Does premarital sex have practical consequences for future marital
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. . .
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
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. .
April 26, 2011 (AlbertMohler.com)
- 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
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
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
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.” . . . .
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 NationalReview.com. “Today’s
action at least has the modest virtue of bringing that sabotage out into the
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.”
In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card
Matthew J. Franck
December 17, 2010
In the debates over gay marriage, "hate" is the ultimate
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
away with it.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights
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
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. . . . .
Rules California Proposition 8 Unconstitutional
By Peter J. Smith
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
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
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
"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
"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
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.
in Historic Marriage Challenge Begin [in California]
CitizenLink, June 16, 2010
by Catherine Snow, managing editor
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
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
But Charles Cooper, lead defense attorney for ProtectMarriage.com,
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.
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
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
In the United States: Prop. 8 Trial Begins Today: "Roe v.
Wade" of Marriage Battle
By James Tillman
SAN FRANCISCO, January 11, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
-- 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 ProtectMarriage.com.
"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
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
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 ProtectMarriage.com 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
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
As Andy Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, 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.
Court Blocks Recording of Prop. 8 Trial
By Peter J. Smith
SAN FRANCISCO, California, January 11, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– 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
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
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
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
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
Researchers looked at 34,000 people in 15 countries and also found mental
health disorders increase when a marriage ends through divorce, separation or
. . . .
"Marriage" Vote Killed in NJ Senate
Same-sex marriage advocates switch focus to Assembly
By Peter J. Smith
TRENTON, New Jersey, December 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Those who backed Proposition 8 were elated. Andrew M. Pugno, general
counsel for ProtectMarriage.com,
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
WASHINGTON, DC, April 30,
2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
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.
Organization for Marriage basically just respects marriages and people who
support it," she said. "That's what I'm here to do today, protect
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
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."
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
“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
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.
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
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
"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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
"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:
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
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
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
see that as the main thrust," Mr. Quist said. "Same-sex marriage is
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,"
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.
can't people speak against same-sex marriage?
Dec 11, 2006
views of homosexuality are creating tensions in
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
marriage is now public policy and has already triggered some significant
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
not accept same-sex marriage due to its detrimental effect on children.
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.
Court of Appeal of
and the Supreme Court of Washington last July also rejected same-sex marriage
because of concern for the welfare of children.
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.
partners experience a higher incidence of health problems resulting in shorter
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.
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.
legalization of same-sex marriage in
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.
social services, such as counselling and adoption services, are now required
to conform to the same-sex marriage law.
tax-exempt status of churches has become the subject of intimidation and
harassment. Bishop Fred Henry of
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.
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
in June when a respected professor of ethics from
, Dr. Margaret Somerville, who opposes same-sex marriage, was subjected to
public attack, including picketing when she received an honorary degree there.
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
, Chris Kempling, submitted a letter to his local newspaper objecting to
homosexuality. This resulted in his suspension for one month without pay by
of Teachers, which alleged that Kempling's letters "poisoned the school
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
, especially in
, 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.
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
Landolt is national vice-president, REAL Women of Canada
slams "dismal" theories on gay marriage rights
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.
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.
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.
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?"
The Pope said granting legal recognition to unwed couples
was a threat to traditional marriage, which required a higher level of
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.
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.
Apoplectic Over Dr. Dobson's Time Platform
[From: CITIZENLINK DAILY UPDATE
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
The article, titled "Why Two Mommies is One Too
Many," (http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A000003415.cfm) 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."
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."
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
"[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
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.
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
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
"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
To express your concerns to the Prime Minister:
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
RESPONSE TO THE DEFEAT OF THE MOTION TO REOPEN
THE MARRIAGE \DEBATE:
Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights”
in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the
E D I AR E L E A S
Denied on Same-sex Marriage Vote
OntarioDecember 7, 2006
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.
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.
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
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
political leaders do not, in fact, know what’s best for everyone.
Necessity for a Referendum on Same-sex Marriage
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.
Gwendolyn Landolt, LLBDiane Watts
787-0348, (905) 731-5425(613)
Abandons Marriage, says CFAC
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.”
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.
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
"Unfortunately, there was no vote today on traditional marriage in the
House of Commons"
OTTAWA, December 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
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
"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."
Evangelicals Say Marriage Battle Not Over
“True democracy does not exist without a foundation of real marriage and the
By Hilary White
December 8, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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
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
“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
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.
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:
Statement Worth Considering
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."
Conservative Party Marriage Motion Wording Revealed
By John-Henry Westen
OTTAWA, December 1, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - LifeSiteNews.com 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."
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.
REAL Women Cite “Horrendous” Media
Bias in “Gay Marriage” Coverage
The few journalists writing in favour of traditional marriage are being
By Hilary White
TORONTO, October 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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 LifeSiteNews.com
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
“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
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
The Office of Life and Family of the Vancouver Archdiocese has information on
how to contact MPs and B.C. senators posted at www.rcav.org.
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
TORONTO, August 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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
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
SEATTLE, Washington, July 25, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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
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
Marriage Amendment Stopped
in U.S. Senate
by Hilary White
WASHINGTON, June 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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
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
"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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 LifeSiteNews.com
that when she made the announcement the Prime-Minister noted that this was a
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 LifeSiteNews.com 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: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060601.html)
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: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06032004.html)
Should the motion to reopen the debate pass, the Conservative Government is
committed to putting forward a bill to restore the traditional definition of
Canadian Religious Leaders Urged to
Action on Vote to Re-open Marriage Debate
By Gudrun Schultz
OTTAWA, April 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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
“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
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
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
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
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
The Coalition is encouraging wide distribution of the letter to pastors
across the country in addition to the leaders already contacted.
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
What, exactly, is your problem with real equality for all
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.
Government Report Says No to Homosexual "Marriage"
. . . .
By John-Henry Westen
PARIS, February 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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'
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
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
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
child', citing the principle of caution. For that reason, that
majority also, logically, chose to deny access to marriage to same-sex
Comments: 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
"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.”
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
but not Sufficient"
here to see the EFC statement in response to the
recommendations of the Legislative Committee on Bill
Government Admits Religions Not Protected Under Federal
Gay ‘Marriage’ Legislation"
June 9, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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."
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 ]
Government Admits Religions Not Protected Under Federal
Gay ‘Marriage’ Legislation
OTTAWA, June 9, 2005 (Excerpt
from article from LifeSiteNews.com) – 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
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:
Left Himself Little Room to Defend Traditional Marriage - Vows no
By John-Henry Westen
OTTAWA, December 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
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
LifeSiteNews.com 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
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
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,
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.” 
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.”
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
"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. 
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
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
“Harper replied that he thinks the charter provides a balance between
Parliament and the courts and that he supports it the way it is.”
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.
A poll finds 55 per cent of Canadians favour
a Commons free vote on the marriage issue. By KATE DUBINSKI, FREE PRESS REPORTER 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
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
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
"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.
California Governor Schwarzenegger
To Veto Gay "Marriage" Law - Open to Redefinition by Courts
LOS ANGELES, September 8, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
"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
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.”
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.”
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.
OTTAWA, ON, July 20, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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, LifeSiteNews.com 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
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
"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
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: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing.
Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of
source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).
the website of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada:
EFC Laments the Passage of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) laments the passage of Bill C-38,
the Civil Marriage Act.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
says, “While amendments to Bill C-38 provide a measure of protection for
religious freedom, most of the areas of conflict are within provincial
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
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.”
an interview contact:
Fellowship of Canada
479 5885 x227
647 227 3464
Catholic Bishops on Gay 'Marriage' Law - "Catholics are
to Continue to Oppose It"
OTTAWA, July 20, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
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
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.
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
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
"Even in the pulpit we feel threatened in teaching the church's
sexual morality. . . . That's also part of religious
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
"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
"(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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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.
Canadian Senate Passes Second Reading of Gay
OTTAWA, July 7, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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
“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.”
June 11, 2005
WINNIPEG FREE PRESS July 3, 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
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.
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
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).
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
"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
"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.
the time constraints, the material presented to the committee was somewhat
Pat O'Brian Quits Liberals
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
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
"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.
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
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
"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
Bill C-38 FAST-TRACKED DESPITE
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
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
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
"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
Large Marriage Rally Set for Monday May
23 at Queen’s Park, Toronto
TORONTO, May 20, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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
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
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
Canada's Liberal Governent Survives
Confidence Vote - No Election, C-38 Likely to Pass
Ottawa, May 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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.
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
Catholic Bishops Present
Brief to Parliamentary Committee on Homosexual "Marriage" Bill
OTTAWA, May 20, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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."
need a Mom and Dad" sign Chinese-Canadian local children
carry in front of Conservative MP James Moore's office
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
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.
LifeSiteNews.com 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 LifeSiteNews.com that some 500 members of their community
would be participating the in March. Hajeed Singarewal, from the group Sikh
Humanity, told LifeSiteNews.com 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
LifeSiteNews.com "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
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)
CTV.ca 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
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
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
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. . . . .
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)
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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),
9. Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 211, Section 7(1)
10. Kempling v. The British Columbia College of Teachers, 2004
11. Hall (Litigation guardian of) v. Powers  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: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/marc_hall_injunction_decision.htm
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]
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 (LifeSiteNews.com)
15. B.C. lesbians fight to hold wedding reception in Catholic hall
(25 January, 2005) http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/24/lesbian-wedding-050124.html
Minister in Video Against Same-Sex Bill . . .
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
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
"[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 www.josephvolpe.com, 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.
[We pass on the following news release, which we believe will be of interest to
Catholic Civil Rights League NEWS RELEASE 301 – 46 St. Clair Ave. E, Toronto, ON
Phone: 416-466-8244, Fax: 416-466-0091,
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
"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
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."
Sean Murphy, Director
CCRL Western Region
7120 Tofino St.,
Canada V8A 1G3
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tel: 604-485-9765
Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ a Health
Risk Doctors Warn Parliamentarians
. . . .
OTTAWA, February 17, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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 LifeSiteNews.com 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
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
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
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
“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 www.marriagematters.ca,
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 www.familyfacts.ca.
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
The first advertisement (www.fotf.ca/download/ad/bothsides.pdf)
appears in select publications this weekend with the remaining advertisements
appearing across Canada in the coming weeks.
Feb. 8, 2005
from the Canadian Family Action Coalition: Boycott
Announced Against Famous Players Theatres for Promoting Anti-Marriage
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
"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
"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
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
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
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 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
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
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
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
that he would be supporting the upcoming legislation.
"Taxpayers Fund Gay Legal
Challenges for Same-Sex Marriage"
R E S SR E L
E A S E [From
REAL Women of Canada]
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.
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
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.
Weekly, November 19, 2004]
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
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
obtained under the Access to Information Act, indicate that
hundreds of thousands of dollars flow annually from Status of Women to
Lesbian advocacy groups.[ii]
With the funds they receive from
compulsory union dues, Canadian unions are also financially backing
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
(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
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.
further information contact:. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425
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
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
REASONS WHY EVANGELICALS MUST BOLDLY DEFEND MARRIAGE
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 voicebecause:
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.
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
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. Christiansmust not allow society to self-destruct because they are focused only
on personalistic piety. True love, and true worship of God demands also love
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.
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. . . . .
Wednesday, 9 February 2005:
letter to Catholics in Canada on Redefining Marriage
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
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
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
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
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
For More information Contact:
Director, Communications Service
Tel: (613) 241-9461
Fax: (613) 241-9048 email@example.com
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
harbourpersonal 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
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 ofthe 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
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.Wewant 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
was one of those delivered outside the constituency office of Russ Hiebert,
Member of Parliament for South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale. The Rally was
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.]
Declaration on Marriage
by Dr. William Gairdner
and published by "Enshrine Marriage Canada" on its website.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Court-Proof Law to Uphold Traditional Marriage
TORONTO, January 19,
2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
Cardinal Gives Direction to Priests and Faithful on Supporting Traditional
TORONTO, January 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
COMMISSIONERS STAND THEIR GROUND [from the
Focus on the Family website "familyfacts.ca" --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.
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.]
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
International coverage of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision: BBC,
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.)
Deceived on Same-sex Marriage Issue
By C. Gwendolyn
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
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
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 thispolitical 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
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 theSupreme 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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
Farrow said the EMC committee members are diverse in
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."
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, www.enshrinemarriage.com.
Copyright, 2004 --- Culture of Life Foundation. Permission granted for
unlimited use. Credit required.
Canada: Committee Rejects Appeal to Allow Voting on Marriage
OTTAWA, November 25,
2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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. LifeSiteNews.com 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
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
here to read the whole article on the CFAC website.]
U.S. Voters on
November 2nd, 2004, Voted on Marriage as Well as for
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
By Associated Press
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
In 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 onlinearticle.]
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:
Bishops Warn Supreme Court of Threat to Religious Freedom if Marriage is
Warn "the state
would require all Canadians to treat homosexual sexual conduct as a
OTTAWA, October 5,
2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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
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
Yukon Territory Forced to Legalize Homosexual Marriage by Judicial Fiat
WHITEHORSE, July 15,
2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Yukon Supreme Court told a homosexual couple
Wednesday that their "marriage," planned for the weekend, is
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
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.
CLERGY CAN STILL SAVE MARRIAGE
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
clergy, leaders of courage and conviction can still save traditional
marriage in Canada.
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. . . . "
release from the Unity Party of British Columbia: "UNITY
PROPOSES CONSCIENCE LEGISLATION FOR MARRIAGE COMMISSIONERS" 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
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
"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."
SAMPLE LETTER TO PREMIER GORDON CAMPBELL
have received the following suggested letter to Premier Campbell of
British Columbia on the defence
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:
The recent decision of the Federal Government to re-define marriage
represents a repudiation both of its own promise to the people of
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.
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
. 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
. We urge you to join with your courageous colleague in
, 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.
Phone: 250 387-1715
Fax: 250 387-0087
3615 West 4th Avenue
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.
Alliance Leader Stephen Harper's Speech on Marriage
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.
publishing it does not mean that we endorse any particular statement within the
the Traditional Definition of Marriage in Canada
Tuesday, September 16,
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
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
Let me begin my
comments with a quotation that summarizes my views.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
source for the above speech was the Canadian Alliance website at:
Another Example of
Homosexuality Activists' Showing Contempt for Free Speech?
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:
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
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
"B.C. Court of
Appeal Orders Immediate Same-Sex Marriage"
VANCOUVER, July 8, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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.
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
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."
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ernest Caparros, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of
Daniel Cere, Institute for the Study of Marriage Law and
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 "familyfacts.ca"
(dated July 10-14, 2003):
ALLOWS HOMOSEXUALS TO MARRY
advocates are dismayed by Tuesday's decision of the
British Columbia Court of Appeal to allow homosexuals in
the province to legally marry.
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.
. . . [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
Ontario ruling. [Boldface
emphasis is BCPTL website editor's.]
read the rest of this Focus on the Family Canada
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)
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."
We are indebted
to LifeSite for
the following article:
Ontario Supreme Court Imposes New Definition Of Marriage As
Canada's First Gov't-Recognized Homosexual 'Marriage' Takes Place
TORONTO, June 10, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- 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
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
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
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
(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 LifeSiteNews.com).
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
What about the claim that the sexual orientation of the parents makes no
difference to the well-being of a child?
science evidence clearly proves that the best environment for
raising children is a home based on the marriage of the mother and
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.
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."
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,
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.
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.
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
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,
marital problems of their own.
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 asall 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
*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
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-
for a Letter
of your Member of Parliament]
the points you wish to include in your letter.
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.
'Free Vote' Proposal on Same-Sex Marriage a
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
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
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
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, producedby 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
June 17, 2001
(edited and minor changes made November 19th and 20th,
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