching the church's sexual morality. . . . That's also part of religious freedom."

But Ouellet also had a message for clergy who want to excommunicate or refuse communion to proponents of same-sex marriage, abortion or any other violation of church doctrine.

He was responding to questions about two cases where NDP MPs have been ostracized for their stand on same-sex marriage.

In one case, a parish priest in northern Ontario told NDP MP Charlie Angus earlier this year that he could no longer take the sacrament of communion.

"You do not lose your right to belong to a community because you do not vote in the right way," he said. "We are all sinners in one way or another so we have to be welcoming for all our members.

"We are a community of sinners," said Ouellet, who was one of 20 cardinals listed by the National Catholic Register newspaper this spring as possible candidates to succeed Pope John Paul.

But Ouellet had a different take on the case of Joe Comartin, another New Democrat MP who was told by his London, Ont., diocese he could no longer participate in some church activities.

Ouellet said he understands why the church would deny a leadership role to someone who opposes Catholic theology.

Comartin has been an altar server, administered the eucharist, taken part in church fundraising projects and recently taught marriage preparation courses with his wife.

A spokesman for the diocese said Comartin will still be able to attend mass and receive communion.

Ouellet summarized the Catholic view on homosexuality as: It's okay to be gay, but it's not okay to act on it.

"It's not a sin to be a gay. But it may be a sin to perform homosexual acts," he told the Senate.

Ouellet said the church faces increased pressure as gay and lesbian couples arrive to have children baptized and expect to be recognized as two fathers or two mothers.

Another leading Canadian Christian group said it also fears it's being ostracized.

"(I have heard someone say) Christians are going to inhabit the closet so recently vacated by gays," said Janet Epp Buckingham, a policy director for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

"There's a tremendous amount of concern and fear in our community - feelings that we're being targeted and marginalized. Feelings that we're being considered un-Canadian."

The Senate is expected to pass the Liberal government's same-sex legislation - Bill C-38 - as early as next week.

At Wednesday's Senate hearings, Muslim Imam Abdul Hai Patel proposed a series of amendments that he said would bolster religious freedom.

Some groups fear they will be exposed to lawsuits and possible hate-crimes prosecution for opposing the marriage law.

But Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says there is plenty of protection for religious institutions - in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in legal jurisprudence, in provincial legislation and in Bill C-38 itself.

First, he noted that Bill C-38 is only binding on city halls and courthouses, not institutions such as mosques, churches and temples.

The bill also says people are free to express their belief that marriage is the exclusive domain of heterosexuals.

Cotler has encouraged provinces to follow the lead of Ontario and Alberta, which have proposed legislation that would let civic officials refuse to marry homosexual couples.

But Ouellet argued Wednesday that the debate is also a symbolic one.

He said the homosexual "lifestyle" does not lead to procreation and doesn't deserve to be granted status equal to marriage.

"The homosexual lifestyle does not contribute to society."

Saskatchewan Marriage Commissioner under Investigation for Unwillingness to Perform Gay 'Marriages'

PRINCE ALBERT, July 14, 2005 ( - Saskatchewan's Justice Minister is investigating a complaint about a marriage commissioner there who has refused to perform same-sex "marriages."

Saskatchewan Justice Minister Frank Quennell has made it clear that he believes marriage commissioners should resign if they will not perform same-sex "marriages." He is investigating Prince Albert marriage commissioner Bruce Goertzen, who said he would refuse to perform same-sex "marriages;" several other marriage commissioners have already filed human rights complaints against the province for telling them to either perform same-sex marriages or resign.

Saskatchewan Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott expressed consternation upon learning that Quennell is investigating Goertzen. "This approach violates the spirit and letter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Vellacott said in a release.

Comparing the issue to bilingualism, Vellacott argues that, although bilingual services must be available to anyone who desires a wedding in French, it does not necessarily mean that all marriage commissioners be bilingual. "Therefore, if Prince Albert commissioner Goertzen, or Regina commissioner Orville Nichols, refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, others in their respective areas would be willing to perform this function," said Vellacott. "Quennell has never explained why he is prepared to trample on the conscience and religious beliefs of Saskatchewan marriage commissioners."

Goertzen filed a human rights complaint in January, contending that forcing commissioners to toe the line or resign is a violation of his human rights. "I don't deny other people have rights too, but when you give one person a right, you shouldn't take a right away from another," he said then.

"I contend that this order by the Justice Department discriminates against my freedom of religion and therefore is a violation of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, not to mention a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Goertzen's complaint stated.

See related coverage:
Second Saskatchewan Marriage Commissioner Files Human Rights Complaint



Canadian Senate Passes Second Reading of Gay “Marriage” Bill


OTTAWA, July 7, 2005 ( – The Canadian Liberal-dominated Senate passed the Bill C-38 same-sex “marriage” legislation through second reading by a 43-12 vote Wednesday. The Senate has adjourned until Monday, July 18, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.

The following 12 Senators – 10 conservatives and 2 Liberals – opposed the legislation: Tommy Banks (L-Alberta), James Kelleher (C- Ontario), John Buchanan (C- Nova Scotia), Wilbert Joseph Keon (C- Ontario), Ethel Cochrane (C-Newfoundland/Labrador), Noel Kinsella (C-New Brunswick), Gerald Comeau (C-Nova Scotia), Gerard Phalen (L-Nova Scotia), Anne Cools (C-Ontario), Terry Stratton (C-Manitoba), Consiglio Di Nino (C-Ontario), David Tkachuk (C-Saskatchewan).

Long-time champion for life and family, Senator Anne Cools, voiced her opposition to the bill. “Honourable senators, as I said before, I wish to register my strenuous opposition to Bill C-38,” she said. “I believe that the issues have been falsely framed as Charter rights issues and equality issues. Marriage is not now, and never has been, a right. It has always been a grand privilege, with its origins as a sacrament of the church, governed by the canon law, received from the civil law into the common law. No sacrament of the church is now, or has ever been, a right.”

“I believe that the judgments of the lower courts finding marriage between a man and a woman as unconstitutional are themselves unconstitutional,” Cools continued. “In fact, the full weight of the Constitution of Canada for 140 years has been to defend and to protect marriage as the foundational unit of the family.”

“Marriage has been thought to be that institution which governs the heterosexual sexual union between a man and a woman,” Cools explained. “This sexual union is driven by the natural human and organic instinct towards reproduction. It is to this specific sexual union that nature and God have entrusted the grand mystery of life called procreation and the bringing forth of issue . . . the public interest in marriage is the phenomenon of procreation.”

“I believe that the conclusions of the Attorney General of Canada and a tiny minority of judges in the country are not only wrong and contrary to our Constitution, but their arrival at these conclusions were based in what I would describe as constitutional deconstruction, constitutional vandalism and, quite frankly, even some social engineering, because their result was not to extend rights to anyone. The result is to alter the fundamental nature and character of the institution of marriage.”

See the full Hansard of the Senate debate:



June 11, 2005

Anti-marriage politicians will pay
David Krayden

Paul Martin was all smug smiles on Tuesday night. He had just won the vote on his anti-marriage Bill C-38, a perverse piece of legislation creating something called "same-sex marriage" and confirming that the Liberal Party leadership has passed beyond the mainstream into social insanity. Martin will pay dearly for his utter disregard for Canadians and complete contempt for true Canadian values. The prime minister has sown the seeds of his own destruction with this bill. It will be harvest time when we kick this corrupt bunch of social re-engineers out.The day after this tragedy unfolded, it seemed every major Canadian daily newspaper had found a committed homosexual couple to happily feature on its pages. It begs the question that if these committed couples - rare in the homosexual lifestyle - could remain so without the institution of marriage being desecrated, just why was Bill C-38 necessary at all?

Marriage did not have to be deconstructed to ensure the happiness of that - perhaps - .5% of the population desiring a same-sex marriage. Homosexuals already enjoy full equality under the law in Canada. They have never possessed the right to marry, and that is quite simply because marriage is not a right. Paul Martin hid behind this myth throughout the marriage debate, pretending that rights cannot be applied differently. Really, does that mean that we all have the right to be prime minister?

When the Supreme Court tossed the legislative ball back to Parliament last fall and insisted that elected representatives rule on same-sex marriage, many of us called it a line in the sand that could not be crossed. Now it has been crossed, and we are in a moral and social twilight zone that is potentially more frightening than anything Rod Serling could have concocted.

Same-sex marriage legislation will certainly exacerbate the existing strains on religious freedom in Canada, further devalue marriage as an institution, and advance the larger left-lib agenda that encompasses greater access to drugs, prostitution and sexual experimentation. The Liberals are already there, dispensing free heroin in Vancouver and arguing in a parliamentary subcommittee on solicitation that prostitution needs to be "safer" - in other words, unimpeded by the police.

Meanwhile, people of faith will continue to be impeded by the Liberal police state. While Justice Minister Irwin Cotler blathered on about guarantees of religious freedom in Bill C-38, Calgary Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry was yanked before a provincial human-rights tribunal for speaking out against same-sex marriage. Quesnel teacher Dr. Chris Kempling had his suspension from teaching for writing letters to a local newspaper on homosexuality upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal. Religious persecution can only increase now that homosexual marriage is enshrined in law. Those who oppose it will essentially be outlaws.

We who fought C-38 are left with two choices: acquiesce to Martinist tyranny or continue the fight. We will continue. First, we have to ensure that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper keeps his word and makes same-sex marriage an issue in the next election. On Tuesday night he said that he would "revisit the issue." That smacks of some hesitation. The phrase is "repeal the bill," Stephen.

Second, we will continue to fight for religious freedom in Canada. . . . .  The facts demonstrate that so-called "gay rights" - which are not in the Charter of Rights - seem to trump religious rights - which are in the Charter - every time. Superior courts and kangaroo human-rights tribunals have routinely insisted on it. Ask Ontario printer Scott Brockie, who was fined for refusing work from a homosexual group, or the Whitby, Ontario Catholic school that was forced to permit a homosexual student to bring his boyfriend to the prom.

Third, we will continue to argue that a constitutional amendment is ultimately required to define marriage in Canada. The U.S. has managed to amend its constitution 27 times; for Canada, this issue is a good place to start. We will also insist that the notwithstanding clause is a vital part of the constitution, a life preserver to save us from the rising waters of judicial activism. Same-sex marriage has spread like a plague because provincial governments are afraid of these judicial nabobs who autocratically promulgate laws. It's time to say no to these unelected, unaccountable legal avatars and their radical social agenda. That's why a province like Alberta needs to take a stand on this issue and defend marriage within its borders. Paul Martin is not just assaulting Canadian values and religious freedom, he is attacking provincial culture. Ralph Klein needs to defend his province. If he doesn't, he will create a moral and political vacuum that leaders of substance and courage will fill.

Ultimately, we can defeat Bill C-38 and Paul Martin. In the next election, the Defend Marriage Coalition will support pro-marriage MPs of any party. But since only one party leader supported marriage, we will seek the defeat of Martin, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. Bill C-38 has roused a sleeping giant and energized a multi-faith and trans-ethnic electorate that is sick of social appeasement. Sometimes it takes a real assault on freedom for people to be shaken out of their complacency. Have we lost the battle for marriage? Have we lost the battle for the soul of this nation? Only if we go willingly to the internment camps and are not determined to bring down this government. Martin and other anti-marriage politicians will be punished for their arrogance, contempt and dismissal.

David Krayden is a Calgary writer, broadcaster and projects director with the Defend Marriage Coalition.




Report on and Summary of Presentation 
to the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-38
by Dr. Chris Kempling Psy.D. R.C.C., on June 6, 2004

In late May, Jean Francois Page, parliamentary clerk of the committee holding public hearings on the same sex marriage bill, contacted me and requested that I testify before the committee.  My name had been submitted by David Krayden of Defend Marriage Canada, and passed on to Conservative MP Vic Toews, who sits on the committee.  I was not given any instructions on how to prepare or what to submit, only that I would have 10 minutes to make a presentation.

The committee is chaired by Liberal Marcel Proulx.  Other Liberal members are Francoise Boivin, Don Boudria, and MP’s Neville and Mackie.  Conservative members include Vic Toews, Gary Breitkreutz, Rob Moore, Gord Brown and Brian Jean.  Bloc members are Richard Marceau and Real Menard, while the NDP’s representative was Bill Siksay (Svend Robinson’s former constituency representative).  There were several committee members absent.

I was testifying along with three other presenters.  Alan Bonder, a university of Toronto law professor, Jonas Ma, of the Council of Chinese Canadians, and David Cere, a McGill University professor.  Professor Bonder agreed with the law in principle, but felt that the preamble was poorly written, reflecting a political strategy rather than good law-making.  He stated that, legally speaking, the government was not constitutionally required to make this law.  Conservative Vic Toews was quite appreciative of Professor Bonder’s thoughtful analysis.

Jonas Ma presented next.  He wanted the committee to know that despite the recent demonstrations against the marriage bill involving thousands of Chinese Canadians, his group supported the legislation. He thought it was unfortunate that the media was giving the impression that all Chinese Canadians were opposed to the bill.

Professor Cere presented a number of sociological arguments against the bill.  He thought it was unfortunate that the bill has the effect of redefining parenthood in legal terms rather than relational terms, and that was not in the best interests of children.  He felt that the bill would have the effect of marginalizing, even criminalizing those who opposed the concept of same sex marriage on moral or religious grounds.  Cere argued that the bill was more about the “politics of recognition” than a well thought out strategy to address the institution of marriage.  Professor Cere received the majority of questions from the committee members.

My presentation went as follows:

It has become increasingly difficult for people of faith to speak out in opposition to same sex marriage.  I am currently serving a three month suspension from my position as a school counselor for doing so, even though I was explicitly speaking on behalf of my political party, the Christian Heritage Party.  In fact, it is possible that I could be fired for speaking to this committee as I am forbidden to speak publicly on the topic of homosexuality.  But I feel it is my duty to represent the views of Christians on this vital topic.

In 1999 I believe, the NDP government of Premier Ujjal Dosanjh signed on as an intervenor in a lawsuit brought against the federal government by two women who wished to marry.  I was quite concerned when I learned from a newspaper article that the two lesbian women who had brought the suit were not even living together, and did not intend to do so after their “marriage”, if they won that right.  Why the provincial NDP government under Mr. Dosanjh chose this particular couple to side with was a mystery, as it seemed they were engaging in a publicity stunt rather than a genuine desire to enter into matrimony.  Such an appalling disrespect for the institution of marriage only reinforces the perception held by people of faith that the intention of gay activists is to deconstruct marriage itself, rather than simply have equal access to a heterosexual institution.

I have read editorials, such as those written by Gareth Kirby, editor of Xtra West newspaper, which serves the gay community in Vancouver, who are ardently opposed to same sex marriage.  John McKellar, national director of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, takes a similar tack in his essay entitled “The Silent Gay Majority” published in the National Post (Tuesday, February 15, 2005).

 “The Liberals’ disregard for public debate is not only angering Catholic bishops and other conservative minded gay-marriage opponents, it also ignores the silent majority of gay men and women who have little interest in marriage.  Unless you’re gay, you can’t fathom how embarrassing and frustrating it is to constantly witness your public image being represented by the same tiresome clique of activists, martyrs and malcontents.  It makes us look so helpless and it makes me want to run back into the closet….

"Most Canadians believe we should be able to pursue any brand of consensual sex we want and form whatever relationships make us happy.  And, by equal measure, most secular gays and lesbians have no problem conceding that heterosexuality is and always will be the human norm. This is a perfectly civilized social contract.  I strongly reject the activists’ view that we must go further—that our dignity and our relationships are somehow devalued unless the state codifies same-sex marriage.

"In its affidavit to support same-sex marriage, EGALE, a leading Canadian gay and lesbian activist organization, contends that we will forever remain marginalized and stigmatized unless gay marriage becomes law.  Nonsense.  For most outwardly gay men, the essence of public life is, and will always be, party, pageant and parade.  Despite the impression from the media, marriage barely shows up on our community’s radar screen.  Same-sex nuptials are media events, not gay events.  Most cool gays and lesbians just roll their eyes and pray for a power failure.”

 It is interesting to look at the experience in the Netherlands, which has had same sex marriage since 2001 and registered partnerships since 1993.  Apparently, only 2.5% of homosexuals have actually gotten married since the law was changed—hardly evidence of high interest. 

The other area of concern is in HIV transmission.  One of the arguments in favour of same-sex marriage is that stable relationships, supported by formal marriage, will reduce the transmission of the virus which causes AIDS.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Dr. Maria Xiridou and her colleagues at the Amsterdam Municipal Health Services compared the rate of HIV transmission in long term same-sex relationships with homosexuals pursuing a casual relationship lifestyle.  (Xiridou et al, 2003, The contribution of steady and casual partnership to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam, AIDS, 17, 1029-1038.)  Xiridou was surpised to find that 86% of new HIV infections occurred within “steady” partnerships, primarily because they engaged in riskier sexual behaviours, believing they could trust their partners more.  Xiridou found, however, that homosexual men in steady partnerships had 6-10 outside sexual partners per year and that their relationships lasted only 18 months on average.

This data on relationship infidelity confirms research conducted by David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison in their book The Gay Couple.  (The authors are a gay couple themselves).  In their study group of 156 couples, they were unable to find a single example of fidelity which had lasted more than five years, and that only five percent could be classed as “monogamous”. While it is true that not all heterosexual marriages remain faithful, it is still the expected norm, and the majority of married people maintain their vows of exclusivity to their spouses.

The best interests of society are well served when the government affirms and supports fidelity in long term relationships.  William Barclay, in his 1971 devotional book Daily Celebrations wrote:  “Unless there is chastity and purity and fidelity, there must follow the destruction of the home, and the destruction of the home would mean the end of society as we know it.  There are any number of people prepared to live lives which flout all moral standards, and who yet at the same time depend on hundreds of decent, ordinary people who live according to the standards of Christian morality.  There are thousands of people who themselves abandon all Christian standards and who quite consciously depend on those who do accept Christian standards to hold society and civilization together.  That is why the responsibility of the Church to be the leaven of society was never greater than it is today.  The Church is the custodian of those standards.  Not even those who break them would wish to see them destroyed.”

Marriage is too precious an institution to modify on the whim of a few activists who do not even have the full support of their own community and who do not appear to be willing or able to maintain the fidelity that is essential to the well-being of a healthy marriage.  I urge the committee to leave the definition of marriage the way it is.

(Note:  Given the time constraints, the material presented to the committee was somewhat condensed. CK)

Pat O'Brian Quits Liberals

June 6, 2005
OTTAWA (CP) - MP Pat O'Brien, who opposes the government's position on gay marriage, has quit the Liberals to sit as an Independent. 

The move weakens the minority government and raises fresh questions about whether it can survive another confidence vote. Last month, the government won a confidence measure by just one vote after wooing Belinda Stronach from the Conservatives. 

O'Brien said Monday that it is not his intention to try to bring down the government, but he warned he will do everything in his power to defeat Bill C-38, the same-sex marriage legislation. 

The move comes less than two months after O'Brien held a news conference to announce he was staying with the Liberals despite misgivings. 

He decided to stick with the Liberals in April after Prime Minister Paul Martin promised expanded debate of the marriage bill. 

O'Brien said that promise has not been kept.  
[emphasis by editor of BCPTL website]

The "full and fair" debate he expected has not happened, he said, and the government is doing everything it can to force the legislation through. 

"I tried my best as part of the Liberal caucus to achieve my objectives. I now find that I can't do that any more. 

"I'm not being listened to in the Liberal caucus to the degree I want to be on this issue. They're determined to move forward on this issue and you can see what a rush they are in to do that." 

He also said other Liberals are upset about the pace of the same-sex efforts and that they are involved "important discussions" about how to stop it. 
[Internet reference]

Pat O'Brian Quits Liberals

June 6, 2005
OTTAWA (CP) - MP Pat O'Brien, who opposes the government's position on gay marriage, has quit the Liberals to sit as an Independent. 

The move weakens the minority government and raises fresh questions about whether it can survive another confidence vote. Last month, the government won a confidence measure by just one vote after wooing Belinda Stronach from the Conservatives. 

O'Brien said Monday that it is not his intention to try to bring down the government, but he warned he will do everything in his power to defeat Bill C-38, the same-sex marriage legislation. 

The move comes less than two months after O'Brien held a news conference to announce he was staying with the Liberals despite misgivings. 

He decided to stick with the Liberals in April after Prime Minister Paul Martin promised expanded debate of the marriage bill. 

O'Brien said that promise has not been kept. 

The "full and fair" debate he expected has not happened, he said, and the government is doing everything it can to force the legislation through. 

"I tried my best as part of the Liberal caucus to achieve my objectives. I now find that I can't do that any more. 

"I'm not being listened to in the Liberal caucus to the degree I want to be on this issue. They're determined to move forward on this issue and you can see what a rush they are in to do that." 

He also said other Liberals are upset about the pace of the same-sex efforts and that they are involved "important discussions" about how to stop it. 
[Internet reference]



In a quick change of events, the bill that would legalize same-sex marriage across the country is now on the road to being passed by this summer, the National Post reported Thursday. According to one MP, Liberal senators have agreed to continue working into the summer to ensure that Bill C-38 will be passed before Parliament begins its summer recess.

The decision to speed the bill through Parliament comes as a surprise after a joint-party decision on Monday in which the Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and NDP MPs, who are part of the special committee studying the highly controversial legislation, struck a compromise with Conservative MP Vic Toews.

The government wanted the committee to wrap up its work by June 9. But Toews wanted the MPs to hear from 22 additional witnesses, several of whom will warn of the threat C-38 poses to freedom of religion. He had vowed to continue a filibuster, if the witnesses were not allowed to appear.

Rather than face a delay for a third day, the committee agreed to meet for an additional week to hear all of Toews' witnesses. In return, he gave a guarantee that the committee would be able to report back to Parliament on June 17. Initially it was thought that the committee would not have enough time to examine the bill before the Parliament recessed for summer break. But the government has now made it a priority to pass the legislation as soon as possible.

Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, an opponent of C-38, said that "It became obvious today that there is an agenda to fast-track this." He continued, "My clear indication from caucus was they want this bill done, they want it done before the end of June. They want it out of the House and over to the Senate…I don't support that, there's a whole lot of us that don't support fast-tracking it."

"The government wants same-sex legislation passed into law as quickly as possible," wrote Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson, "to get it out of the way and to heal the rift the issue has caused within the party."

But Toews insists the speed at which C-38 is dealt with is not the issue. "I'm more concerned about these substantive amendments that I think need to be there in terms of the protection of religious organizations, religious freedoms and public officials who may for reasons of conscience have concerns about this bill," he said.

Large Marriage Rally Set for Monday May 23 at Queen’s Park, Toronto

TORONTO,  May 20, 2005 ( –  Thousands are set to convene on Queen’s Park in Toronto this holiday Monday for what is shaping up to be a powerful demonstration in support of the traditional definition of marriage. Representatives from a plethora of religious sects and denominations are slotted to speak out against Bill C-38 (the same-sex marriage bill) at the rally.

The bulk of the work of organizing the rally has been done by The Equipping Christians for the Public Square Centre (ECP). The founder of ECP, Reverend Tristan Emmanuel, has pleaded for the support and attendance of all well-meaning Canadians of whatever religious persuasion saying “We cannot allow personal apathy to discourage us from attending this rally. If we will not sacrifice a little time from our leisurely pursuits to defend this sublime and noble institution then, quite frankly, our constitutional freedom has become nothing more than a meaningless cliché.”

Rev. Emmanuel is a firm believer that by banding together by the thousands Canadians will make their voices heard. He and his organization participated in the success of the March for Marriage in Ottawa last month which drew a crowd of 20,000.

On his web site Emmanuel states, “We want Dalton McGuinty and Paul Martin to know that the large majority of Ontarians – and Canadians – will not rest until they (or another government) do the right thing and defend the only true definition of marriage, one man and one woman”.

At a press conference held earlier today, Dr. Charles McVety from the Defend Marriage Coalition declared that this attempt at pushing through Bill C-38 without appealing to the ordinary citizens of Canada is little more than “Constitutional vandalism.” Reverend Don Tse of the Chinese Christian Community of Toronto said that if Bill C-38 becomes law then in Canada there “is no such thing as pluralism.”

The Toronto Marriage rally is the most recent significant opportunity for Canadians to utilize and protect their constitutional rights by making unequivocally clear the fact that same-sex marriage is directly contrary to their wishes.

Details about attending and volunteering at the rally can be found on the official EPC website:


Canada's Liberal Governent Survives Confidence Vote - No Election, C-38 Likely to Pass

Ottawa, May 19, 2005 ( - A little after 6 p.m. today Canada's corrupt Liberal government managed to avoid a non-confidence result from the vote on a key amendment to its budget vote. Thanks to independent MP Chuck Cadman, who voted for the amendment, and especially Belinda Stronach, whose defection from the Conservatives made the crucial difference, the speaker was able to cast a tie-breaking deciding vote for the Liberal amendment.

An election had thus been avoided for now. As well, the chances of Bill C-38, the marriage redefinition bill, now being passed into law in the near future, increases significantly. The pro-same-sex marriage stacked committee has indicated that it will severely limit public input into its proceedings and will attempt to ram the bill through as quickly as possible.



Christian Legal Fellowship Submission to Committee on Gay “Marriage” Bill C-38

OTTAWA, May 20, 2005 ( – In oral submissions before a House of Commons sub-committee on same-sex “marriage” Bill C-38 Wednesday, Ruth Ross, Executive Director of Christian Legal Fellowship, made it clear that the rights of conscience and religion are at risk if Bill C-38 – legislation to expand the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex unions – is enacted as law.

Ross pointed out that “the wording of section 3 on religious freedom is found wanting.” She goes on to explain that, because the provinces will decide the fate of religious officials, the federal government can offer no guarantees that they would not be forced to perform same-sex “weddings,” as commissioners in several provinces have already been forced to do.

“Protection for religious individuals and groups is eroded when there is a ‘collision of rights’ and a ‘collision of dignities’ with the rights of homosexuals,” Ross explained in her submission. “The Marriage Reference said this collision would have to be decided on a case by case basis. This will result in a real threat to religious freedom, if the case law to date is any indication.” Ross cites decisions against Chris Kempling (, Scott Brockie (, and [complaints against] Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary ( as examples.

Ross warned, “If, as a so-called act of inclusion, same-sex marriage is established as a norm, the vast majority of cultures and religions in this country will find themselves excluded from the social mainstream.”

Ross reiterated Mr. Justice Gonthier’s statement from the Chamberlain v. Surrey School District judgement, “It is a feeble notion of pluralism that transforms ‘tolerance’ into ‘mandated approval or acceptance.” She added, “The great risk is that the emphasis on tolerance will be used as a mark for obliterating dissent on controversial questions such as the morality of certain sexual activities.”

Ross emphasized that the Supreme Court's answers in the Marriage Reference had not mandated the redefinition of marriage and that the risks to the physical, moral and religious welfare of children were too high to engage in this huge social experiment.

In conclusion, Ross stated emphatically that CLF strongly objects to Bill C-38, on the basis of both its content and the fact that it is technically flawed. 

See the compete Christian Legal Fellowship submission at



Catholic Bishops Present Brief to Parliamentary Committee on Homosexual "Marriage" Bill

OTTAWA, May 20, 2005 ( - The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) submitted a brief on Wednesday, 18 May 2005, before the special Legislative Committee on Bill C-38 defending the traditional definition of marriage.

Archbishop Marcel Gervais, of Ottawa, and Mrs. Hélène Aubé, a lawyer, represented the CCCB at the hearings which began last week. The two interveners reiterated the principles on which the Catholic Church defends the traditional definition of marriage as the partnership between a man and a woman that is essential to the survival of society. According to the Conference brief, changes to this institution could have dramatic repercussions: "Because the relationship of a man and a woman in marriage is the most stable basis of the family, and because the family is a vital unit for society, there are great risks in playing with the definition of marriage and the family."

Warning the government there are also serious threats to freedom of conscience and religion - such cases are already before the provincial tribunals - the CCCB argued that Canadian legislation is needed to promote a culture of marriage. The brief states: "If it is to defend the common good, how can our country's legitimate authority seriously contemplate redefining a human institution that is so fundamental and vital for the stability of families and the future of society? How can it wish to impose on Canadian society a norm contrary to natural law? We ask the government to abandon its plan to redefine marriage and to commit itself to promoting a culture that encourages and fosters marriage as a fundamental institution which provides the norm for society."

See the brief in full:


Saturday, April 9. 2005  - Port Moody, B.C.

Marriage defenders give Moore a message 

by Travis Trost


"Children need a Mom and Dad" sign Chinese-Canadian local children carry in front of Conservative MP James Moore's office

(dM) PORT MOODY, B.C. -- About 400 Canadians representing a mosaic of religious traditions and racial origins rallied in support of traditional marriage last weekend in front of Conservative MP James Moore’s office in Port Moody. The rally was organized by the Defend Marriage Coalition, which is fighting to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It focused on Moore because he has said he will be voting in favor of Paul Martin’s anti-marriage Bill C-38, which is now before the House of Commons.

If passed, the bill will redefine the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. It is facing several key votes in the House of Commons and concerned Canadians are rising up to demand their MPs vote against this bill. Representatives of the Muslim community, various Sikh temples, Roman Catholic lay groups, the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, Protestant pastors, and concerned citizens from Moore’s riding spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage. English was not the only language spoken as the multicultural support for traditional marriage was apparent. All speakers agreed that changing the legal definition of marriage would be a huge mistake – a message as clear in Cantonese as it was in English.

All religious faiths present attacked Paul Martin’s attempt to destroy marriage in Canada because it negates religious freedom. Speakers at this rally quoted from the Koran and Bible they sought to remind Canadians that the history of all faiths and cultures confirms marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Like-minded Canadians have raised their voice from Parliament Hill to Port Moody to say that the traditional definition of marriage has worked in the past and will work in the future.


15-20,000 Attend March for Traditional Marriage on Parliament Hill - Media Claim Only 4,000

OTTAWA, April 11, 2005 ( - The official estimate of the crowd given by March for Marriage organizers at the huge rally before Parliament on Saturday was 20,000.  RCMP confirmed the number at more than 15,000.  While the national broadcaster CBC went with the police estimate of 15,000, much of the biased Canadian media reported 4000 attendees, a falsehood demonstrating a bias beyond even a mediocre attempt at fair and balanced coverage.

Among the speakers were Official Opposition Leader, Stephen Harper, former Alliance Leader Stockwell Day, and about another dozen Conservative MPs, Liberal MP Pat O'Brien was also present along with Conservative Senator Anne Cools. Liberal MP O'Brien said "This is the largest protest I have ever seen on Parliament Hill."

John Pacheco, the principal organizer of the March wrote to CanWest news service regarding a report by CanWest and CP reporters Eric Beauchesne and Jim Bronskill which claimed only 4000 attended the march.  "I do not understand how such distortion can further your credibility with thousands of residents of Ottawa who were there and know the truth," wrote Pacheco.  "And it was a slap in the face to the thousands who travelled 5-8 hours from all parts of Ontario and Quebec to attend the rally," he added. reporters at the March interviewed leaders responsible for bringing groups in the thousands to the march.  Rev. Dominic Tse, of the Chinese Christian community represented a group of over two to three thousand people attending the March.  "The Chinese community is solidly against bill C-38 because marriage is such a central institution for the Chinese culture in general and we don't want the government or courts to touch this definition of marriage," he said.

Sikh leaders told that some 500 members of their community would be participating the in March. Hajeed Singarewal, from the group Sikh Humanity, told they were at the march to "oppose this bill, because it is against nature, against society, against humanity, it is very dangerous to the future generations."

Sammy Caoud, of the Coalition of Muslim organizations, a coalition of 70 mosques and Muslim organizations in the Greater Toronto Area, told "we are against bill C-38 because it tries to redefine 2000 years of the definition of the marriage, we object to that based on our religion and on the common moral sense." Caoud said the numbers of the Islamic community expected at the march were anywhere from two to five thousand.

Several dozen members of the Knight of Columbus in full regalia along with a marching band lead the huge crowd in the March from the Supreme Court to Parliament Hill.

Media bias was seen to be a sore spot for the massive crowd as the most vigorous cheering came when Presbyterian Minister Tristan Emmanuel or Equipping Christians for the Public Square addressed the media, telling them: "I have a message for you...I challenge you to be the MEDIA OF THE PEOPLE!!!! Be the media of the people, not the media who seeks to impose its liberal agenda. I challenge you to report that thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands showed up on this historic day to defend MARRIAGE!"



Tory motion on gay marriage bill is voted down
(excerpt from article) News Staff
Updated: Tue. Apr. 12 2005

A Conservative Party motion to change Bill C-38 and support traditional marriage has been defeated.

The vote was 164-132 against the motion introduced by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

Had the motion passed, the Conservatives said they would bring in a new bill which reaffirms the traditional definition of marriage -- a union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

But the motion was expected to fail, mainly because the Liberals expected the backing of the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois on the legislation. They got it.

The debate on same-sex marriage is causing schisms within the Liberal party itself. About 32 to 36 Liberals voted with the Tory motion.

Ontario Liberal MP Pat O'Brien was one of those. And with revelations from the Gomery inquiry into the federal sponsorship scandal adding to his discontent, O'Brien said he's mulling the spirited courting he's been receiving from the Conservative party to leave the Liberals and cross the floor.

He said he's not alone, and that he's one of at least four Liberal MPs considering defecting.

But Liberals like John McKay, Paul Steckle, Tom Wappel and Paul Szabo -- all known for being against their government's bid to legalize same-sex marriages -- have denied any plans to leave their party, reports The Canadian Press. . . . .


Stockwell Day's Speech on the "Civil Marriage Bill" --Bill to Redefine Marriage-- in the Canadian House of  Commons, March 24, 2005  

(from the Edited Hansard)

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to be constrained by parliamentary rules to only 10 minutes to speak about a law intending to alter a social definition, marriage, that has existed since time immemorial is a challenge indeed, but one which I will try to meet.

    A far more serious defect in the debate is the disturbing act of tyranny on the part of the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP who are muzzling their MPs and forcing them to vote a certain way on such an important topic.

    On the issue itself, first allow me to give a historic overview. Discussions on marriage certainly are not new. In the historically reputable journals of a Jewish physician by the name of Luke, almost 2,000 years ago, he recorded a debate between Jesus and various religious and community leaders. It is clear in their discussions that the monogamous nature of marriage was accepted as the norm despite the fact that the Hebrew culture had embraced polygamy during an earlier time in its social development.

    Jesus used that opportunity to underline the fact that the earliest writings of Mosaic tradition, notably the Pentateuch account, made it clear that the God of the Hebrew people intended that marriage would be between one man and one woman exclusively.

    For the two millennia following Christ's teaching on the matter, right up until this day, that has been the western world view. Even during the post reformation period of the enlightenment and the development of rationalism, there was never any serious consideration given at any time in western society to change the definition itself. Therefore, though marriage is rooted in the religious base of the Judeo-Christian construct, and other religions, even philosophical and social commentators who were not theistic never suggested a change in the meaning of marriage itself.

    This is also true in Greek, Roman and other western eras when homosexuality was accepted and practised somewhat freely and openly. At no time was there a group of activists demanding a definitional change of marriage itself.

    Today, our legal system derives significantly from the pillars of the Judeo-Christian concepts. In the development of common law from its British, American and Canadian precedents, even those who rejected the concept of nature's God still drew heavily from the concept of nature's laws.

    Simply put, this is the belief that certain facts of the nature of the universe, including human nature itself are so obvious that they are deemed to be self-evident. Therefore, by extension, human laws were drawn up to be in harmony with the self-evident laws of human nature and the universe around us.

    Some people accept a divine creator, God, behind these laws of nature. Others still accept natural law and common law but without acknowledging a divine intelligence behind them. The fact still remains that until a very few short years ago, neither group felt intellectually, philosophically or religiously compelled to alter a millennia old definition that actually predates governments and even predates the church, synagogue and mosque.

    A very few years ago a tiny group of militant homosexuals suggested, and then demanded, that they had a right to appropriate the term marriage to describe their unions. That group of course has grown to encompass other advocates. They continue to demand this despite the fact that many homosexuals themselves do not support a change in the definition of marriage and despite the fact that their conjugal relationships enjoy the full range of equality benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.

    It should also be acknowledged that just because a person or a group demands a certain right, or says that a right exists, does not mean that the right exists either in relative or absolute terms just because they demand it. There is no absolute right for instance to freedom of speech.

    One cannot go onto an airplane and shout, “hijack”. The person would find out that there is a limit on freedom of speech. Even a taxpaying citizen does not have the right to stand in the parliamentary galleries above us and give a speech. The individual will be stopped, as a woman was right here only a few weeks ago.

    Marriage is not an absolute right either. I cannot marry my sister, or my brother for that matter. I am sure they will be relieved to hear that today. I cannot marry my grandmother. I cannot marry my neighbour's wife. She is already married. I cannot marry a 14 year old. So, simply declaring a right to be human or absolute does not make it so.

    Our national media refuses to report that even the Supreme Court did not say marriage was a human right in all cases nor did it say that the heterosexual definition violated anyone's right or that the heterosexual definition of marriage was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court itself did not say that nor did it command us in Parliament to change the definition. The court did say that if change was to occur, it is Parliament's role to make that change, not the courts, and I concur with that.

    If a poster [This should no doubt be "pollster."--BCPTL website editor] misleadingly asks Canadians if homosexuals should have their rights denied by not allowing them to take the word “marriage”, many Canadians being fair minded would say, no, not to take away their rights. If the pollster asks the constitutionally accurate question, should the definition of marriage remain with a man and a woman as long as homosexual couples still have equality when it comes to benefits, most Canadians will say to leave the definition of marriage alone and let homosexuals have equal and beneficial unions also.

    As we seem to be close to altering the definition, we must be prepared to ask the tough questions relating to the consequences of such a monumental change. Now some people get enraged when these questions even are raised. I would say to those people once their anger has dissipated, would they still answer the following questions.

    Among the majority of my constituents who believe we should live and let live, including letting the heterosexual definition of marriage live, many have asked me to search out the following questions for them so that they can more fully understand the consequences of the Liberals' legislation and then decide if they like it or not. I therefore submit these questions for consideration along with responses I have received to date from the appropriate authorities whom I have already asked.

    First, if the Liberals' law is passed, will sex education in the schools, including elementary grades, include the same portrayals of sexual activity which presently exist in heterosexual instruction? Will there be the same presentation of homosexual activity? Of course there will.

    Second, will we see changes in terminology in our systems of public registration, for instance, in the use of words like “husband”, “wife”, “father”, “mother”, et cetera? Of course, these terms will gradually dissipate and fall into disuse. It is already happening in Ontario in the registration systems.

    Third, is it true that Scandinavian countries which expanded the marriage term have statistically reported depreciation, that is a lessening of appreciation, for heterosexual commitment to marriage? Yes, in those jurisdictions the social indices themselves are clear. Fewer heterosexuals feel legally compelled to officially marry and more children are born outside of marriage's traditional terms. Some people may say that is a good thing. Some may say that it is not. That is simply a fact and it is tragic that the notion of what is best for children gets so little discussion in this debate.

    Fourth, following the move for marriage to include homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender relationships, will polygamists demand to be included also? Of course they will. They already are asking to be included. Even non-religious polygamist groups in Canada are asking as well as those who are polygamists within their religions. As a matter of note, the few polygamists and bigamists whom I personally know are kind, caring and loving toward their children and their multiple partners. I am sure there are also abusive polygamists just as there are abusive homosexual and heterosexual couples. However, being kind does not translate into having the right to call oneself married any more than the two elderly sisters who are raising an orphaned nephew can call themselves married, even though they have a full right to all of the social and financial supports that were available to the married heterosexual parents.

    Fifth, will religious freedoms be protected and respected? No, they will not be. These freedoms are already disappearing. Marriage commissioners who choose not to marry homosexuals are being fired. A Knights of Columbus chapter in British Columbia is in court because it chooses not allow a lesbian group to use its facility for marriage ceremonies. The list goes on. Even the Supreme Court would not guarantee religious freedoms, so let us not lure people into thinking that the religious factor will be protected. It will not.

    These are only a few of the undisputed consequences of embracing a change in the definition of marriage. There are many more. If this is the brave new world that members want, then by all means vote for the change. If members want the definition to stay as it is, while still respecting the rights and choices of others, then vote against the legislation.

    The point of respect is very important here. I dedicate my remarks today to my mother and to my recently deceased father who brought me up understanding and respecting a few things. First, is to respect marriage itself. My parents did not have a perfect marriage. I[t] was pretty good, but it was not perfect. My marriage is not perfect. My wife is, but I happen to be imperfect. However, that does not discount the fact that the definition of marriage must be defended and protected.

    As all human beings are, in my view, creatures of God's design, we must respect all other human beings. That does not mean I have to agree with their choices or agree with their opinions, but indeed I respect them as human beings.

    I hope we can keep these things in mind as we continue this debate.




Freedom of Conscience, Tudor Style



By Sean Murphy
Director, Catholic Civil Rights League, Western Region
"Thomas, I’ll have no opposition," warned Henry VIII in A Man for All Seasons.

The scene in Robert Bolt’s play takes place in Sir Thomas More’s garden. Henry has just learned that More does not support his plans to unmake his marriage.

"No opposition, I say!" he roared. "No opposition! Your conscience is your own affair, but you are my Chancellor!"

"I’ll leave you out of it," growls the king. "But I don’t take it kindly, Thomas, and I’ll have no opposition!. . . Lie low if you will, but I’ll brook no opposition - no words, no signs, no letters, no pamphlets - mind that, Thomas - no writings against me!"1

Freedom of conscience, Tudor style.

Sound familiar? In Canada, we call it "party discipline" and "cabinet solidarity."

A Man for All Seasons follows More as he resigns his office and retires to private life, avoiding comment upon the King’s marriage. But, ultimately, ‘lying low’ isn’t enough. More’s silence, complains Thomas Cromwell, "is bellowing up and down Europe,"2 and, what’s worse, Henry can hear it. "The King’s a man of conscience,"says Cromwell, "and he wants either Sir Thomas More to bless his marriage or Sir Thomas More destroyed."3

It took three more years to accomplish More’s destruction, for new laws were needed to indict such disturbers of the king’s conscience. Unlike Canadian superior court judges, even Henry VIII could not ignore parliament or single-handedly make and unmake the law of the land.

Though still married to Catherine of Aragon, Henry had a private wedding ceremony with Anne Boleyn in January, 1533. The Archbishop of Canterbury later declared the marriage of Henry and Catherine invalid, and the Act of Succession was passed in March, 1534, to ensure that their progeny could legally succeed to the throne.

But the Act of Succession also asserted that Henry had not been truly married to Catherine and declared his marriage to Anne Boleyn valid. It made it treason to question or speak against the marriage of Henry and Anne, and almost treason to criticize the Act itself. Finally, citizens were required to swear an oath to defend the full contents of the Act, including its statements about marriage. "Almost immediately," wrote Richard Marius, a biographer of More, "the English people were subjected to a swarm of commissioners buzzing through the country to administer the oath to everyone they could find."4

In April, 1534, More refused the oath and was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Thomas Cromwell and his minions closed remaining legal loopholes with the passage of three more statutes, among them the Act of Supremacy, which pronounced Henry the "only Supreme Head on earth of the Church in England." The law claimed its first victims in May, 1535. More was beheaded two months later, and others followed.

All of this to serve the personal dreams and aspirations of Henry VIII. He wanted recognition of his children by Anne as his legal successors, but he also demanded public and universal affirmation that his relationship with Anne Boleyn was worthy of the same respect and recognition as his marriage to Catherine. He got his way by having parliament pass statutes that not only defined marriage in his terms, but punished any expression of opposition.

Jay Budziszewski ascribes this frantic effort to silence all opposition to ‘the revenge of conscience’. The law written on the human heart cannot be obliterated. It can be denied, but the reproach of conscience at the deepest levels never, ever stops.5 That is why even More’s silence was, finally, intolerable; it was less than acceptance, less than approval. "If you cannot convert your critics by argument," writes historian John Thomas Noonan, "at least by law you can make them recognize that your course is the course of the country." 6

Canada is following in Henry’s footsteps. Judges tell us that to deny persons of the same sex the right to ‘marry’ would be "a rejection of their personal aspirations and the denial of their dreams."7 They assert that same-sex couples may not be "excluded" from marrying because that would mean their relationships are "not worthy of the same respect and recognition as opposite-sex relationships."8 Citing the ‘rule of law,’ these judges are demanding public and universal affirmation that there is no moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual conduct, that both are "worthy of the same respect and recognition," and they are demanding that all citizens unconditionally accept their definition of marriage.

Canadians who oppose the marriage bill need not fear imprisonment or execution if Martin’s bill passes, and there are no plans to compel us to swear allegiance to the new order. But there is good reason to expect the kind of pervasive legal persecution and oppression visited upon Tudor England. It will look different in 21st century Canada, for when history repeats itself it adopts the costumes and customs of the age.

Sir Thomas More was jailed because he was suspected of ‘misprision of treason’ - of having treasonous intentions. Some human rights laws now make it unlawful to ‘indicate an intention to discriminate.’9 BC teacher Chris Kempling ran afoul of this when he spoke publicly against homosexual conduct in response to others - including other teachers - who were speaking in favour of it. He was charged for professional misconduct and is threatened with suspension for ‘indicating an intention to discriminate.’ Call it ‘misprision of discrimination.’

The judge who rejected Kempling’s appeal clearly holds that authentic Christian teaching that proscribes homosexual conduct is a lie; that it is not merely derogatory, but harmful and damaging; that it is wrong, and that those who articulate such teachings deserve to be punished.10 It is reasonable to expect that the same accusations will be hurled by judges against Christian teaching on marriage.

If we will not be allowed to speak publicly, what about conscientious objection?

Ask the Catholic high school principal ordered by a judge to let a homosexually active student bring his ‘date’ to a school dance.11 Ask Scott Brockie, a Christian printer fined and ordered to serve Gay and Lesbian Archives of Canada,12 an organization that not only promotes homosexual conduct but promotes pro-paedophilia literature.13 Ask the marriage commissioners who have already been ordered to resign if they will not perform services for persons of the same sex.14 Ask the Knights of Columbus, sued by lesbians because they refused to rent their hall to them for a ‘wedding’ reception.15

Judges are demanding that every citizen submit to their ideas about sexuality and marriage. Like Robert Bolt’s Henry, they will brook no opposition to the new order. They will not send objectors to jail or to the scaffold, but they will fine them, award monetary judgements against them, see them suspended or fired, force their schools to close, and order that all children be taught their new doctrines. And this government applaud, because Paul Martin has chosen to serve these judges rather than the people who elected him: to play the part of Thomas Cromwell rather than Thomas More.


1. Bolt, Robert, A Man for All Seasons. Act One. Scarborough, Ont.: Bellhaven House, 1968, p. 33

2. Ibid, Act Two, p. 58

3. Ibid, Act Two, p. 70

4. Marius, Richard, Thomas More. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985, p. 459

5. cf. Budziszewski, J., What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide. Dallas, Texas: Spence Publishing, 2003

6. Noonan, J.T., A Private Choice. New York: The Free Press, 1979, p. 82. Quoted in Budziszewski, supra, p. 154

7. Barbeau v. British Columbia (Egale Canada Inc. v. Canada) BCCA (1 May, 2003), para. 130

8. Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada Ont CA (10 June, 2003), para. 94

9. Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 211, Section 7(1)

10. Kempling v. The British Columbia College of Teachers, 2004 BCSC 133

11. Hall (Litigation guardian of) v. Powers [2002] O.J. No. 1803 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Court File No. 02-CV-227705CM3. Judgment: May 10, 2002. Most relevant to this paper, the judicial suppression of religious freedom in the Hall case is supported by Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples: (Accessed 2005-03-24)

12. Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Scott Brockie, Ont. Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court (2002) O.J. No. 2375, Court File No. 179/00 [17 June, 2002]

13. For example: Gerald Hannon, "Men Loving Boys Loving Men", The Body Politic, Issue 39, December 1977/January 1978. "This is an archived ‘original web site’ brought to you by the: Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, © 1997-2004. Contact information. This page is: (add to Favourites). Last revised: December 14, 1995." Accessed 9 July, 2003, 14 April, 2004, and 23 March, 2005.

14. "In a letter Tuesday, B.C. Commissioners were given an ultimatum from the B.C. Vital Statistics Agency, which stated that any Commissioner ‘who feels that they cannot solemnize same-sex marriages’ must ‘resign their appointments’ by March 31. The letter gave no details about what would happen if a Commissioner refused to step down." VANCOUVER, January 23, 2004 (

15. B.C. lesbians fight to hold wedding reception in Catholic hall (25 January, 2005) Accessed 2005-01-27


Liberal Minister in Video Against Same-Sex Bill . . . 

National Post
Sat 05 Mar 2005 Page: A9
Byline: Allan Woods

OTTAWA - A coalition of religious groups and "pro-family" advocates will release an explosive new video today of Immigration Minister Joe Volpe telling a church congregation that he does not support gay marriage and urging them to fight against same-sex marriage legislation.

The video is intended to be the first strike in a campaign that will also target other powerful elected officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan, Natural Resources Minister John Efford and Thunder Bay, Ont., MP Joe Comuzzi.

The Defend Marriage Coalition alleges these and other elected officials have misled voters about their position on the same-sex debate.

The Volpe video was made during a service on Aug. 8, 2003, in a campaign-style speech at Canada Christian College, a private religious school just north of Toronto.

"If we believe in something then we must promote it. If we believe in something then we must defend it," Mr. Volpe tells the congregation.

"[A court] decided that the definition [of marriage] should be changed, wrongly in my view," he says. "I need to have your support to ensure that that error does not continue."

He also urged them to defend their position -- "We are nothing if we don't hear your voice," he said -- which is what the group says it is doing.

"The videotape rolls right across the country when politicians speak," said Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College in Toronto. "There's a plethora of videotape of politicans making promises and as soon as they get elected they do the very opposite."

Reverend Benjamin Mapa, who attended the 2003 church service, said Mr. Volpe was invited to speak specifically because of his opposition to same-sex marriage. "It's disappointing," he said yesterday. "You give them the support and all of a sudden they have betrayed you."

Rev. Mapa is the president of the Filipino Ministerial Fellowship of Toronto, a coalition that represents 60 churches.

Mr. Volpe, a Roman Catholic who grew up in Toronto, said in an interview yesterday that as a member of Cabinet, he was able to shape legislation so that it ensures both equality and the authority of religious institutions to bless marriages.

"I've met all these people once. I spoke to them once. They're not even in my riding," he said. "Just what did they expect that somebody would do? Would they bring into legislation and into Parliament the protections that they were looking for for their religion? If the answer to that is yes, it's done."

Cabinet ministers are compelled to vote for the government's legislation in the House of Commons, whether or not they personally agree with the same-sex policy.

"How could I vote against a bill that defines the significance of a civil marriage, that says equality is recognized by everybody, recognizes the value of religion, and accords to religious institutions the opportunity to give its consecration to marriage? All of those things are yes," Mr. Volpe said. "What are these people talking about?"

The coalition said its campaign is intended to call elected officials to account for what they feel are broken promises. The video can be accessed through, a Web site set up recently by the group.

This is the most aggressive campaign mounted to date by a group committed to preserving the traditional definition of marriage, which they feel is under attack by legislation already tabled by the government but not yet passed into law. The group will stage a rally today outside the convention at the Ottawa Congress Centre, where a resolution by the Young Liberals of Canada is expected to be adopted as party policy.

The Young Liberals have been campaigning hard in favour of same-sex marriage, and launched a controversial button campaign entitled, "It's the Charter, stupid," to hammer home their argument.

[Go to  to view the video referred to in the article above.]

[We pass on the following news release, which we believe will be of interest to our readers.]

Catholic Civil Rights League 
301 – 46 St. Clair Ave. E, Toronto, ON  
M4T 1M9
Phone: 416-466-8244,  Fax: 416-466-0091,  

Western Region  

For immediate release
28 February, 2005 

Immigration Minister Won’t Guarantee Religious Freedom

Over 80 supporters of natural marriage were ready to greet Liberal Immigration Minister Joe Volpe with signs like "Marriage - One Man - One Woman" when he arrived in the small coastal community of Powell River, B.C. on Saturday. [Photos available on request] Unfortunately, fog delayed his plane, and the rally around the hotel where he was to speak had ended by the time he arrived.

Mr. Volpe came to talk about the budget, but he did get one question about Bill C38, which purports to change the definition of marriage. Fraser Field, speaking for the Knights of Columbus, pointed out that Bill C38 exempts religious officials from performing services contrary to their beliefs, but offers no protection whatsoever for lay religious believers or institutions.

Mr. Field noted that the Knights of Columbus are being sued by a lesbian couple who demanded the use of their hall for a ‘wedding’ reception, and that Marriage Commissioners have been ordered to resign if they are unwilling to perform same-sex services. He asked if Mr. Volpe would support amendments to the bill to prevent such harassment of ordinary religious believers.

In a rambling response, Mr. Volpe said only that he had done what he could to include reference to tolerance and religious freedom in the preamble to the bill.

"He refused to answer my question," said a frustrated Mr. Field, "and showed no concern about the current attack on people of faith in the courts."

CCRL Director Sean Murphy had asked to meet privately with the minister to discuss the bill, but was told that time constraints precluded private meetings. Murphy was disappointed by the minister’s lack of interest in protecting freedom of conscience and religion, but not surprised.

"After all," he said, "why should I believe that my freedom of conscience is safe in the hands of a Prime Minister who denies it to his own cabinet colleagues? And if they so little value their own religious convictions as to give them up to vote the party line, why should they worry about the Knights of Columbus?"

Murphy also dismissed Mr. Volpe’s faith in the power of preambles.
"Judges who can unilaterally amend the constitution are not going to be overawed by pious thoughts in preambles," he said. "Much more robust protection is needed, but the government seems unwilling to provide it."

Contact Information:

Sean Murphy, Director
CCRL Western Region

7120 Tofino St.,
Powell River,
British Columbia,
Canada V8A 1G3
Tel: 604-485-9765

Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ a Health Risk Doctors Warn Parliamentarians
. . . . 
OTTAWA, February 17, 2005 ( - A group of physicians has presented to Canadian Parliamentarians scientific evidence that homosexual marriage is a health risk to Canadians. The heavily referenced brief titled "Gay Marriage and Homosexuality, Some Medical Comments" warns that the new law will result in the further normalization of homosexual sex which has already resulted in severe health risks and related costs to care for and treat persons affected by risky sexual behaviour.

The document, signed by doctors in different disciplines from family medicine, dermatology and neurology, warns that anal sex as practiced by most gay men, has a large number of diseases associated with it, “many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population” such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others.

Doctors who spoke with also warn that this dangerous sexual practice has spread to the heterosexual community as well.

“There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex,” the paper warns. It cites studies indicating that “Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV over those who never engaged in anal sex.”

The brief notes also that “Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238).”

The brief warns “Any attempts to legalise gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable.”

The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”

The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MRCGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

See the complete report at and (Acrobat)


VANCOUVER, BC – Famous for the “Mom ‘n Dad” campaign prior to the 2004 election, Focus on the Family launched the first advertisement in their newest advertising campaign asking Canadians to protect marriage.


“Democracy only works if we all participate,” says Terence Rolston, President of Focus on the Family Canada. “The Protect Marriage campaign is geared towards mobilizing the 66% of the Canadian population that supports traditional marriage.”


The ad campaign points readers to, a website wired to help Canadians directly contact their Parliamentarians to express their opinion. “As a result millions of letters, phone calls, e-mails or visits have been made to Members of Parliament” he says.


Paired with the national advertising campaign, Focus Canada has published a Marriage Action Kit available at This kit shows Canadians how to participate in the democratic process, providing key contact information and sample letters to both Parliament and local media.


“The democratic deficit is extremely visible in the marriage issue,” he says. “Paul Martin should allow Cabinet Ministers the freedom to vote according to their constituents and their conscience.”


“Focus on the Family truly believes that traditional marriage will triumph if every Canadian contacts their representative to express their opinion,” he says. “It’s up to Parliament to allow that to impact their vote.”


The first advertisement ( appears in select publications this weekend with the remaining advertisements appearing across Canada in the coming weeks.


Boycott Alert-- Feb. 8, 2005
from the Canadian Family Action Coalition:

Boycott Announced Against Famous Players Theatres for Promoting Anti-Marriage Message

Dr Charles McVety, President of Canada Family Action Coalition, a member of the Defend Marriage Coalition, today issued the following statement in response to the decision by Famous Players Theatres to allow advertising promoting same sex marriage in their theatres prior to movies.

"We are deeply saddened by Famous Players Theatres decision to subject unsuspecting movie-goers to ads promoting same sex marriage. It is a betrayal of the trust accorded to Famous Players by their viewing public, including parents who send their children to see a film."

"We contacted the offices of Mr. Robb Chase, CEO of Famous Players Theatres and Mr. Salah Bachir, President, Famous Players Media Inc., requesting the cancellation of the program or at least equal time for pro-marriage messaging. Regrettably our concerns were spurned and our request rejected."

"Advertisements for same sex marriage are displayed in Famous Players Theatres to captive audiences waiting for their film to begin. According to the Toronto Star, Mr. Salah Bachir, President, Famous Players Media Inc donated the advertisements. It is lamentable that Mr. Bachir is using undue influence to unfairly target men, women and children who are not expecting to be accosted with such indoctrination but only want to see a movie."

Brian Rushfeldt, Executive Director of Canada Family Action Coalition, warns that "subjecting unsuspecting captive audiences, many of whom are children, to indoctrination about ‘homosexual marriage’ and to, in essence, a demeaning message about normal marriage is unacceptable.” He went on to say that "freedom of speech is fine if people can turn off or change channels from what they do not want to be inundated with, but this is abusive of everyone who goes to the movies for entertainment, not for activist indoctrination.”

The Coalition is urging its members and all Canadians to refuse to attend Famous Players Theatres and contact the President, Mr. Robb Chase at 416.969.7800 or fax him at 416.964.5839.

Also, express your concerns to Salah Bachir of Famous Players Media (company which handles ads for Famous Players)
(416) 539-8800 ext 222 . . . .

We also encourage unsuspecting advertisers in Famous Players Theatres to contact Mr. Chase.   ).


Website for Same-Sex "Marriage" Contains Valuable Information

We depart from our usual practice and give a link to a website for "the other side."  The website, deceptively, is called "Free Vote on Same-Sex Marriage."  It is actually a website promoting the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.  It does contain information which could be useful (though it should be used with caution).   A list of "undecided" MPs is given (though some of this information will have changed).  We suggest that we make a point of contacting these members of parliament and politely and forcefully give them reasons to support the traditional marriage definition.  Click here to reach the pro-same-sex " marriage" site listing of undecided MPs.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Says Churches Must "Not Get Involved" in Same-Sex Marriage Issue
Unexpected building tide of opposition to marriage re-definition causing extreme reaction from Liberal elite


FREDERICTON, New Brunswick January 28, 2005 ( - Liberal government reaction to the unexpected building tide of opposition to its same-sex 'marriage' bill appears to be causing increasingly extreme reaction from government defenders. Comments yesterday by Foreign Affairs Minister, Pierre Pettigrew, have revealed a disturbing, almost totalitarian attitude of the government towards Canadians opposing its social engineering plans.

The National Post reports today that Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister, Pierre Pettigrew declared that because Canada has “Separation of Church and State,” the Church is obliged to remain silent on the issue of same-sex unions. “I find that the separation of the Church and the state is one of the most beautiful inventions of modern times,” Pettigrew said. The National Post reported he said that government and churches 'should not get involved in each other’s affairs.’

Christians are reacting with outrage at the suggestion from an elected representative and Cabinet Minister that Christians have no right to influence the formation of Canadian goverment policy.

The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops (OCCB)today issued an uncharacteristically stern response to Pettigrew's comments. The bishops’ conference has demanded a retraction and called Pettigrew’s comments “extremely irresponsible,” and a violation of freedom and freedom of religion. The statement said, “The separation of church and state is a tool that advocates use when they find religious views to be inconvenient to their political views.”

The statement reads, “They would require people to leave their religious beliefs at the door when they enter public debate. This, of course, contradicts both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. All Canadians have the democratic right to participate in social debate. That is a hallmark of our democratic society.”

The bishops’ statement warns that once the principles of representative democracy and freedom of speech are abandoned in the Liberals’ rush to re-construct Canadian society, no group is safe from silencing. “If religious people are being told today that they cannot participate in the public debate on certain issues, then who will be told the same tomorrow? Will environmentalists be told that there are issues on which they ought not to comment? Will trade unionists be told that they must remain silent on other issues?”

Tom Reilly, the General Secretary of the OCCB said, “The debate should not be chilled by remarks that have no foundation in the Canadian constitution or accepted political practice.”

Pettigrew’s comments come as Muslim, Sikh and Christian organizations across the country, announce that they will be mobilizing their congregations to fight a change to the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual partnerings. Pettigrew said from Fredericton that he would be supporting the upcoming legislation.

Read National Post coverage:

Contact Minister Pettigrew:
By mail:  
House of Commons,
Ottawa , Ontario ,
K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 995-8872
Fax: (613) 995-9926


"Taxpayers Fund Gay Legal 
Challenges for Same-Sex Marriage"

P R E S S    R E L E A S E 
[From REAL Women of Canada]

For immediate release
Ottawa, February 9, 2005

An analysis of funding of the legal challenges by gay activists reveals that the Canadian taxpayer is footing most of the bill for their legal challenges, while family oriented defenders of marriage are obliged to raise their own funds.

Chief Justice Roy McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal not only decided that traditional matrimonial law in Canada is unconstitutional, he ordered that the federal treasury pay the costs of the homosexual challengers.  $645,000 went to Toronto Lawyer Martha McCarthy who acted for several of the homosexual challengers, and $409,162 to Toronto lawyer R. Douglas Elliot who argued the case on behalf of the homosexual/ lesbian/transgender Metropolitan Community Church.  [Lawyers Weekly, November 19, 2004]

The homosexual lobby group and matrimonial law challenger EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) received generous financial support from the Court Challenges Program for its legal challenges on same-sex marriage.  The Court Challenges Program also paid the costs of the intervenors, the Canadian Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for Same-sex Marriage.  This government Program receives millions of dollars annually from the federal Heritage Department (2.75 million a year minimum). Status of Women and the National Film Board are listed on EGALE’s website as sponsors of their efforts. This funding also comes from Canadian taxpayers.  

Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, indicate that hundreds of thousands of dollars flow annually from Status of Women to Lesbian advocacy groups.

With the funds they receive from compulsory union dues, Canadian unions are also financially backing homosexual activists.  EGALE lists Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Union of Public Employees and Canadian Labour Congress as its “Gold” sponsors on its website.[iii]   Also “Gold” are the United Church of Canada, IBM and Canada Digital Collections.

CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) “has also been a major donor to a number of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) related organizations over the year” according to CIBC President and CEO John Hunkin.

If Justice Minister Irwin Cotler wants to make legal changes to prevent public opinion from being “mortgaged to the highest bidder,” as he recently stated, he should start by cutting off the flow of taxpayers’ money to advocacy groups for homosexual and lesbian marriage.

For further information contact:. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 787-0348,  (905) 731-5425


Another gag law?

 National Post
 Wed 09 Feb 2005 Page: A15  Editorials
 On Monday, Montreal's Gazette reported that U.S.
 groups -- including the Knights of Columbus and Focus
 on the Family -- are funding a campaign to oppose gay
 marriage here in Canada. Within hours, federal Justice
 Minister Irwin Cotler told the newspaper he will look
 into changing the law to prevent foreign interests
 from dropping cash on domestic debates. "Clearly, we
 have free speech, but at the same time we want to
 protect the political equities in terms of the
 marketplace of ideas," Mr. Cotler said. "In other
 words, we don't want the public opinion to get
 mortgaged to the highest bidder."

 The logic here is not only absurd, but dangerous. The
 sums alleged to have been spent by the U.S. groups at
 issue represent a small fraction of the budgets of
 Canada's major media outlets. Is the National Post to
 be censored if we oppose the gay marriage agenda, on
 the grounds that we are upsetting "political
 equities"? Presumably not. But that is only because
 Mr. Cotler has left unstated a core premise: that
 since the groups providing funds are from the United
 States, they are inherently sinister.

 It is only fitting that American activists on both
 sides of the debate have their say on gay marriage
 here in Canada. Much of the debate about gay unions in
 the United States and elsewhere centres around the
 marriage norms that predominate in other parts of the
 Western world. If a neighbouring nation were to
 embrace gay marriage, it would strengthen the hand of
 same-sex advocates in the United States.

 We would like to think that Mr. Cotler's remark was a
 stray utterance taken out of context. But sadly, the
 Liberals have seemed all too keen to stifle speech --
 even core political speech of the type that has long
 been protected in free nations -- if it serves their
 ideological purposes. Recall that this is the same
 government that has spent years locked in court
 battles with the National Citizens Coalition over the
 shameful gag law, which limits third-party advertising
 during election campaigns.

 Free and open debate is fundamental to any functioning
 democracy. And the best way to induce that debate is
 not by censoring this or that viewpoint on the basis
 of specious economic analogies, but by letting all
 opinions be heard -- whomever and wherever they come
 from, and however much they may conflict with the
 government's agenda.



British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life has a unity based on a moral rather than a specifically religious basis, but we reject the bias against traditional rfeligious insights that is the basis of the pro-homosexuality movement.  Our readers should find significant the following statements directed towards Evangelical and Roman Catholic Canadians.



By Rev. Royal Hamel


Evangelicals have always stood for morality, and same-sex marriage is first and foremost about morality, and not human rights. In fact, when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to answer one of the reference questions they refused to state that same sex marriage is a human right. Even the United Nations committee on Human Rights doesn’t consider same-sex marriage a human right. The 'human rights' argument for such “marriage” is window dressing at best. While the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is making a solid defense, churches, and individual Christians also must find their voice because:


  1. Evangelicals base their worldview on the Bible, and same-sex marriage is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible. Furthermore, government approved “gay marriage” goes far beyond extending tolerance to behavior Christians have always seen as immoral, it actually elevates homosexuality to a virtuous status by giving these relationships the exact same status as heterosexual marriage.  No government has a right to fundamentally redefine morality.
  2. Evangelicals historically have opposed various forms of discrimination including slavery, abortion, child labor abuse, violence against women, etc. Same-sex “marriage” will establish a new institution that systematically discriminates against children, for in all such relationships children will be denied either a mother or a father. Christians must stand for the vulnerable child, and insist that government has no right to institutionalize systemic discrimination
  3. Evangelicals are bound to fulfill the second great commandment which is, “ to love our neighbor as ourselves.” But, to ignore the common good of society by passively allowing the redefinition of marriage is an outright breaking of this command. Christians  must not allow society to self-destruct because they are focused only on personalistic piety. True love, and true worship of God demands also love of neighbor.
    1. Evangelicals have always championed, and even died for the freedom to practice their religion.  Same-sex marriage, albeit covered in the guise of human rights language, is an assault on traditional morality and if it comes to pass portends a future where religious freedoms will be lost incrementally. Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledged in its recent decision on marriage that religious freedom may need to be limited to accommodate the equality rights of homosexuals.
    1. Evangelicals believe with the great Dutch theologian, Abraham Kuyper,  “There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not cry out, ‘That is mine!’ ” Marriage is the foundational building block of all cultures and as such is under the Lordship of Christ. Therefore, Evangelicals should boldly and uncompromisingly defend the only kind of marriage that Jesus believed in. Christians owe it to Christ, before all else, to reject ungodly passivity, and to defend what is true, virtuous, and is the common good for all Canadians.  . . . .

Ash Wednesday, 9 February 2005:
Pastoral letter to Catholics in Canada on Redefining Marriage

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

The Catholic Bishops of Canada are united in their belief that marriage is the unique, essential and fundamental relationship of a man and a woman. This has been the teaching of the Church since its beginnings, and reflects human history.

For this reason, the Bishops of Canada reaffirm their opposition to the proposed redefinition of marriage, as they have already declared on a number of occasions, including statements by individual Canadian Cardinals and bishops, in addition to those of many other Canadian citizens.

The conjugal partnership of a man and a woman constitutes a particular benefit for the couple and a unique good for society, as evident in their mutual love as well as in the procreation of children. Marriage provides a stable and positive environment for children and thus for future generations. The right to marriage is more than the rights of two individuals; it involves the common good.

The proposed redefinition of marriage not only clashes with the faith and practice of Catholics and other Canadians, but also has enormous civil and social implications for everyone.
  • The committed relationship of a man and a woman in marriage is basic to the family and thus for all society.

  • Marriage and family life already are undergoing enormous pressures; the proposed changes risk disrupting the very nature and meaning of the institution of marriage.

  • Government and society will contribute to the erosion of marriage and family by decreasing the importance of the union of a woman and man as wife and husband, mother and father. Society should do all it can so that children have a mother and father living in a stable and loving relationship.

  • Instead of uniting Canadians in respect for the dignity of homosexual persons, the proposed redefinition of marriage is divisive in its attempt to impose uniformity in pursuit of equality.

  • The proposed redefinition is not a step in evolution but a radical break with human history and with the meaning and nature of marriage.

  • The Supreme Court of Canada did not say that the proposed legislation of the government to redefine marriage is necessary to conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor did it suggest that the traditional definition of marriage is contrary to the Charter.

  • As recently as 9 June 1999, the House of Commons reaffirmed the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Why rush into a radically different definition when the long-term consequences are of such potential importance but have not yet been studied?
The Bishops of Canada encourage all Catholics to express their social concerns by writing to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, members of Parliament and other elected officials.

As Canadian citizens, you not only have the right but the responsibility to inform your political representatives and government leaders of your convictions about marriage and the social issues that are involved in its definition and nature.

May this Lent be a time of serious reflection on this matter and an opportunity for us to pray for the guidance of our political leaders.

Sincerely in Our Lord,

+ Brendan M. O’Brien
Archbishop of St. John’s
President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Related Link:

For More information Contact:
Sylvain Salvas
Director, Communications Service
Tel: (613) 241-9461
Fax: (613) 241-9048


Speech by the President of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life at a Pro-Marriage Rally in Surrey, British Columbia on January 29, 2005


            It is good to see you gathered here in support of an institution which we cherish and wish to see preserved and honoured:  the institution of marriage between one man and one woman.

            On this occasion it is surely suitable to state just why we are here, in order to clarify the purpose of our gathering to ourselves and to others who may raise questions regarding it.

            We are not here for partisan political purposes.  We are not here because we wish to take any legitimate rights from anyone.  We are not here because we harbour  personal enmity towards those who differ from us in their ways of living.  We are here to exercise our free speech while we still can and to state without enmity or rancor our stand on an issue of great importance to our nation.

            We are here to support a relationship which predates our country, which predates all of our statute law and common law:  the relationship between a man and a woman in the holy bonds of matrimony.    Many of us hold marriage to be sanctified by God because of  the teachings of a particular faith, but we recognize that this relationship is held sacred by those of many faiths, and by those who have come to this country from many parts of the world.

            The institution of marriage is one that has lasted not merely for centuries but for millennia.  Through all those years, the lasting union between a man and a woman has been a bright and shining ideal that most have aspired to, and which has led to mutual caring between man and woman, and the nurturing of children in a secure environment.

            Now there are those who have told us that this institution as understood by our forebears and by ourselves is in its nature harmfully discriminatory.    Powerful pressures have been brought to bear to change the definition and hence the understanding of this institution.  In Canada the state of things which has prevailed for decades now is that a citizen can choose his own way of life no matter whether it adheres to the old moral codes of sexuality or not.  Not content with this, activists demand that the government put its stamp of approval on unions which do not fit the formerly accepted definition of marriage. They demand that those in same-sex unions should have the right to be declared married by authority of government.

            Is it the proper role of government to intervene in this way to exert its weight on behalf of those who demand this change?  If so, we should realize that this involves government acting to impose the approval of a particular way of life.  It is true that our society has recognized traditional marriage, and there has been a legitimate reason for this:  Traditional marriage as a source of stability and nurturing has been a foundation for our society.  But there is no such rationale for conferring the same special recognition on a same-sex union..

            The logical result of the proposed change in the definition of marriage is one that may not directly affect those of us who are already married, but it is one that we may expect will have a radical effect on our children and grandchildren.  The law is a teacher.  The recognition of same-sex unions as marriage teaches children lessons which millions of Canadians regard as harmful.  Logically, in view of the history of past court decisions, we may expect that the schools will be compelled to teach that such unions are equivalent to traditional marriage, and to teach it whether parents agree to such teaching or not.

            We are here to say to our Member of Parliament, Mr. Russ Hiebert:  We applaud your stand for traditional marriage.  We  want you to know you have our continued support.  We encourage you to stand fast.  We urge you and your fellow-members of parliament to employ every legal means at your disposal in defence of marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman for the betterment of society today and the future good of the young people of Canada .        

--Ted Hewlett

[The above speech was one of those delivered outside the constituency office of Russ Hiebert, Member of Parliament for South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale.  The Rally was organized by Fr. John Tritschler.    In spite of a major event that conflicted in time with the rally, a crowd estimated at some two hundred gathered in support of traditional marriage.  Petition sheets were handed to Mr. Hiebert, who had already spoken previously in support of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  Mr. Hiebert spoke to the crowd, commending their democratic initiative and demonstrated attitude of tolerance towards those disagreeing with them, and he repeated his stand of supporting the traditional definition of marriage.]


A Declaration on Marriage

(composed by Dr. William Gairdner 
and published by "Enshrine Marriage Canada" on its website. )

Article 1
Marriage and the family are universal
All human beings are born of a mother and begotten by a father. This is a universal biological reality and the common experience of all people. The state supports the institution of marriage because it promotes and protects the father-mother-child relationship as the only natural means of creating and continuing human life and society.
Article 2
Marriage means one man and one woman
Marriage in Canada has always been defined as “the union of one man and one woman,” the chief function of which is to promote the biological unity of sexual opposites as the basis for family formation. Governments may want to support other relationships, but these should not be called “marriage,” or confused with it.
Article 3
Marriage is centred on children
Marriage is a child-centred, not an adult-centred, institution. No one has the right to redefine marriage so as intentionally to impose a fatherless or motherless home on a child as a matter of state policy.
Article 4
Marriage rests on four conditions
Marriage is a solid social structure resting on four conditions concerning number, gender, age, and incest. We are permitted to marry only one person at a time. They must be someone of the opposite sex. They must not be below a certain age. They must not be a close blood relative. Those who satisfy all these conditions - each of which safeguards the well-being of children, the family, and society - have a right to marry. The removal of any of them threatens the stability of the whole structure.
Article 5
Marriage is about more than equality
All government policies are intentionally preferential. If we want welfare or veterans’ benefits, or child-support, or marital benefits, we have to qualify for them. Such policies are ordinary forms of distributive justice through which, for its own good, the state discriminates in favour of some people, and some relationships, and not others. So an absence of “equality” is not a good argument against such policies. As same-sex partnerships already receive the same benefits as marriages, however, something else is at issue: an attempt to persuade the public that such partnerships are of the same value to society as marriages. But they can only be made so by denying the unique contribution of marriage as a biologically-unitive, child-centred institution.
Article 6
Marriage is about more than love
The fact that two people say they love each other does not, in itself, justify a right to the benefits conferred by the state on married couples. The only justification for a state interest in the privacy of love flows from the connection between the political fact that the state has a fundamental concern for its own survival and well-being, the biological fact that all human beings require someone of the opposite sex to create life, and the social fact that children have a natural claim to the love and support of their own mothers and fathers. Accordingly, the only kind of private love that is of justifiable public concern is the love that occurs between two people who qualify for marriage according to the four conditions in Article 4.
Article 7
Marriage belongs to the people
Marriage is an institution that has arisen from long-held beliefs and customs of the people that are prior to all states and all courts, and are essential to the very fabric of society. Any attempt by unelected officials of the courts or by any other branch of government to claim ownership of marriage, to alter it without the support of a significant majority of the people, or to diminish the father-mother-child relationship in favour of the state-citizen relation, usurps the natural rights and freedoms of the people and constitutes a serious breach of the public trust.


Toronto Cardinal Ambrozic Warns Gay 'Marriage' Will Expose Children to Gay Sex-Ed
Urges Court-Proof Law to Uphold Traditional Marriage

TORONTO, January 19, 2005 ( - In a letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin released yesterday, Toronto Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic has asked that a bill be enacted to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Moreover, knowing that provincial courts have forced the redefining of marriage, the Cardinal asks that the bill include use of the Charter's notwithstanding clause to allow for it to take effect.

"I urge you, Prime Minister, to table a Bill that legislatively enacts the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage, coupled with a clause that provides for the legislation to take effect notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," wrote the Cardinal.

The request for the legislation is couched in a demand for a time of reflection prior to altering the definition of marriage. "My purpose in writing this open letter to you is to urge caution in taking this step towards the re-definition of marriage. We all would do well to pause reflectively before we alter social structures like marriage and the family that lie at the core of our society, and that represent the accumulated wisdom and experience of the ages," he writes.

One of the dangerous consequences of the redefinition of marriage which the Cardinal draws attention to is the equating of heterosexual sex with homosexual sex. "The law is a teacher. Does Canadian society as a whole, and do parents in particular, understand what the law will be teaching in this instance? It will be teaching that homosexual activity and heterosexual activity are morally equivalent." The Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto added, "Public schools will be required to provide sex education in that light."

In his letter the Cardinal acknowledges the use of the notwithstanding clause may be controversial. However he notes, "Its use in the context of same-sex marriage would be most appropriate." In conclusion the Cardinal urges that "all parliamentarians, Cabinet Ministers included" be permitted to "to vote their consciences on any legislation that is put to a vote in Parliament on the issue of marriage."

See the full letter from the Cardinal.

Toronto Cardinal Gives Direction to Priests and Faithful on Supporting Traditional Marriage

TORONTO, January 19, 2005 ( - In addition to writing Prime Minister Paul Martin on the subject, Toronto Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic has directed all priests in the Toronto Archdiocese to make his letter available to parishioners, and to include prayer petitions on protecting marriage "at all Sunday Masses from now until Easter 2005." In a memo dated January 17, the Cardinal also encourages priests to allow a couple to make a statement at the end of Mass about getting politically active on the issue.

In a separate letter to the faithful, the Cardinal pleads for action. "As your Archbishop, I would ask you to consider taking an active role to defend the traditional meaning of marriage," says the letter. Cardinal Ambrozic stresses that Catholics "have a duty to make our voices heard in the public realm," and to that end asks the faithful to begin "writing, e-mailing or faxing your Member of Parliament and sending a copy to the Prime Minister Paul Martin."

The Cardinal also asks for prayers for Parliamentarians since "They have a very serious decision to make, which will affect future generations."


[from the Focus on the Family website "" --Jan. 7, 2005:]
  Two marriage commissioners, one in Manitoba and the other in Saskatchewan, are defying their provincial governments by refusing orders to marry same-sex couples.
  "I've basically said no," Kevin Kisilowsky of Stonewall, Manitoba, told the Winnipeg Sun in late December. And despite an order from the province's Vital Statistics agency to resign if they cannot marry two homosexuals, Kisilowsky is also refusing to step down. He believes such an order violates his Charter rights, a claim he has backed up with a complaint to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.  
  In  Regina, marriage commissioner Orville Nichols insists that he too "definitely" will not resign. Nichols says that if a gay or lesbian couple ask him to marry them, he will decline, and if he is penalized for his actions, he will take the government to court. "It's my personal and religious belief it is not right," Nichols told the Leader-Post. "My definition of marriage is opposite - male and female - not two males and two females. That's why I oppose it."  [Click here for the rest of the article.]

Canadian Supreme Court Says 
Ottawa Can Institute Same-Sex "Marriage"

Dec. 9, 2004:  In a move expected by both those who feared and hoped for it, the Supreme Court of Canada today ruled 
that the Canadian Government can change the definition of marriage to include 
same-sex unions.
See the following sites for details:
CBC NewsCTV.caNational Post
Globe & Mail

"Critics say institution hijacked; 
gay marriage advocates see 'green light"

"Chronology of  events 
leading to Supreme Court 
of Canada's ruling"

International coverage of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision:

For details of the immediate background to this 
Supreme Court decision, go to the "Marriage" page of this website.  (Click on "Marriage" the column to the left.)

Canadians Deceived on Same-sex Marriage Issue

By C. Gwendolyn Landolt

National Vice President

REAL Women of Canada



Never have Canadians been more manipulated and deceived than on the issue of same-sex marriage.  Although the issue could permanently alter this nation, ordinary Canadians have, to date, not had any input on the question.  Instead, they have been led to believe that they must accept its inevitability because the courts have spoken.  Not true.


The fact is, that same-sex marriage has been contrived and pushed by only a very few individuals in Canada, both judicial and political, together with homosexual activists.


The story behind the push for same-sex marriage began, as it has become customary in recent years, in the courts.  This strategy was decided upon because the definition of marriage had been debated in Parliament in June 1999 and the traditional definition of marriage, as a union between a man and a woman, was upheld 216 – 55.  This decision was subsequently followed by two other pieces of federal legislation which affirmed this definition.


These political losses led homosexual strategists to steer clear of Parliament and to begin their efforts to achieve the agenda for same-sex marriage through the courts. Much of the funding for their court challenges on same-sex marriage was provided by the taxpayer, via federal Heritage Department through the Court Challenges Program. 


Canadian courts are the most powerful and political in the western world.  Despite the lack of public support, they have not been reluctant to use the vague wording of the Charter of Rights to make profound changes to the social fabric of this country.  Unfortunately, many of these court decisions have been based on the judges’ own perspective rather than on that of the public or even that of clearly established law. Supreme Court of Canada Judges Claire L’Heureux Dubé and Rosalie Abella, strong advocates of homosexual rights, have expressed their opinion both in their judgements and in public speeches, that the courts must take the lead on same-sex issues because of the failure of the political process to do so.


But appointed judges have no special understanding of the issue.  The reality is that judges are merely lawyers with political connections who are unaccountable in any way for their decisions.  Because of this, they believe themselves free to turn on its head, the-thousands-of-years-old understanding of the institution of marriage,which transcends all cultures and religions, and is universal to mankind, since it is basic to the stability and continuance of society. 


Moreover, the courts’ revolutionary interpretation of marriage has been based solely on the self- serving evidence of homosexual activists and on the affidavits of the homosexual litigants themselves.  Never have such crucial court decisions, which will so permanently alter this nation, been made by so few individuals (the judges) on such sparse and flimsy evidence.


The courts ignored the fact that same-sex partnerships are not and can never be functionally equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, since such unions cannot make the unique contribution to society of procreating the next generation.  Statistics Canada, among others, has found that opposite-sex marriage is the ideal environment for the rearing of children, since it provides children with both a mother and a father.  Children’s needs, not adult wishes, must have priority and these needs have been ignored.


On the political side, it was again only a handful of individuals who pushed for same-sex marriage.  Former Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, in a speech given last May to a US homosexual organization, which gave him an award for his pro-homosexual activism, admitted that only four individuals in Ottawa were instrumental in making this  political decision. Besides himself, Mr. Cauchon singled out Paul Genest, who was policy advisor to former Prime Minister Chretien, Alex Himelfarb, Clerk of the Privy Council, and the Deputy Minister of Justice, Morris Rosenberg.  Mr. Cauchon stated that, “the four of us have been a fantastic team that allowed the delivery of the draft bill on same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court.”


On June 17, 2003, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that he would not be appealing the Ontario provincial court’s decision.  Instead, he would seek a non-binding, advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada.  Mr. Chrétien chose this route, knowing that the Supreme Court’s opinion would weigh heavily on MPs when they voted on the issue.  In effect, the Supreme Court reference was another political manoeuvre by the government to pass the bill.


It is important to note that the decision handed down on December 9th, 2004 by the  Supreme Court on this reference stated only that it was constitutionally possible for the government to change the definition of marriage, but that the government is not required to do so.  The Liberal Government is now ploughing ahead with its proposed law to change the definition of marriage.  According to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, same-sex marriage is a “foundational equality right.”  Not true.  The court never stated that same-sex marriage was a human right; it merely said that the government may redefine marriage, not that it must do so.


The issue is now to go to Parliament.  However, this institution no longer serves as the voice of the electors because there is no such thing as a  “free vote” in Parliament.  In order to pass the bill, Prime Minister Paul Martin has announced that all 39 Cabinet ministers must vote for the bill. This means that voters in their ridings will be disenfranchised on the most crucial question of this generation.  Moreover, we know that the Liberal leader will exert intense pressure on his backbenchers to support the bill.  He has many weapons to do so.   Few Liberal MPs will dare resist this pressure:  certainly the Liberal MPs who want a career in the party will toe the line.  So, this leaves even more voters without a voice. This is not democracy.  A vote on same-sex marriage in Parliament, under these circumstances, lacks legitimacy. 


The electors must be allowed to express their opinion on same-sex marriage.  The Referendum Act (1992) provides that the government may “obtain by means of a referendum the opinion of electors on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada.”  (The constitution makes reference to marriage.)  Mr. Martin has stated that he will not hold a referendum.  Is he afraid of the opinion of ordinary Canadians? 



December 14, 2004


Fight over Homosexual Marriage Heats Up in Canada
[from Culture & Cosmos, December 14, 2004, Volume 2, Number 19]
     A group of prominent Canadians have announced the formation of
formal effort to amend the Canadian constitution to protect traditional
marriage. The announcement came on December 8, one day before the
Canadian Supreme Court ruled that "same-sex marriage" would be
constitutional. The creation of Enshrine Marriage Canada (EMC), coming
immediately before the court's decision, is a clear signal that a vote
in Canada's Parliament to nationalize gay "marriage" promises to be
vigorous battle.

     Describing themselves as a "secular organization with a single
objective: to coordinate a national campaign to enshrine the traditional
legal definition of marriage in the Canadian Constitution," EMC is
guided by a five-member steering committee that includes prominent
scholars and journalists. McGill University professor Douglas Farrow
said EMC's formation was not spontaneous or haphazard. "This has been
evolving for the last several years. It really grew out of the context
of conversations that have been taking place in the last three years. It
wasn't just conversation about same-sex marriage but also about
democracy and culture."

     Canada's marriage crisis began in 2001 when a homosexual couple
sued in the Province of Ontario for the right to marry. Judges from
every level of Ontario's courts ruled in favor of the homosexuals.
Canada's high court was then asked to determine if homosexual "marriage"
was constitutional. That ruling favoring same sex "marriage" was
delivered December 9. The decision paves the way for Canadian Parliament
to vote early next year on proposed legislation that would make gay
"marriage" the law of all 10 of Canada's provinces and its three
territories. Gay "marriage" is currently allowed in six provinces and
one territory.

     Farrow said the EMC committee members are diverse in their politics
and moral beliefs. "Not all of us consider ourselves social
conservative," he said. But there is one common denominator that unites
them. "We all agree that same-sex marriage is bad for children." Farrow
says the greatest threat posed by homosexual "marriage" is that it
changes the fundamental nature of the institution. "Marriage is the only
institution we have that, as traditionally understood and defined,
embodies the child's natural right -- recognized by the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child -- to know and be cared for by its own natural
parents. . . . As soon as you redefine marriage as the union of two
persons you define procreation right out of marriage."

     Amending the Canadian Constitution requires that both the House of
Commons and the Senate pass the proposed amendment by a majority. The
legislatures of seven of Canada's provinces must then ratify the
proposed amendment, also by simple majority. The total population of the
seven provinces must make up at least half of Canada's total population.
EMC hopes to have a Web site providing more information on their
campaign to amend the constitution by early next week. The site's
address will be,
 Copyright, 2004 --- Culture of Life Foundation. Permission granted for
unlimited use. Credit required.

Immediate Background to the Canadian Supreme Court's Decision on Same-Sex "Marriage:"
  Canadian Justice Minister says Same-Sex "Marriage" could be Federal Law by January.
Supreme Court and government in obvious rush to fast-track law change

OTTAWA, December 7, 2004 ( - Canadian federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said he would introduce same-sex "marriage" legislation "as soon as possible," when parliament resumes in the new year -- anticipating the fast-tracked Supreme Court ruling this Thursday will favour the government proposal.

"It is my intention to put it before the House as soon as we return in January," he said, in comments made to the Toronto Star Tuesday. "I want to move quickly, that's what I'm saying, and January is when I would move, as quickly as possible."

"We believe that the legislation will be sustained in the advisory opinion by the court," Cotler said, pointing to the activist court judgments in six provinces and one territory that have already made same-sex "marriage" legal. "So we are proceeding on that basis."

Cotler said he would emphasize the new bill as a priority for the house when parliament resumes: "I'm interposing it as a priority . . . As soon as we come back, as soon as it's reasonably possible when we return, I would put it in" the legislature, he said.

Parliament and most others had anticipated the decision would come down in March 2005, after the usual six-month period of deliberation the Supreme Court takes on major decisions. This Thursday's date has caught many off guard. The Star said that Cotler originally planned to table the bill next September.

Cotler said Liberal MPs would be allowed a free vote on the issue. However, analysts say that most, if not all members of the Liberal cabinet are expected to be under the usual intense pressure to vote in favour of government legislation, regardless of consciences. Bloc and NDP MPs are also expected to support the move.

See also:
Feds will move quickly on same-sex law: Cotler"
[from updated Dec. 8, 2004]
" News Staff
"Anticipating a Supreme Court ruling endorsing his government's proposed legislation on same-sex marriage, the federal justice minister says he will move quickly to change the law."  [Click to read the whole article. ]

Canada:  Committee Rejects Appeal to Allow Voting on Marriage Definition Bill

OTTAWA, November 25, 2004 ( - Conservative MP Rob Moore's appeal to the House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs committee to have his private member's bill confirming the traditional definition of marriage deemed votable, was rejected today. has learned that Moore has one possibility to appeal still open to him. He may appeal to the full House of Commons to deem his bill votable.

Since a parliamentary procedural amendment two years ago which was to make almost all private members' bills votable, only three bills have been deemed non-votable. All three were private members bills supporting the traditional definition of marriage put forward by Conservative MPs. (Grant Hill, Jim Pankiw and now Rob Moore)

If Moore chooses to proceed with the final appeal, a secret ballot vote by all members will determine the votability of his private members' bill.

Should Moore decide to proceed, Campaign Life Coalition and other supportive groups will be encouraging all Canadians who value democratic process to immediately contact their Members of Parliament and urge them to vote in favour of democracy and allow a vote on the bill.

Comment from website of Canada Family Action Coalition:
Bill C268 rejected again by Liberal, ND and Bloc

Once again the Liberal, ND, and Bloc denied a democratic process on Bill C 268 to allow Parliament to debate and vote on the definition of marriage.

It would appear the Liberals will do everything they can to deny Canadians an opportunity to have a democratic and parliamentary say about marriage. It would seem that since the Liberals are in a minority position they will manipulate government so it cannot function as it ought.

One has to wonder how the Procedures Committee could rule that a Bill from a private member which would be debated and voted upon was " unconstitutional". If that is so, then HOW can the ruling of one judge, in one case, in one province be "CONSTITUTIONAL".  [Click here to read the whole article on the CFAC website.]


U.S. Voters on November 2nd, 2004, Voted on Marriage as Well as for Representatives

The attention of the media naturally focused on the matter of whom  voters will be electing, but Tuesday, November 2nd,  saw voters also registering their views on how marriage will be defined.  They did this not merely by their choice of candidates, but in many states by voting on amendments to state consititutions.  Their verdict is indicated in the article "Gay Marriage Banned," dated November 3rd, as carried by the Boston Herald.  An excerpt from this article follows immediately below.

"Gay Marriage Banned in 11-for-11 state sweep"
By Associated Press
Wednesday, November 3, 2004  

n a resounding, coast-to-coast rejection of gay marriage, voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments yesterday limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon - the one state where gay-rights activists hoped to prevail. The bans won by a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky and Georgia, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and6-to-1 in Mississippi.

``This issue does not deeply divide America,'' said conservative activist Gary Bauer. ``The country overwhelmingly rejects same-sex marriage, and our hope is that both politicians and activist judges will read these results and take them to heart.''
[Click here to go to the Boston Herald online article.]

More information, courtesy of Mission America:
Marriage Initiatives Win in All Eleven States

The issue of maintaining marrriage as an institution for one man and one
woman was resoundingly approved by voters in every state where the
quesiton was on the ballot.

The issues passed by the following percentages, as of 11:00 am,
11-3-04, according to Fox News:

Georgia --77%
North Dakota--73%

Bishops Warn Supreme Court of Threat to Religious Freedom if Marriage is Redefined

Warn "the state would require all Canadians to treat homosexual sexual conduct as a good"

OTTAWA, October 5, 2004 ( - The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) will argue before the Supreme Court of Canada in hearings beginning October 6 that the government's draft bill which redefines marriage "implicates moral and hence religious values in a way that infringes freedom of conscience and religion." 

At the heart of the demand for same-sex marriage, the CCCB argues, is a demand for respect and moral approval of the underlying sexual relationship, a demand that could only be met by many Canadians through abrogation of their religious beliefs.

The CCCB has been granted intervener status before the Supreme Court as the justices respond to a request from the federal government on the constitutionality of its proposed legislation.  In its submission the Episcopal Conference also argues that the traditional definition of marriage is constitutional while the proposed legislation by the federal government to include same-sex partners in the definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

In some of the strongest language used by the Canadian Bishops to date, the CCCB states that under the new legislation "the state would require all Canadians to treat homosexual sexual conduct as a good."  The Bishops warn that "if established, this norm would provide formal legitimacy to the proposition, which is already being advanced by some, that all those who believe and publicly espouse the view that homosexual sexual conduct is immoral are anti-gay, homophobic, intolerant and equivalent to racists."

The CCCB will be represented by Ottawa lawyer William J. Sammon, who has pleaded before the Supreme Court of Canada on previous occasions for the Episcopal Conference.

See the full factum online at: 

Canada's Yukon Territory Forced to Legalize Homosexual Marriage by Judicial Fiat

WHITEHORSE, July 15, 2004 ( - The Yukon Supreme Court told a homosexual couple Wednesday that their "marriage," planned for the weekend, is legal.

Justice Peter McIntyre ordered the territory to change its legal definition of marriage to say, "The voluntary union for life of two persons, to the exclusion of all others," calling the old definition "discriminatory."

The Yukon government subsequently issued a marriage license to Stephen Dunbar and Rob Edge. The Yukon government was also ordered to pay costs for the legal proceedings.

Dunbar decided to sue both the Yukon and federal governments in February, after being denied a marriage license from Yukon authorities. Dunbar and Edge argued the Yukon was "stalling," when the government said it did not have the authority to grant the licenses until the Canadian Supreme Court had made a decision in the matter, expected later this year.

Yukon now becomes the fourth Canadian jurisdiction to allow homosexual "marriage," after Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec.

The following opinion piece was written before the 2004 Canadian federal election.  But it is still very relevant.  It is written from the point of view of a Christian pastor.  Our thanks to the Rev. Royal Hamel for this essay.



In the spiritual and moral war engulfing the West, same sex marriage opened up a new front and became the pivotal issue in Canada in the summer of 2003.  And Dr. James Dobson says, “If we lose this battle, the culture war is over”. However, even though courts have approved such “marriage” in three provinces, parliament has not yet redefined marriage.  Therefore, the good news is that this moral battle is not over in Canada. There is yet time for leadership to emerge from the churches, and if it does the struggle to save traditional marriage may yet be won.


Clergy often have the notion that Christians should stay out of politics.  But, what happens when government invades issues of morality and Christian doctrine? Do Christian leaders really believe they have a mandate from God to say, “Yes I know that the government is promoting same-sex “marriage” as a societal norm, but I really don’t have the right to speak about doctrinal issues once they become a political issue.  Surely no Christian leader would say this?


Or would they?


Shouldn’t the minister say something like this, “ Well I know that the government thinks this is a political issue, but long before it was political it was and is a moral concern. And I have no business backing away from a moral issue simply because the government claims it is “political”. Shouldn’t ministers above all, inform themselves and then lead and guide the flock so they can be salt and light in society? If ministers did no more than encourage their people to be good citizens and to vote only for those who uphold Christian values, they could do an enormous amount of good. In fact if enough ministers were to boldly contend for biblical truth, I believe we could save marriage for our children and grandchildren.


Traditional marriage is very much under attack in Canada. On Sept. 16, 2003 parliament defeated a Canadian Alliance motion that affirmed traditional marriage. The Liberals with their majority defeated the motion by 137 to 132.  Furthermore it is well known that if the Liberals win the election they will introduce legislation to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

A small, but highly influential minority in our society, aided and abetted by government, is counting on clergy not to intervene. In fact, they hope ministers are silent and even absent from this debate. I pray to God they will be proven wrong.  For a passive posture, muted out of a misguided notion that it is ‘unloving’ to speak truth will play into the hands of those who are redefining marriage. May it never be, that a hushed, passive, confused and timid clergy would assent to the death of marriage in this country

In the recently released movie, “TROY”, Achilles has a falling out with the king leading the war against Troy. Achilles puts up his sword and cools his heels in camp with a lovely young thing while the war proceeds. Subsequently, in a huge battle thousands of Spartans die because Achilles refused to fight. It is lamentable that thousands of decent, morally informed pastors are cooling their heels in the midst of spiritual and cultural warfare. By refusing to lift our voice we acquiesce and collaborate with the moral and spiritual decline of our society.


Just recently I questioned a pastor about how Christians might take a stand on gay “marriage”.  His answer quite shocked me. For he responded by saying that the cost of speaking in the public arena was to open oneself up to ridicule and defamation.  What a surprise!


When has it ever been any different for those who defend moral principles? Are clergy especially exempt from the ridicule of the secularist, atheist and agnostic? Will not all those who faithfully defend truth experience some persecution because they courageously, and unashamedly choose to carry their cross? I challenge ministers and priests everywhere to embrace the fact that in the war for truth and morality there will undoubtedly be wounds and scars for all who enter the fray. Jesus certainly had his, and he promised that all who desire to live godly lives in Christ would get theirs.


Of course laymen too, from all walks of life should be involved in this struggle to save marriage. But those who are spiritual leaders have a special role to play. Leaders must lead; this battle is already lost if they merely watch from the sidelines.


The Church of Jesus Christ in an age of moral decline cannot afford the luxury of a muted clergy. We desperately need robust-for-truth soldiers of God in all the pulpits of the land.  We need them now. We need them engaged during this present election.


Stalwart clergy, leaders of courage and conviction can still save traditional marriage in Canada.


Rev. Royal Hamel


From the CBC website:
"Perform same-sex marriages or resign, B.C. tells commissioners"

"Last Updated Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:07:51"
"VANCOUVER - British Columbia has ordered the province's marriage commissioners to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or resign. . . . .

"The B.C. Vital Statistics Agency, which appoints the commissioners who perform civil marriage ceremonies, sent out a letter in January ordering those "who feel they cannot solemnize same-sex marriages" to "resign their appointments" effective March 31. . . . 

"B.C. Conservative MP Paul Forseth said the letter indicated the province had decided to 'jump the gun and actively promote same-sex marriage as a matter of government operational policy.'

"He added that it was unfair to change a commissioner's employment conditions midway through his or her tenure. . . . "

[Click here for full CBC article.]

Press release from the Unity Party of British Columbia:
Vancouver - In a reversal of the BC Liberal's earlier position that "the BC Government's position on the issue of same sex marriage in BC is that it has no position", the provincial government is now forcing marriage commissioners to perform the service against their will, even if they disagree in good conscience, says Chris Delaney, Leader of the BC Unity Party.

Delaney says the government has moved from a supposedly neutral position on the issue, to one that imposes their beliefs onto people who do not share that view. The result is that marriage commissioners who do not comply with their edict will be fired.

"The issue of same sex marriage has not yet been settled, either politically or even legally in Canada," said Delaney. "The Martin government is appealing the recent benefits ruling for same sex couples, and has indicated it will review the whole concept of same sex marriage, perhaps replacing it with civil unions or another alternative."

"This action by the provincial government is heavy handed, and disrespectful of the freedom of conscience of others, not to mention a betrayal of their earlier position to 'take no position', as ludicrous as that may sound."

In the United States:
President George W. Bush on Marriage and Abstinence in January 20th State-of-the-Union Address
President Bush in his State-of-the-Union Address touched on the issues of abstinence education and marriage.  Here are the relevant quotes:

"To encourage right choices, we must be willing to confront the dangers young people face -- even when they are difficult to talk about. Each year, about three million teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases that can harm them, or kill them, or prevent them from ever becoming parents.  In my budget, I propose a grassroots campaign to help inform families about these medical risks.  We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.  Decisions children now make can affect their health and character for the rest of their lives.  All of us -- parents, and schools, and government -- must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children.

"A strong America must also value the institution   of marriage.  I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton.  That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.  Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives.  On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard.  If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.  Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

"The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it.  The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight."



We have received the following suggested letter to Premier Campbell of British Columbia on the defence of the 
traditional definition of marriage
.  Readers may wish to draw from the content of this letter in order to send their own letters.  Information for contacting Premier Campbell
 follows the letter:



Dear Premier Campbell,

            The recent decision of the Federal Government to re-define marriage represents a repudiation both of its own promise to the people of Canada to defend traditional marriage and of the voice of parliament, which has overwhelmingly and continually reaffirmed the common- law definition of marriage. Instead, the Federal Government chooses to bypass democratic process and to succumb to ideological judicial whim which would have us believe that the current definition of marriage violates the equality rights of same-sex couples.

The arguments put forth by the courts are specious, to say the least. Marriage, defined as the union of one man and one woman, remains the only relationship which, of its nature, can provide the fundamental basis and stability of society and society’s survival. This relationship is unique among all other kinds of relationships and this uniqueness merits special recognition by the state. The legislation proposed by the Government of Canada would destroy this uniqueness and would thereby undermine the very foundation of the state. Moreover, as has been readily admitted by the Government, the proposed legislation poses a real threat to religious freedom in Canada . How is it that religious freedom, guaranteed as a fundamental freedom in the Charter, must now be “protected” by legislation? And what guarantee is there that such legislation might not be changed by parliament or court or deemed unconstitutional in future court decisions?

            In the light of these points, we strongly urge you, Mr. Premier, to act to protect the fundamental basis of our society and democracy and fundamental freedoms in Canada . We urge you to join with your courageous colleague in Alberta , Mr. Klein, in announcing your intention to uphold the common law definition of marriage in B.C. and, if necessary, to invoke the “notwithstanding clause” as set out in Section 33 of the Charter.



Contact information:

E-mail: or
Web site:

Room 156
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4

Phone: 250 387-1715

Fax: 250 387-0087

3615 West 4th Avenue
Vancouver, BC
V6R 1P2

Phone: 604 660-3202

Fax: 604 660-5488

  Canadian Alliance Motion Supporting Traditional Marriage is Defeated
From CBC online ("Last Updated Wed, 17 Sep 2003 0:02:03"):
OTTAWA - The Canadian Alliance's motion asking MPs to reaffirm the heterosexual definition of marriage was defeated by a vote of 137 to 132 Tuesday night.
. . . .
Earlier in the day, Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper said the motion was not about human rights, arguing that rights to civil unions had already been extended to gays and lesbians.
"It is about democracy," he told the House. "It is about the right of the people to make social value judgments and, more specifically, the right of judgments to be made by the representatives of the people rather than by the judges appointed by the government."

"Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition," said Harper, quoting a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the issue.

Harper said allowing the courts to change the definition of marriage is "wrong in law, universally insulting, dangerous as far as rights are concerned."
[For the full article, go to CBC online.


Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper's Speech on Marriage

[British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life does not endorse any political party, but as we have done previously with statements by political leaders, we present the following speech because we believe that it contains important statements which deserve to be noted.

Our publishing it does not mean that we endorse any particular statement within the speech.]

Protecting the Traditional Definition of Marriage in Canada

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

It is a pleasure for me to rise today to debate this motion on preserving the traditional definition of marriage in Canada.

Let me begin by recognizing that this is an emotional debate. It is one where views are strongly held, so we should be clear about what this debate is, and about what it is not.

It is not about human rights. The rights and privileges of marriage have been extended in law across this country to gays and lesbians and to non-traditional relationships of various kinds already. That is not in contention here.

Also not in contention is the recognition of non-traditional relationships. Civil unions for gays and others exist in law at the provincial level. There is jurisdiction for this at the provincial level. Those arrangements are not challenged by any substantive body of opinion in the House.

This motion is about marriage and preserving in law an institution that is essential in fact.

It is about democracy.

It is about the right of the people to make social value judgments, and more specifically, the right of judgments to be made by the representatives of the people rather than by the judges appointed by the Government.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, it is about honesty and political integrity; about a Government that ran on one position and that is now doing another, but disgracefully doing it in a way that avoids parliamentary consent and public debate.

Let me begin my comments with a quotation that summarizes my views.

...marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of longstanding philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.  [Italics supplied by BC Parents and Teachers for Life website editor]

That quotation comes from former Justice Gerard La Forest of the Supreme Court of Canada, and I will comment on his quotation and his position a little later.

The question we should ask in this debate is whether this institution ought to be redefined in law. We on this side of the House say “No.” But if the answer were to be “Yes,” those who believe traditional marriage should be abolished should be responsible, and argue democratically and openly that it is desirable and socially necessary to do so.

However, opponents of traditional marriage have refused to do that. Instead they have gone to the courts to contort this into a human rights issue.

They have chosen to make change without social consensus, and in doing so they have articulated a position which I believe is wrong in law, universally insulting, and very dangerous as far as real rights are concerned. And, of course, they have done all of this in a highly undemocratic manner.

First, this is wrong in law. Regarding sexual orientation, or more accurately, sexual behaviour, proponents of same sex marriage have argued that this is analogous to race and ethnicity. This position was not part of the Charter of Rights when it was passed by Parliament in 1982. It was omitted, not by accident or oversight. It was omitted deliberately and explicitly by all sides of the House of Commons.

Sexual orientation was later read-in to the Charter. The courts, in effect, amended the constitution, and amending the constitution is not a power for the courts. At some point, the House is going to have to declare where its powers begin and where those of the courts end.

However, even if we accept sexual orientation being read-in to the Charter, that does not automatically mean that traditional marriage should be deemed illegal and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada itself, when it has been asked to address this question, has defended the traditional definition of marriage. I read from Justice La Forest’s judgment in the Egan decision of 1995. This is one reason why the Government has been eager to hear from all sorts of courts, except the Supreme Court. It has been anxious not to hear from the Supreme Court of Canada because it doubts the Supreme Court of Canada would actually agree with it on its position on same sex marriage.

The Government is seriously wrong in its estimate of the law. It has declared marriage unconstitutional, and in our view that is very insulting. Would the Supreme Court of Canada, which is under increasing public scrutiny, really want to rule that the traditional marriage arrangements of millions of Canadians constitute some kind of act of discrimination?

That is now the position of the Minister of Justice. He tells us it is terrible discrimination to think that being married is different. The member for Vancouver Centre, herself a former multiculturalism minister, stated this summer that traditional marriage is like denying public services based on race – that it is something akin to race-based washrooms, or golf clubs that exclude members of certain ethnic groups.

That is a long way from what the then-justice minister was telling the House in 1999 when we first brought forward this motion. Four years ago, the then-justice minister, now the Health Minister, said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide.

She went on to say that the Government would never consider making marriage into a same sex institution.

This view, that being for traditional marriage is analogous to some kind of racist or ethnocentric agenda, unfortunately for the Liberals, is not just a slur against their political opponents. It is also an attack on the traditional beliefs of every single culture and faith that has come to this country.

Whether we came from Britain, France, Europe, China, India, Asia or Africa, all of us came here to build a future that would respect the values and traditions of our ancestors and build a future for our children and families. One of those was our traditional institution of marriage. For the Liberals or anyone in the Liberal Party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting.

Our society has come, over the decades in my lifetime, to respect and recognize in law the choices of consenting adults. It is time that traditional institutions like marriage be equally recognized and respected.

The Liberal position is also very dangerous, because no matter what they say today, the kind of mentality that would have traditional marriage declared illegal and unconstitutional will inevitably endanger actual rights that are indeed enshrined in our constitution – not merely read-in – such as freedom of religion.

The Liberals say today that they will not touch the ability of churches, temples, mosques and synagogues to determine their own definition of marriage. But I remind you that these are the same people who said, in the last election, that they would never consider touching the definition of marriage itself.

I ask the members of the Liberal Party who agree with us in principle to think very carefully about this. If the Liberals now say that the traditional definition of marriage is illegal, immoral, discriminatory and racist, why will they ever tolerate those who, through their religious institutions, believe otherwise?

Bill C-250 is also before this House. It is, in our view, just another step down this course of criminalizing opinions on this subject that are simply not accepted by the Liberal left.

Finally, I say that the Liberal plan for same sex marriage is highly undemocratic. In 1999, the same motion, except for one word of difference, was passed by this House and supported by the Liberal Party. It was supported by the Prime Minister. It was supported by the incoming Prime Minister. It was drafted in co-operation with the then-justice minister, now the Health Minister.

The motion said that the Government should protect marriage and should use all necessary means. It did not say that it would use the notwithstanding clause as the first line of attack. It did not try to obliterate the Charter. It never said any such thing. The Prime Minister is trying to claim this now. He did not try to claim that in 1999 when the same motion was being passed.

How can it be a trap now, if it was not some kind of a trap then? Because we are now facing an election campaign where the Liberal Party must face its own conservative supporters who no longer recognize their party’s view of marriage.

However, nothing relevant to this motion has changed in the past four years. Public opinion on this motion is just as divided. If anything, the public is slightly more in favour of traditional marriage than it was then, but opinion remains deeply divided. Lower courts are ruling just as they were then. The bias of those courts was becoming apparent four years ago and that was mentioned in the motion. It is precisely why the House of Commons passed that motion.

This motion says that the Government should do what is necessary. The Government did not do what is necessary. The Government did nothing to protect traditional marriage.

In fact, the Government did everything it could do to overturn traditional marriage. It did not introduce a statute law to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, the Government let the courts overturn a series of common law rulings.

When the government faced the courts, it had an unblemished string of losses ending when Justice McMurtry and the Ontario Court of Appeal decided to unilaterally and instantaneously change the common law definition of marriage.

Then, the Government decided not to appeal that Ontario Court of Appeal decision. And it went further. It is now in the courts trying to block anyone else from appealing that decision.

Now the Government does not want a vote on this issue until after the next election. It does not want Parliament to look at this in the life of this Parliament. It wants the Supreme Court of Canada to approve its legislation. But it does not ask the Supreme Court of Canada whether the traditional definition of marriage would be legal and constitutional. It does not even bother to ask.

Then, when it eventually lets Parliament vote on its legislation at some point in the future, our vote will mean nothing. That vote will give members of Parliament a choice: pass a law that reflects what the courts have already done or do not pass that law and accept what the courts have already done. That is absolutely no choice whatsoever.

I have been accused of compiling some kind of conspiracy theory against the Government when I set out these facts. The Government is not involved in conspiracy. It is involved in dishonesty. It would be hard to be more openly and transparently dishonest than this Government has been on this question.

And where, I wonder, is the incoming Prime Minister on this issue?

Where is Mr. Democratic Deficit? His position is that whatever the courts say is fine with him. So much for elected people! But why should we be surprised by his position? He has no particular problem with the scandals in his Government. He never had a problem writing cheques for their boondoggles.

It would be difficult for the Government to be more dishonest than it is being. This House has already adopted our motion. In fact, it was the House's last word on marriage. People on all sides, particularly the Liberals, campaigned hard on this issue. In some more conservative ridings they were elected on it.

Today’s motion is a chance for the House, for the Liberals in particular, to come clean and to do what we have done.

We are a conservative party. We support traditional marriage. We voted for it. We believed in it. We ran on it and we meant it.

Now, we call on the Liberal Party to do the same thing.

We obviously need the votes of Liberals to pass this motion. It tells the Government to take a different course of action. But if it does not pass today, it will tell the people of Canada that they need a different government.

[The source for the above speech was the Canadian Alliance website at: ]


New York Times:  Many homosexuals don't believe in marriage

Canadian homosexuals haven't rushed to the altar largely because many of them don't believe in marriage, The New York Times reported Sunday. "  [quoted in Christianity Today article online for the week of Sept. 1, 2003]  

Another Example of Homosexuality Activists' Showing Contempt for Free Speech?

"The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement is asking David Blunkett, the home secretary, to bar [Archbishop of Nigeria Peter] Akinola from entering Britain in October on the grounds that he might incite hatred of gay people."  [quoted in Christianity Today article online for the week of Sept. 1, 2003]  A longer excerpt from the Christianity Today article referred to is given immediately below:

Excerpt from Christianity Today:

The Times [of London] story ends with a harrowing side-note: "The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement is asking David Blunkett, the home secretary, to bar [Archbishop of Nigeria Peter] Akinola from entering Britain in October on the grounds that he might incite hatred of gay people." Um, isn't it Akinola who has more to fear from the visit?

NYT: Many homosexuals don't believe in marriage

Canadian homosexuals haven't rushed to the altar largely because many of them don't believe in marriage, The New York Times reported Sunday. "I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever," said Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Toronto gay magazine Fab. "We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play."

David Andrew agrees. "Personally, I saw marriage as a dumbing down of gay relationships," he said. "My dread is that soon you will have a complacent bloc of gay and lesbian soccer moms."

At issue, isn't really marriage, it's monogamy. "I can already hear folks saying things like: 'Why are bathhouses needed? Straights don't have them,'" University of Toronto sociologist Rinaldo Walcott wrote in Fab. "Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?"

"First of all, it's not 'something called cheating,' it's cheating, pure and simple." responds National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg. "What such cutely ironic post-modern quips reveal is that many in the gay community don't really mean it when they say they want access to the institution of marriage. … If the activists think marriage can still be something called marriage, after the folks at Fab magazine rewrite all the rules, then they are the ones who just don't get it."

"B.C. Court of Appeal Orders Immediate Same-Sex Marriage"

VANCOUVER, July 8, 2003 ( - The B.C. Court of Appeal has ruled that the province must force through same-sex marriages immediately, not wait until next year as a previous ruling provided.

"The reformulation of the common law definition of marriage as 'the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others' will take immediate effect," the ruling declared yesterday. In an earlier decision, the Court rewrote the definition but also suspended the requirement for implementation until July 12, 2004. The delay has now been quashed.

Related Globe and Mail coverage

Related LifeSite coverage



Judicial Activism by BC Court of Appeal

[A Statement by REAL Women of Canada]


Ottawa, Canada Wednesday, July 9, 2003



REAL Women is concerned about judicial activism as evidenced by the decision of the BC Court of Appeal to consent to the demands of gay activists to allow its decision in support of same-sex marriage to have immediate effect. The court in its initial decision of May 1, 2003 had suspended it until July 2004 to provide Parliament the opportunity to determine a political solution to the problem.

The BC court's decision yesterday, therefore, is yet another example of judicial activism currently taking place in Canada, whereby the important moral political and cultural values affecting the lives of Canadians are steadily being removed from democratic control by the judiciary.

The decision of the BC Court is also unacceptable because of the pending Leave to Appeal application by the Association for Marriage and the Family before the Supreme Court of Canada and for a Stay of the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario decision was relied on by the BC court which claimed that the BC and Ontario laws were being unequally applied. In fact, because of judicial activism, the law on marriage is being applied unequally all across the country.

The BC court, in ordering its judgement to have immediate effect, therefore, was acting both precipitously and presumptuously.

The intrusion into social policy matters by the courts has become a serious concern as it is undermining the credibility of our entire judicial system.

REAL Women's National President, Lorraine McNamara, stated, \"Canadians do not have a strong tradition of judicial criticism, but the action of the BC Court of Appeal reveals with fresh clarity how, in the interests of democracy, judicial activism must be reigned in."

- 30 -


For further information contact:


C. Gwendolyn Landolt, National Vice President

(905) 731-5425, (905) 787-0348



"Don't kiss off marriage"

Globe and Mail Update

Statement on the Status of Marriage in Canada

18 June 2003


Over the past year four Canadian courts have ruled that marriage, recognized under the common law as "the union of one man and one woman," is inconsistent with constitutional values in modern Canadian society and offends the equality rights of homosexuals under section 15 of the Charter. These courts have determined that the existing legal framework for marriage is too narrowly defined and does not offer equitable treatment for non-traditional unions.

Two of the courts acknowledged the unique role of Parliament in formulating a proper response to this question. They gave the federal and provincial legislatures until July 2004 to rectify this situation. On June 10, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal acted unilaterally. It pre-empted further discussion by Parliament by striking down the common law definition of marriage and reformulating it as "the voluntary union for life of two persons." The court ordered that this remedy take effect immediately.

In reaching its decision the Ontario Court of Appeal does three noteworthy things. First, it imposes a new and disputed ideology of "close relationships" upon marriage. On this view marriage (for legal purposes) is reduced to the public recognition of committed relationships between two adults. This theory bleaches out the significance of sexual difference and dismisses any "rational connection" between marriage, gender complementarity, procreation, and the rearing of children by their biological parents. It renders a very pale concept of marriage with a doubtful claim on the public interest.

Second, the Ontario Court adopts a strategy which effectively disallows any attempt to defend the traditional, more robust view of marriage from the charge that it is unacceptably discriminatory. It takes up the subjectivist notion of human dignity which has recently been advanced in Canadian courts - viz., that "dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth" - and insists that "the impugned law must at all times be viewed from the perspective of the claimant." According to this formula, the law of marriage must be reconfigured to the experience of same-sex couples. "The question to be asked is whether the law takes into account the actual needs, capacities and circumstances of same-sex couples, not whether the law takes into account the needs, capacities and circumstances of opposite-sex couples." This establishes a circular form of reasoning which no arguments in favour of the existing definition of marriage can hope to penetrate.

Third, and uniquely, it insists that "the courts have jurisdiction to alter the common law definition of marriage" without reference to Parliament. While allowing that the common law did not invent, but only recognized, marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it nonetheless claims the power to re-invent marriage as the union of two persons - contrary to the expressed will of the people of Canada through their parliamentary representatives as recently as 1999.

This decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal has been heralded by some as bringing the whole debate about marriage in Canada - a debate still in its infancy - to a fitting conclusion. By others it has been denounced as an especially egregious example of judicial activism. In our view it only serves to underscore the conclusion of earlier judgments, namely, that Parliament, not the courts, is the place to forge an appropriate legislative response to the complex and multi-layered issues surrounding the public definition of marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions. Given the very grave significance of this public debate for three vital institutions in our nation - the family, the judiciary, and Parliament - a great deal more serious deliberation and democratic input is required.

I. Proposals for Respecting Marriage

The institution of marriage has a long history of development and adaptation. So too, of course, does our society. We recognize that there is a need now, for a wide variety of reasons, to re-think our society's approach to marriage. We also recognize that there is a need to provide new legal frameworks for various forms of adult inter-dependent relationships. However, we maintain that marriage as the common law has long recognized it - as "the voluntary and lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" - is something distinct from other forms of human relationships. We do not accept that this time-honoured institution, which continues to provide the vital core of family life in Canada, can justly be impugned as discriminatory. We therefore make the following proposals:

a) Parliament should assert its right, by whatever means necessary, to determine the ways in which marriage is to be recognized in Canadian public life, and to forge patiently a comprehensive legislative response to the complexities of the current situation.

b) Canadian law should continue to embody the conviction that marriage, as an opposite-sex union which is commonly aimed both at mutual support and at the procreation and rearing of children, is the principal social basis upon which our society seeks to ensure its vitality, stability, and perpetuation.

c) Legislative changes made in order to facilitate the recognition of other forms of adult relationships involving cohabitation and mutual support should be made under appropriate titles that do not negate the recognition of marriage as the union of two persons of opposite sex.

II. Why Preserve the Existing Definition of Marriage?

Marriage is a unique cultural institution that affirms and supports a distinct social ecology in human culture: the bridging of the gender gap; the generation of life through the fusion of the sexes; the birth-right of children to know, to be connected to, and to be in stable relationship with, their natural parents.

Marriage pre-exists European colonization and reaches back into Canada's aboriginal traditions. It is also a pillar of the Judeo-Christian traditions that have helped to shape Canadian life. In the recent parliamentary hearings aboriginal, Muslim and other cultural or religious groups in our diverse society have urged parliamentarians to resist proposals to abolish (by over-extension) the legal recognition of this distinctive human institution so vital to Canadian culture and history.

Without implying that there is one comprehensive understanding of marriage to which everyone ought to give full assent, nevertheless there are core elements, purposes, and aspirations of marriage that have won wide approval and deserve to be handed on from one generation to the next:

Marriage is based on the free consent of one man and one woman to join as husband and wife in a union of life together.

Marriage is truest to its nature when monogamous and faithful.

Marriage serves the vast and complex social-sexual ecology of male-female bonding (99.5% of all couples in Canada are heterosexual).

Marriage serves the procreativity of male/female bonding; conjugal union between a man and a woman is the only social union that can be a reproductive union.

Marriage, as an institution, has a child-centred dimension; it directs mothers and fathers to the care and support of their children.

Marriage establishes the norm that children have a prima facie right and a need to know, to be connected to, and to be raised by their own mother and father, unless exceptional adverse circumstances dictate otherwise.

Marriage is generational and genealogical; it binds together the past and the future.

Marriage pre-exists the state and religion; while it is appropriately recognized, regulated and affirmed by the state and religions, nevertheless, it is not created or determined by the state or religions.

While marriage has a unique and indispensable place in human existence, nevertheless it is neither necessary nor good that every human person should enter into this particular form of social union. All of the above can be affirmed without prejudice to the fact that there are other forms of personal relationships that have their own distinct dignity and purpose.

III. The Perils of the Current Remedy

By a narrow and disputed vote of the Commons justice committee, our federal government has been urged to capitulate to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and now appears to be in the process of doing so. While we applaud the government's decision to put the impending legislation to a free vote in the House, we urge it to recognize the danger in taking the country down the path marked out by the Court, in the face of so many unresolved questions and in the absence of anything like a consensus. We recognize that there is a need to address patterns of unjust discrimination, wherever they occur, against persons of homosexual orientation. But we ask our parliamentarians to consider closely the many good reasons for objecting to the Court's remedy, among which are the following:

This remedy is not in continuity with the history, tradition, and values of Canadian society. It attempts to re-design an institution which is older and more fundamental to Canadian society than Parliament itself.

This remedy wrongly impugns that institution, and its many supporters, as discriminatory.

This remedy, while meant to respect diversity, actually diminishes diversity by homogenizing very different forms of relationship. However well-intentioned, it is an inappropriate and inadequate response to concerns about the equality under law of persons of homosexual orientation.

This remedy pre-empts legitimate debate, inside and outside of the legal system, as to the meaning of Section 15 equality rights.

This remedy threatens to obstruct the ability of governments to develop public policies which promote the distinct characteristics of marriage, affirm the good of intact families, and support the relationship of children to their mothers and fathers.

This remedy threatens the freedom of individuals and communities working to support and promote the common human understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, inasmuch as it may open such activity to charges of discriminatory speech or conduct. It threatens religious freedom, academic freedom, and the freedom of parents to educate their children according to their traditions, norms and beliefs.

This remedy, in the words of Mr. Justice Robert Blair of the Ontario Superior Court, is not merely an incremental change in the law, but a "profound change." Justice Blair points out that "the consequences and potential reverberations flowing from such a transformation in the concept of marriage are extremely complex. They will touch the core of many people's belief and value systems, and their resolution is laden with social, political, cultural, emotional and legal ramifications. They require a response to a myriad of consequential issues relating to such things as inheritance and property rights, filiation, alternative biogenetic and artificial birth technologies, adoption, and other marriage-status driven matters." Previous experience in Canada with far less radical changes to marriage legislation demonstrates that such concerns cannot reasonably be dismissed as "speculative."


The commitment of Canadians to fairness, equality, and tolerance may entail the extension of legal recognition to various kinds of relationships beside that of marriage; indeed it has already done so. But that commitment will not be served by expropriating and reconfiguring an historic institution designed to meet the unique challenges and complexities of opposite-sex conjugal relationships. It would be better served by maintaining the existing institution of marriage and simultaneously affirming the federal government's right and obligation to recognize in appropriate ways those other forms of relationship which merit legal status across Canada. Canadians, whatever their faith or ethnic backgrounds, whatever their sexual orientation, should resist any approach that would undermine, rather than meaningfully develop and enrich, an institution so essential to the well-being of Canadians past, present and future.

Principal authors: Dan Cere and Douglas Farrow Montreal, Quebec


Affiliations listed after the signatory's name are for identification purposes only.

Douglas Allen, Simon Fraser University

Iain T. Benson, Barrister and Soliciter

Spencer Boudreau, McGill University

Bishop Anthony Burton, Anglican Diocese of Saskatchewan

Barry Bussey, General Counsel, Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada

Ernest Caparros, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Ottawa

Daniel Cere, Institute for the Study of Marriage Law and Culture

Bruce Clemenger, President Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

Veronica N. Dewar, Inuit Women's Association of Canada.

Lorna Dueck, Broadcaster

Salam Elmenyawi, Muslim Council of Quebec

Douglas Farrow, McGill University

Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, President Emeritus, Pontifical Council on the Family

M. D. Khalid, Director, Islamic Society of North America

Janine Langan, University of Toronto

Thomas Langan, University of Toronto

Francois Lehmann, University of Montreal

Preston Manning, Massey College

Lois Mitchell, Canadian Baptist Ministries

Rabbi David Novak, University of Toronto

Archbishop Terrence Pendergast, S.J., Catholic Office for Life and the Family

Mark Petersen, R. L. Petersen Family Foundation

Darrel Reid, President of Focus on the Family Canada

Ruth Ross, Christian Legal Fellowship

Claude Ryan, retired politician and journalist, Montreal

Cathy Towtoongie, President of Nunavut Tunngavik Limited

John Vissers, President, Presbyterian College, Montreal

David Williams, McGill University

John Zucchi, McGill University

Christopher Gray, Concordia University

From the Focus on the Family (Canada) website "" (dated July 10-14, 2003):


Family advocates are dismayed by Tuesday's decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal to allow homosexuals in the province to legally marry.

"We're disappointed that the court feels like they have to race ahead with a policy… that really should be in the public policy arena," Focus on the Family Canada spokesman Michael Martens said on Global TV. Focus representatives spoke on the issue to a wide variety of media outlets across the country.

"We're also concerned that the courts have taken over the role of legislating in our democracy," Pavel Reid, the director of the Office of Life and Family in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, told the Vancouver Sun. "This way of making important public decisions is very wrong." "The court has rolled over under political pressure from interest groups, plain and simple," Canadian Alliance justice critic Vic Toews said in a news release.

. . . . [A REAL Women of Canada media advisory] points out that REAL Women-along with Focus on the Family Canada and the Canada Family Action Coalition-earlier this week announced that they plan to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the Ontario ruling.  [Boldface emphasis is BCPTL website editor's.]

[To read the rest of this Focus on the Family Canada article, click here.]

 After hearing from Canadians across the country, and without having reported to parliament on its findings, a majority of the members of the Commons standing committee on justice and human rights are apparently willing to let unelected judges decide on as important an issue as the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.  The action alert from REAL Women of Canada (see below in this box) is of even greater importance than when it was issued. (comment by the editor of this BCPTL website on the incident reported in the following article from CBC online)

"House committee favours same-sex unions"
Last Updated Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:23:48

"OTTAWA - Ottawa should not fight Ontario's court ruling on same-sex marriages, said the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights on Thursday.

"The committee voted 9-8 in favour of NDP MP Svend Robinson's motion asking the federal government to accept the Ontario court decision, which declared traditional marriage laws unconstitutional.

"Committee chair, New Brunswick MP Andy Scott, cast the deciding vote, breaking a tie after four Liberals voted against the motion.

"The committee's motion doesn't need to be accepted by the Liberal government, but the close vote indicates that Ottawa may be less hesitant than in the past to accept gay marriages."

[Read the whole article on the CBC website.]



We are indebted to LifeSite for the following article:

Ontario Supreme Court Imposes New Definition Of Marriage As Including Homosexuals
Canada's First Gov't-Recognized Homosexual 'Marriage' Takes Place

TORONTO, June 10, 2003 ( - The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled this morning that homosexual 'marriage' is now a right guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, and thus re-wrote Canadian law on the matter. The court rendered invalid the existing definition of marriage to the extent that it refers to "one man and one woman" and reformulated the definition of marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others". The justices ordered their redefinition of marriage to have
"immediate effect".

The court also made orders "requiring the Clerk of the City of Toronto to issue marriage licences to the couples (involved in the case), and requiring the Registrar General of the Province of Ontario to accept for registration the marriage certificates" of the homosexual couples.

Responding immediately, the City of Toronto issued a press release indicating that it was "issuing marriage licences to all those who meet the requirements for a marriage licence, including same-sex couples." The first such 'marriage' was booked immediately for Tuesday afternoon.

REAL Women Canada, which intervened in the case as part of the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and the Family commented on the ruling noting the arrogance of the courts. "Predictably, the political appointees to the Ontario Court of Appeal have used their unelected position to impose their own vision on the country - a vision based not on the law, but on their own politically correct ideology. In no other nation, do the courts enjoy the power now held by the Canadian courts which operate without any checks and balances. Consequently, the Canadian courts are the only ones in the world that have had the arrogance to change the definition of marriage," said the release.

Gwen Landolt of REAL Women told LifeSite that concerned Canadian should write the federal Justice Minister asking him to immediately appeal the current decision as well as the BC Appeals Court decision which must be appealed by June 30.

To express your concern to the Justice Minister:
The Honourable Martin Cauchon
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
314 West Block
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 995-7691
Fax: 613-995-0114

See the full ruling online at:

See the City of Toronto release: 44615685256d410050cc92?OpenDocument

See WorldNet Daily Article


(c) Copyright: LifeSite Daily News is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use


Action Alert from REAL Women of Canada

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

 On May 1, 2003, the BC Court of Appeal handed down its decision that same-sex partners should be permitted to enter into legal marriage. The Ontario Court of Appeal handed down a similar decision on June 10, 2003. These appeal decisions were a near duplicate of the reasoning and arguments put forward by the Ontario Divisional Court in July 2002. This is the likely explanation as to why the BC and Ontario courts were able to hand down their same-sex decision after scarcely 6 weeks’ deliberation, setting aside the heterosexual definition of marriage, which latter transcends culture, religion and time.

. . . The deadline for appeal of the BC decision is Monday, June 30, 2003.

The Toronto municipal office, mere hours after the Ontario Court decision was handed down today, began to issue licenses to several same-sex couples. In order to be regarded as a legal marriage, however, these licenses for marriage must be registered by the Ontario Deputy Registrar General under the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Business Services.

These two appeal court decisions must IMMEDIATELY be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Minister responsible for marriages in Ontario and the Deputy Registrar of marriages must be pressured not to register these purported same-sex marriages, until the matter has been determined by other than these provincial courts, and Parliament has spoken on the issue.

Moreover, if these decisions are not appealed and the alleged same-sex marriage registered, then the lengthy and expensive cross-country hearings by the House of Commons Parliamentary Committee and the letters and phone calls by concerned Canadians to MPs on the legal definition of marriage become irrelevant -- a waste of time, money, energy, expended both by the committee itself, as well as for all those who made an appearance before the committee. The effect of a failure to appeal will be that a few politically correct appointed judges will be determining the destiny of our society.

A failure to appeal will have the unfortunate result of confirming that the courts will have won over Parliament in matters relating to public policy, leaving Parliament with only a secondary and minor role in the governing or Canada.

What to do: 

This BC and Ontario Appeal Court decisions MUST be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. These appeals will, at least, provide the Justice Committee with time to complete its work on this crucial social policy, which has such far-reaching implications to the future of this country.

 Further, please write demanding that the purported same-sex marriages for which marriage licenses have been issued by the City of Toronto, NOT be registered until the matter has been otherwise disposed of.

Please write / fax/ e-mail immediately the following, demanding that the government immediately launch appeals of the decisions of the BC and Ontario Courts of Appeal.

The Hon. Martin Cauchon                                             The Hon. Jean Chrétien

Minister of Justice                                                         Office of the Prime Minister

Justice Building, 284 Wellington St.                             80 Wellington St., 2nd Floor

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8                                             Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2

Fax: (613) 990-7255                                                         Fax: (613) 941-6900

E-mail:                                     E-mail:

and Your MP

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

 Please write immediately to demand that that these purported marriages in Ontario for which licenses have been issued, NOT be registered.

Mr. Tim Hudak                                                                              Ms. Judi Hartman

Minister, Consumer and Business  Services                            Deputy Registrar General

The Eaton Tower, 35th Floor                                                        Ministry of Consumer & Business Services

250 Yonge Street                                                                            393 University Ave, 3rd Floor

 Toronto, ON M5B 2N5                                                                 Toronto, ON M5G 1E6

Tel: (416) 326-8500                                                                        Tel: (416) 325-4130    

Fax: (416) 326-8520                                                                        Fax: (416) 212-6082

E-Mail:                                                 E-Mail:

The Hon. Ernie Eves

Premier of Ontario

Legislative Building, Room 281

Queen’s Park

Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1

Tel: (416) 325-1941

Fax: (416) 325-0803


Alert 3-03



Activists for Same-Sex “Marriage” Want 
Not Tolerance, But a Stamp of Approval
by Ted Hewlett

The reactions of homosexual couples when the May 1st ruling of the Appeals Court of British Columbia was brought down revealed a good deal about the reason for the big push for same-sex “marriage.” For example, one couple (according to The Globe and Mail*) “said they are . . . pleased that the court recognized the equality of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.” One of the partners said, “Hopefully, having equality will give the message to society that this is okay, that this is not something wrong, deviant, scary or evil. These are just loving relationships, with all their flaws and imperfections . . . that any other relationship has.” In other words, this couple hailed the decision of the BC Appeals Court endorsing same-sex “marriage” because the law is a teacher, and they want it to teach approval of their particular type of relationship.

Of course the Canadian public should have realized that. Canada is a country where there is no bar to homosexual relationships. Those in such relationships who want to, have nothing to stop them from staging their own ceremonies and proclaiming that their unions are marriages without getting a certificate from the government. Anyone can say an apple is an orange or that a sow’s ear is a silk purse. But they should not be able to force others to applaud. What the pro-homosexuality activists want is to have the government on behalf of all of us put its stamp of approval on their unions. And that is something government should not be doing.

Hijacking parts of our common language, of course, is something that is not new to the pro-homosexuality movement. The word “gay” was a perfectly good English word, but activists have almost succeeded in obliterating the original meaning from most people’s speaking vocabulary. “Marriage” too is a word with a specific meaning in our common tongue. That meaning has not included relationships between same-sex couples. But activists would seek to make it include that—and, what is more, seek to have their revisionist definition enshrined in law.

One of the easily forseeable results of a legal redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions is the future use of that redefinition as another bludgeon to compel schools to include homosexual unions as legitimate in any discussion of marriage. In this way the law would indeed become a teacher, and generations of Canadians yet unborn could have their moral judgements shaped by the legal redefinition of a single word.

* Reference for quotation:  The Globe and Mail, May 2, 2003, Section A, 
P. 4, "We know it does make a difference" 


Material to Assist You in Defending Marriage

The material that follows is given to assist you in answering questions and in writing in defence of marriage.  It was developed by members of a local church for distribution to other members.  It is presented here with minor changes.

Questions and Answers

Q. If marriage is such an important institution for developing strong and committed relationships, wouldn't it make sense to extend the right to marry to homosexual couples?

A. What makes marriage such a beneficial relationship is not only the commitment that two people make to each other, but the fact that a man and a woman complement each other both physically and relationally.

Obviously, natural heterosexual intercourse requires a man and a woman. And a man and a woman are needed in order to procreate. However, research shows that when a husband and wife are in a committed marriage they benefit each other in many other ways. These include better physical and emotional health and financial well-being. In addition, the father and mother benefit their children in different yet complementary ways.

As Gloria Steinem commented upon marrying [a man] for the first time at age 66, "being married is like having someone permanently in your corner. It feels limitless, not limited." It is the great mystery of heterosexual marriage. No other relationship can replicate God's gift of marriage between a man and a woman.

Q. What about the claim that the sexual orientation of the parents makes no difference to the well-being of a child?

A. The social science evidence clearly proves that the best environment for raising children is a home based on the marriage of the mother and father.

The overwhelming evidence proves that children benefit from having both a father and a mother in the home. Two parents of the same sex simply cannot replace the influences of a father and a mother.

An analysis of 49 studies claiming that the sexual orientation of parents makes no difference to the well-being of a child found that "the methods used in these studies are so flawed they prove nothing?. Their claims have no basis."

Other researchers have found that children suffer when they are denied the nurturing influence of a mother and father. Children with married parents are more likely to have better cognitive and verbal development, greater educational and job attainment, fewer behavioural and emotional problems, lower dependency on welfare and better financial well-being, less exposure to crime, a lower risk of being sexually abused and less marital problems of their own.



We strongly urge you to write to your Member of Parliament in defence of Marriage.  In order to assist you, we give below some points for you to consider when writing.


*       Heterosexual marriage is a unique union.  Men and women are in fact different, both physically          and relationally. In marriage, these differences complement each other in a way that same-sex    couples cannot duplicate.


*       Only a man and a woman may engage in natural heterosexual intercourse.  As a result, only the   sexual union of a man and a woman has the potential to naturally produce children.  Furthermore,   research has found that the complementary strengths of a mother and father in a committed  relationship provide children with the best opportunity for child development.



*         Researchers have found that children suffer when they are denied the nurturing influence of a   mother and father.  Children with married parents are more likely to have better cognitive and   verbal development, greater educational and job attainment, less behavioral and emotional          problems, lower dependency on welfare and better financial well-being, less exposure to crime, a marital problems of their own.


*       The reality is that federal and provincial laws already provide same-sex couples with the same          rights as          married couples.  Requiring homosexual persons to meet the same criteria for marriage as      all other Canadians is not discrimination.  In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada ". . . Marriage          is the social unit that uniquely has the capacity to procreate children and generally care for their          upbringing and as such          warrants the support by Parliament to meet its needs."  Two parents of the     same sex simply cannot replace the influences of a father and a mother.


*       Should the present definition of Marriage be re-defined, what would be the limits to define this    sacred institution?  Would be it be permissible for three men and two women to "marry"?  What  would happen if          people decided to change their gender?   Would bestiality be permitted?  Would incest be admissible?


         To have no solid framework for Marriage would be a total disaster.  To experiment with marriage   and family laws is to experiment with the lives of Canada?s children.


*       As the law becomes less and less able to define marriage as it truly is, so will the law be unable to  define the family as it truly should be.  We face the likely prospect of the law and the government   being unable to enact policies that favor stable, health family life.  Already we see a society racked   by social evils of the worst kind:  violence, disease, death.  We need to provide an opportunity for  children to be raised in a nurturing environment that would be conducive to their good health and  well- being.





Form for a Letter


[Your address]    

[Date  ______.]



[Name of your Member of Parliament]

Member of Parliament

House of Commons

Parliament Buildings

Ottawa, ON

K1A 0A6





Dear _______:


Re:  Definition of Marriage


Choose the points you wish to include in your letter.


Concluding paragraph :


As Canadians, we have a duty and obligation to defend the institution of Marriage.  We therefore urge you, Mr. ________., to preserve the definition of Marriage as it stands today a union between one man and one woman.


The favor of a reply would be appreciated.


Yours truly,







For a discussion of "Marriage and Modern Times," go to the essay of that title on our "Essays" page.



From the Canadian Alliance Website:

"Liberal 'Free Vote' Proposal on Same-Sex Marriage a Sham"
CA Justice Critic Vic Toews says “democratic veneer” on judge-made law an affront to democracy

June 18, 2003

OTTAWA – Canadian Alliance Justice Critic Vic Toews said today that the Liberal government’s claim that a “free vote” will be held on legislation to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is “disingenuous and deliberately misleading.” Toews said, “This vote will be meaningless in every sense of the word. As a result of the Liberals failure to appeal the court decisions ordering a change in the definition of marriage, same sex marriages are constitutionally imbedded in Canada whether Parliament votes yes or no to the proposed legislation. This is simply a cynical communications exercise by the Liberals to try to hide the fact that they’ve let unelected judges make the laws of this country.”
[To read the whole of the above release on the Canadian Alliance website, click here.   BC Parents and Teachers for Life is non-partisan, but we pass on, or supply links to, statements by various political leaders where we deem it appropriate.]
[This  posting was made on June 20, 2003.]


Marriage and Modern Times
by Ted Hewlett

[posted to this website on Novembere 19, 2002]

Marriage of some sort has perhaps been a feature of all known societies. In the western world, ideas of marriage have been influenced by Hebrew, Roman, and Teutonic customs and law; and, of course, by Christianity and the churches.

Because of the dominance of Christianity as a generally accepted religion, standards transmitted through Biblical or church teachings were often incorporated in law and applied to all, regardless of their actual religious beliefs. Now that .our society cannot be regarded as Christian in any practical sense, even though it has some residual and continuing Christian influences, the question arises, “What standards can we expect our governments to uphold, and what standards should we depend on other agencies to work for?” Marriage is an institution which government in the past has supported. Now we see the widespread breakdown of marriage, the provision for easy divorce, and the attempts to have the same-sex union recognized on an equal basis with the union of husband and wife.

Where formerly the government could be depended on to support marriage, now those attempting to make same-sex unions respectable have chosen to attempt to use government for the furtherance of their aims. Governments are lobbied to recognize same-sex unions as marriage. In British Columbia we have seen the attempt to force the acceptance of the use in public schools of such pro-homosexuality books for young children as Asha’s Mums and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads. In Asha’s Mums, a classmate of the child hero says, “My mum and dad said you can’t have two mothers living together. My dad says it’s bad.” The child hero of the book replies, “It’s not bad. My mummies said we’re a family because we live together and love each other.” So this supposedly innocent children’s book thus redefines the family and contradicts the moral standards of many parents who hold to traditional Christian morality as well as the moral standards of those of other faiths.

A further glimpse into the kind of education some activists envisage was provided in an article entitled “Gay and Lesbian Themes in a Diverse Childhood Curriculum.” The article appeared on the GLSEN (“Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators’ Network” ) website (as downloaded on October 14, 1998). The author is Sandra K. Chapman, who is identified as early childhood educator in the Bank Street School for Children. Ms Chapman writes:

One anecdote from my teaching of young children illustrates a possibility to include children’s experiences and expand their knowledge of the social world. While two 3 year olds in my classroom were building with blocks, one child made the following comment: “I’m going to marry Jason.” Because the child commenting was a boy, the other child building, a girl, raised her own concerns and knowledge of the world as she viewed and experienced it. The following discussion took place.

Girl: No, you have to have a man and a woman.

Teacher: Actually, two men can choose to love each other just like a man and a woman choose to love each other.

Girl: No, you have to have a girl and a boy to get married.

Teacher: Some men and women get married, but sometimes two women or two men will choose to love and live with each other.

Girl: Two men can’t love each other.

Teacher: What about Zoly’s fathers? His daddy and poppy love each other.

As she looked up at Zoly, a child in the room with two gay fathers, the boy made a final comment, “I love Jason, so I’m going to marry him,” and I nodded my head in agreement. The message I wanted to communicate to the children was simple; men and women, men and men, or women and women can choose to love each other and begin a family with children, hence Zoly’s family structure.

Ms. Chapman’s article does speak for itself, but it is hard to help commenting on the deceptive indoctrination of children that is reported so glowingly in this article. The implied redefinition

of marriage and the manipulative use of the word “love” shout out that here is a teacher who is propagandizing children in such a way as to induce them to look favourably on a behaviour that violates traditional morality. The pro-homosexuality message is conveyed long before the children are even capable of understanding its implications.

What can supporters of marriage expect of governments—and government-run schools? In this post-Christian era I do not think we can expect governments to enforce Christian standards of behaviour. In fact, I would suggest that it was a mistake for the Church ever to depend on government to enforce its standards even on those inside the Church, and certainly on those outside of it. But what we are entitled to do—even under the secular constitutions of Western countries—is to ask that governments not take sides against Christian morality. When governments legislate special pension benefits for homosexual couples—benefits which depend on their living together in a sexual relationship— or when governments authorize public schools to influence students to take a favourable view of homosexual relationships and to regard same-sex unions in the same light as marriage, those governments are taking sides against the traditional morality associated with Christianity and other major religions. An example of this occurred in British Columbia where the British Columbia Human rights Commission, an agency established by the provincial government, helped finance the publication in June, 2000, of a handbook entitled Challenging Homophobia in Schools, produced by the Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC (with help also from the British Columbia Teachers Federation). It is designed for teachers of students from Kindergarten to Grade Twelve. Among the strategies advocated in the handbook are: ensuring that books depicting “alternative family patterns” are included in school libraries, and avoiding the terms “wife” and “husband” in favour of using the word “couple” for both same-sex and male-female relationships. (In the section “Strategies” (Page 3) is this advice for the educator: “Use the word ‘couple’ to denote same-sex as well as male/female relationships; use ‘partner’ instead of ‘wife’, or ‘husband.’ ” )

What should we do when faced with government actions which are hostile to traditional morality? So far, Christians and other people of faith are still entitled to equal treatment under the constitutions of the countries of Western Europe and countries such as Canada and the United States and others whose governmental patters are derived from or heavily influenced by the Western European tradition. And it is perfectly right that people of faith should claim their rights when it helps to advance the cause of righteousness.

Other than insisting that governments should not take sides against the moral standards which in our societies have been derived from Christianity, how can we legitimately seek to influence our governments to act in the realm of morality? We have suggested that governments should not be expected to enforce strictly Christian standards, and it follows that they should not be expected to enforce those which are derived exclusively from any other religion. But it is impossible for the act of governing to take place without reference to some morality. The stock phrase “You are trying to impose your morality” in reference to the attempt to have legislation enacted to which the speaker objects is just one example of the present tendency to replace thought with slogans. All laws impose some concept of morality, or else they are passed simply for the benefit groups or individuals without reference to morality. The question is, What morality can governments legitimately act on?

Here, I think, the concept of natural law comes into play. It is a concept which legitimately enables us to work for morality without attempting to impose those precepts which are peculiar to a particular theology. It is also a concept fully compatible with Christian teaching. In fact it was enunciated by the apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (Chapter 2: 14-15) where he writes, “. . . when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things 

contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law hidden in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts . . . accusing or else excusing one another.”

The fact is, given the acceptance of the general moral principle that we should not treat others as we would not wish to be treated (a limited application of the golden rule, which is generally accepted as an axiom for those who wish to pursue moral good)—given the acceptance of this principle, we can appeal to human reason and travel a good distance in establishing the public morality which is necessary to public welfare in any state—provided that there are also certain common views about human nature. For example, most people will agree that a stable environment is conducive to the welfare of children. The state, where it is faced with questions of custody, will, then, be justified in considering in a custody dispute that the parent who is committed to a stable relationship will be likely to be most competent to raise a child.. Of course, the state needs also to recognize the benefits of parenting by parents of both sexes, other factors also being considered. So it is legitimate for the state to recognize the benefits of a stable union of members of the opposite sex (a marriage).

The problem we face is that our societies in large measure have lost their former common understanding of human nature. (Hence, years ago now, Dan Quale got into trouble for asserting the value of fathering.)

In certain matters it is impossible for the state not to take sides on the basis of one understanding or another. The judging of custody cases is one example.

Because of the very large role that is taken by modern governments, however, we are faced with more cases requiring the government to make moral judgements than we would be faced with if government were more limited. For example, governments have taken on the role of controlling education. Because of this, we find governments making decisions about morality which they would not otherwise have to make, and which they may not be very competent to make.

It is argued that government control is necessary for the public welfare; but by the simple means of the government distributing to parents the financial means to control education (in the voucher system), government can be relieved of many of the moral decisions that go along with providing education. From the point of view of parents of traditional morality, this would be a relief in the present situation, since the public schools would not then be subject to the same pressures to propagandize for life-styles which imply a denial of the unique value of traditional marriage.

The institution of marriage as we have understood it is under attack. In this attack, the news media and particularly the entertainment industry have played a large part. Governments tend to react to what they perceive is the public will. And this perception is based on media presentation or misrepresentation of the public will, as well as on the representations of pressure groups. Government in turn plays a part in shaping public perception. The law is a teacher, and in popular thinking what is legal is considered moral. The pro-abortion propagandists have made ample use of this fact, attempting to have the pro-life position discounted simply because abortion has the support of law—or, in Canada, the support of absence of law.

In the question of marriage as in other areas we should recognize that, though government may have a role in supporting the institution, we should not depend on government to advance the cause of marriage and a stable family life. Ultimately the support of morality, whether in the area of marriage or in any other area, depends on enlightened consciences of those in a given nation. We need to consider a host of influences on the public conscience. These include the media, as has been suggested—and we need to consider to what extent we can influence the media.

The influence and potential influence of Christian churches must be considered in any discussion of marriage in modern times. Christianity played a tremendous role in shaping what was our society’s ideal conception of marriage. There were always, doubtless, large numbers who failed to live up to that ideal, but its existence nevertheless had a pervading influence.

A major problem is that church members and even church leaders are to a large extent now influenced by the ideas of society at large. Only if there is an outspoken leadership in the churches and a leadership that is willing to oppose current trends—only then can we expect the rank and file in the churches to accept the challenge to live contrary to the world’s standards.

In British Columbia we have seen in the recent past a recognition of the challenge to the institution of marriage that is implicit in the attempt to favourably portray same-sex-unions to young children. But Christians seem to have lacked staying power, partly no doubt because of the deafening silence on the part of most Christian leaders when faced with the issue. And now there seems to be a general weariness and an unwillingness to deal with the issue. In part, Christians have been intimidated by the attempt to portray them as hateful when they oppose such an anti-marriage pro-homosexuality agenda.

It is a fact that when we do not oppose what is wrong, we move from false tolerance to an attempt to justify our lack of action. And this usually involves denying or minimizing the threat, or even accepting what we formerly thought was immoral.

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

(from Alexander Pope, "An Essay on Man")

How can the institute of marriage be defended? This is bound up with the question of how moral virtue in general can be defended in a society such as ours, dominated as it is by those who frequently have at best little respect for virtue and often a definite disdain for it.

Marriage to be successful involves commitment, unselfishness, dedication to long-term goals, and in general the recognition of the need for an institution bounded by morality and inspired by a positive recognition of the virtues. In the end, whether it is supported by government or not, the institute of marriage will only be embraced by those whose moral and spiritual senses are enlivened.

We can work to support marriage by opposing what tears it down: we oppose what is wrong because we value what is right.

We can strengthen marriage and hence the family by holding forth the virtues which marriage stands for. Spiritual leaders have a special responsibility here, but those who may not think of themselves as leaders have a responsibility too. We all need to reaffirm our support of virtue and of marriage. We need to strengthen our commitment to our own marriages and to be available to encourage and strengthen others in their commitment.

June 17, 2001
(edited and minor changes made November 19th and 20th, 2002)









Useful Links to Other Websites

We are, of course, not responsible for the content of external sites.  Listing of a site does not imply anything about our agreement or disagreement with particular  statements that may be made on such external sites.

Are you pregnant and need help?  
Help is available from these centres:   
Canada, US, UK, Ireland Pregnancy Centres: Click to find a centre in your area 
--or, in Canada or the US call 1-800-395-HELP

Abortion procedures and risks

Abortion: Stop the Cover-up

Association for Reformed PoliticalAction--Education

Campaign Life Coalition

Campaign Life Coalition BC

Canada Family Action Coalition

Canadian Constitution Foundation

CASJAFVA (Canadian  & Family Values Association)

Catholic Civil Rights Leag

Compasionate Healthcare Network

Courage Apostolate

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada--Home Page

       EFC Social Issues

Exodus Youth

Family & Lifea 

Family Policy Institute
of Washington

Focus on the Family:

Focus on the Family Canada

Human Life Alliance


Institute for Canadian Values

Kelowna Pro-Life




Mission America

NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homo sexuality)

Parents for Democracy in Education

Priests for Life

Priests for Life Canada

Pro-Life Blogs

Pro-Life Canada Index

Pro-Life Corner

Pro-Life Kelowna


REAL Women of Canada

REAL Women of BC

Roadkill Radio

Silent No More

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children  (UK-based)

Students for Life of America

Take Back Canada

Teachers Saving Children

The Parents'

True Tolerance

United Families International

Vivre dans la Dignité
  opposes euthanasia
  & assisted suicide)

World  Youth Alliance