|
Marriage
Table Contents for this Page:
Marriage Week February 10-17
Spanish
Protest Calls for Defence of Family
We Should Know and Remember How Canadian MPs Voted
on Marriage
on December 7, 2006
Sweden Proposes Moving from
Civil Unions to Legalizing Homosexual 'Marriage'
Tories
pushed to call royal commission on marriage: Social conservatives want
Conservatives to 'mend fences' with traditional supporters
Muzzling free speech: Why can't people speak against same-sex marriage?
Pope
slams "dismal" theories on gay marriage rights
Left Apoplectic Over Dr.
Dobson's Time Platform
Ireland
High Court Rules Against Gay 'Marriage' Citing Harm to Children
Canada's PM
Won't Try Again on Marriage and has No Plan to Protect Religious Freedom
Canadian
Government Motion to Reopen Debate on Homosexual "Marriage" Defeated
175 to 123
"Democracy
Denied on Same-Sex Marriage Vote; Referendum Demanded" --REAL
Women of Canada
Government
Abandons Marriage, says CFAC
Catholics and Evangelicals Say
Marriage Battle Not Over
"The Marriage Battle Continues," says
Campaign Life Coalition
Opinion:
A
Statement Worth Considering
Conservative Party Marriage Motion Wording
Revealed
Tories
plan December vote on same-sex marriage
REAL Women Cite “Horrendous”
Media Bias in “Gay Marriage”
"Defending marriage Take up the
pen!"
Canada’s Pro-Marriage Groups
Urge Grassroots Political Action Now, While MPs in Ridings
Seattle
Archbishop Condemns Gay “Marriage”, Fears State-made Theology, Lawsuits
Marriage Amendment Stopped in U.S.
Senate
Prime Minister Harper says
Same Sex "Marriage" Vote Coming this Fall
Canadian Religious Leaders
Urged to Action on Vote to Re-open Marriage Debate
Hargrove
Blasts Harper on Same Sex Vote
French
Government Report Says No to Homosexual "Marriage"
Harper's Debate
Comment on Not Using the Notwithstanding Clause to Deal With Same-Sex Marriage
Issue--and Responses to Harper's Comment
Same-Sex Vote
Backed
California Governor Schwarzenegger
To Veto Gay "Marriage" Law - Open to Redefinition by Courts
22 same-sex couples marry vs 35,000 hetero couples
[in Spain]
Trade unions “played a critical role” in
“same-sex marriage law”
Canada Gay
"Marriage" Bill to be Signed Into Law
EFC Laments the Passage of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act [EFC press release]
Catholic Bishops on Gay 'Marriage' Law -
"Catholics are to Continue to Oppose It"
Catholic Cardinal Warns Senate of Impending Anti-Christian
Prosecution With Gay 'Marriage'
Cardinal tells senators that same-sex marriage
threatens religious freedom
Saskatchewan Marriage Commissioner under
Investigation for Unwillingness to Perform Gay 'Marriages'
Canadian Senate
Passes Second Reading of Gay 'Marriage' Bill
"Anti-marriage politicians will pay" [by David Kryden]
Report
on and Summary of Presentation to the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-38 by
Dr. Chris Kempling
Pat O'Brian
Quits Liberals
Bill C-38
Fast-Tracked Despite Intense Opposition
Large Marriage Rally Set for
Monday May 23 at Queen’s Park, Toronto
Canada's Liberal Governent
Survives Confidence Vote - No Election, C-38 Likely to Pass
Legislative Committee
on Bill, C-38 Issues Report with Recommended Changes
"Canadian
Government Admits Religions Not Protected Under Federal
Gay ‘Marriage’ Legislation"
O'Brien
Issues Ultimatum Over Same-Sex "Marriage" Bill
Christian Legal Fellowship Submission to Committee on
Gay “Marriage” Bill C-38
Catholic Bishops Present Brief
to Parliamentary Committee on Homosexual "Marriage" Bill
Marriage Defenders Give Moore a Message
"15-20,000
Attend March for Traditional Marriage on Parliament Hill"
"Tory
motion on gay marriage bill is voted down"
Stockwell Day's Speech on
the "Civil Marriage Bill" --Bill to Redefine Marriage-- in the
Canadian House of Commons, March 24, 2005
"Freedom of
Conscience, Tudor Style"
Liberal
Minister in Video Against Same-Sex Bill
"Immigration
Minister Won't Guarantee Religious Freedom"
Same-Sex
"Marriage" a Health Risk Doctors Warn Parliamentarians
Focus
on the Family Launches Ad Campaign to Protect Marriage
Boycott
Announced Against Famous Players Theatres for Promoting Anti-Marriage
Message
Website for Same-Sex "Marriage" Contains Valuable Information
Canadian
Foreign Affairs Minister Says Churches Must "Not Get Involved"
in Same-Sex Marriage Issue
"Taxpayers Fund Gay Legal Challenges for Same-Sex Marriage"
"Another
Gag Law"
"Five
Reasons Why Evangelicals Must Boldly Defend Marriage"
"Pastoral
Letter to Catholics in Canada on Redefining Marriage"
Speech
by the President of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life at a
Pro-Marriage Rally
in Surrey, British Columbia on January 29, 2005
"A
Declaration on Marriage" (by Dr. William Gairdner, from the
"Enshrine Marriage" website)
Toronto Cardinal Ambrozic Warns Gay 'Marriage' Will Expose Children to Gay
Sex-Ed
Cardinal Gives Direction to Priests and Faithful on Supporting Traditional Marriage
Marriage Commissioners
Stand Their Ground
Canadian Supreme
Court Says Ottawa Can Institute Same-Sex "Marriage"
Canadians
Deceived on Same-sex Marriage Issue
Fight
over Homosexual Marriage Heats Up in Canada
Canadian
Justice Minister Says Same-Sex "Marriage" Law Could be Ready by
January
Canada: Committee Rejects Appeal to Allow Voting on Marriage
Definition Bill
CFAC comment on this
U.S. Voters
on November 2nd, 2004, Voted on Marriage as Well as for
Representatives
Bishops Warn Supreme Court of Threat to Religious Freedom if Marriage is
Redefined
Canada's
Yukon Territory Forced to Legalize Homosexual Marriage by Judicial Fiat
"Stalwart
Clergy Can Still Save Marriage" [an opinion piece by Royal Hamel]
"Perform
Same-Sex Marriages or Resign, BC Tells Commissioners"
"Unity
Proposes Conscience Legislation for Marriage Commissioners"
[press release]
George W. Bush on Marriage
and Abstinence in State-of-the-Union Address
A
Sample Letter to British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell
Canadian Alliance Motion Supporting Traditional
Marriage is Defeated
Canadian
Alliance Leader Stephen Harper's Speech on Marriage
New York Times: Many
homosexuals don't believe in marriage and
Another
Example of Homosexuality Activists' Showing Contempt for Free Speech?
BC Court of Appeal Orders Immediate
Same-Sex Marriage
REAL
Woman Statement: Judicial Activism by British Columbia Court of Appeal
Statement on
the Status of Marriage in Canada
BC
Allows Homosexuals to Marry
House
Committee Favours Same-Sex Unions
"Ontario
Supreme Court Imposes New Definition of Marriage"
Action Alert from
REAL Women of Canada--June 10, 2003
Activists
for Same-Sex "Marriage" Want Not Tolerance, But a Stamp of Approval
Material to
Assist You in Defending Marria
"Liberal
'Free Vote' Proposal on Same-Sex Marriage a
Sham"--Alliance Justice Critic
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.
Marriage Week
We are indebted to United Mothers &
Fathers & Friends for the article immediately below:
I)
February 10 – 17 Celebrate Marriage Week
Couples
who have stayed married for 20 to 60 years have two things in common:
1)
They prioritize their
time together as a couple.
2)
They take a long-term
view of their marriage.
Building
friendship or dedication is the ultimate key to a successful marriage, according
to marriage researchers.
“Marriage Week” was
pioneered in 1996 by Richard Kane of the
U.K.
Since then, it has grown into an
international phenomenon and means to strengthening families and marriages
around the world.
Let’s
all take the opportunity this week to celebrate, honour and encourage the
marriages of those around us.
If you are married, or
preparing for marriage, take the opportunity to focus on your relationship and
strengthen it.
II)
Take Action:
Take the 10 Minute Challenge!
“Couples
who drift apart do so because time together is pressured and unrewarding.
Creating a meaningful ten minute ritual is a great way to keep the fire
of love burning brightly, even if time is short.”
Richard
Kane, founder of National Marriage Week
I have a friend who inspires me
in many ways.
One of the rituals she
developed with her husband is to spend time talking together after supper on the
front porch swing.
The children know this is Mom
and Dad’s special time and not to disturb them, unless there’s an emergency.
Their topics of conversation change from day to day and range from how
their day went, to items in the news, to gardening, to how the children and
relatives are doing, to future plans and goals.
This tradition has strengthened and kept them close through many
challenges.
Will you take the 10 Minute
Challenge? It’s simple.
TAKE
ACTION:
1)
Stop everything else and take 10 minutes each day during Marriage Week to have a
face-to-face discussion about any topical news story.
Although some couples naturally
chat every day, some couples only chat about family scheduling and then only
when necessary.
“A
10 minute chat about the news may seem easy for some.
But for others it may really help them start to get back on track.”
“Most
couples get married because they are great friends.
Most couples divorce because they have grown apart.
The message is clear. Friendship
depends on making time to deepen the relationship.
Spending time doing simple things keeps friendships fresh and alive.
Spending time together allows the good and bad to be discussed.”
Richard
Kane
2)
For further ideas on celebrating marriage week Google: “Marriage
Week”.
III)
Making a Difference -
Pastor Bob in
Cornwall
,
Ontario
One
man’s dream has grown into a community’s commitment to strengthening
families.
In
response to our August newsletter last year calling upon government to declare
2008 the Year of the Family, Pastor Bob Burgess brought together a coalition of
faith leaders in his region with the idea of promoting and celebrating the Year
of the Family in their communities.
SUCCESS!
They
began by approaching the City Fathers of Cornwall, Ontario, and asking them to
declare 2008 as the Year of the Family. To
their delight the mayor and the rest of the city councilors agreed and formally
signed a declaration naming 2008 the Year of the Family.
To
date their coalition has brainstormed a range of ideas for their year long
celebration, published several articles in the local newspaper regarding the
year of the family and strengthening families, and sent out information packages
on marriage research to approximately 100 other pastors and ministers.
Their
coalition will formally launch their Year of the Family campaign on February 17,
the day before
Ontario
’s civic holiday - “Family Day, February 18.
Pastor
Bob explained, “Our vision as pastors and
church leaders would be that we, together, would give our families the attention
they deserve and would work together to strengthen and encourage everyone to
spend the time needed to bring our families back to the place they were intended
to be by God, that is, a place of unconditional love, a place of caring, a place
of helping, a place of safety, a place of hope, a place of laughter, a place of
sharing the ups and down of life, a place of praying together for one another, a
place where moms and dads take their respective places of leading their families
and where children give them the respect they so deserve.”
Spanish protests [sic]
calls for defence of family
Reuters UK website, Sun., Dec. 30, 2007
By Jason Webb
MADRID (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of Spaniards demonstrated in favour
of the traditional family in the centre of Madrid on Sunday, in a show of force
by Catholics in what is now one of the most liberal countries in Europe.
Organisers said more than one-and-a-half million people packed Colon Square
and surrounding streets for the event, which was addressed by Pope Benedict in a
live video link.
While they said they had no political motives, the huge demonstration came
just over two months before general elections in which a Socialist government
which has legalised gay marriage and made divorce easier bids for another term
in office.
Under the shadow of Colon Square's huge Spanish flag and just a short walk
from the gay bars of Madrid's Chueca district, families and churchgoers bussed
in from all over the country heard speakers call for the defence of the
traditional family.
"Founded in the indissoluble union between man and woman, it is the
place in which human life is sheltered and protected from its beginning until
its natural end," said Pope Benedict. [Click
here to read the whole article on the Reuters UK website.]
Sweden Proposes Moving
from Civil Unions to Legalizing Homosexual 'Marriage'
By Gudrun Schultz
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, March 23, 2007 (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
group RFSL.
"You can't pick and choose from Swedish law," he said.
A consultation process will begin now that Regner's report has been released. If
passed, the law would make Sweden the sixth country in the world to recognize
homosexual "marriage", after Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain
and South Africa.
The Ottawa Citizen - Jan. 2, 2007:
Tories
pushed to call royal commission on marriage: Social conservatives want
Conservatives to 'mend fences' with traditional supporters
By Peter O'Neil, The Vancouver Sun
Canada's social-conservative movement, still stinging
from
last month's refusal by MPs to reopen the debate on gay marriage, wants
Prime Minister Stephen Harper to order a royal commission on marriage and
families. An informal coalition of social conservative groups says a royal
commission would make recommendations on a variety of matters, from family
tax policy to child care. But the coalition acknowledges such a study,
headed by an eminent Canadian, could give the movement a chance to revive
the gay marriage issue in Parliament. The three groups calling for the
commission are Langley, B.C.-based Focus on the Family Canada (through its
Ottawa-based research arm, the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada), the
Ottawa-based Institute for Canadian Values and the Alberta-based Canada
Family Action Coalition, said Joseph Ben-Ami, founder of the Institute for
Canadian Values.
Mr. Ben-Ami said Mr. Harper must not take social conservatives - mostly
religious political advocates opposed to abortion, gay rights and
euthanasia - for granted in the next election. "I think the prime minister,
and I think the Conservative party have to spend some time looking at the
relationship it has with social conservatives, and I think there's some
damage that has to be repaired, some fences that have to be mended," Mr.
Ben-Ami said. "I'm a small-c conservative, don't expect me to go out and
vote Liberal. But I do have an alternative - and that's staying home."
Dave Quist, executive director of Focus on the Family Canada's Ottawa
branch, is more cautious - Focus is a registered charity forbidden from
engaging in partisan politics. But he said a royal commission would give
Canadians time to understand the implications of government measures
affecting families. Gay marriage "may come up as a part of that, but I
don't
see that as the main thrust," Mr. Quist said. "Same-sex marriage is
one
piece of a big puzzle of the institution of family."
Mr. Ben-Ami said many social conservatives are frustrated that Mr.
Harper went ahead with last month's vote in the House of Commons, in which a
motion to reconsider Parliament's 2005 decision to legalize gay marriages
was soundly defeated. They were infuriated, he said, with Mr.
Harper's refusal to strongly defend traditional marriage in Parliament and
his statement after the vote that he doesn't foresee bringing up the issue
again.
Despite that frustration, he said social conservatives appreciate a number
of steps taken by Mr. Harper, including giving money directly to parents
rather than day care, promising an increase in the age of sexual consent to
16 from 14, and closing Status of Women Canada offices and the Court
Challenges Program. Mr. Ben-Ami also praised the government for strongly
defending Israel in the summertime conflict in Lebanon, as well as the
government's strong defence of human rights and religious freedom in China.
But he said many social conservatives don't pay attention to incremental
steps, and called on Mr. Harper to send a positive signal that he's still
listening to their objections to gay marriage. "I think that the way the
question was handled has created some questions within the
social-conservative movement about the commitment of the government to
keeping social conservatives within the big tent," he said.
Alberta political scientist Faron Ellis said Mr. Ben-Ami and other
government critics will fail to keep the gay marriage issue alive. Mr.
Harper, according to Mr. Ellis, wanted to lose the marriage vote in order to
bury Liberal allegations that he has a hidden agenda to trample on minority
rights. "They will have absolutely no success. He's not one of them,"
Mr.
Ellis said of Mr. Harper, an evangelical Christian who was considered a
social moderate in the old Reform party. "The gay marriage vote went
according to plan. They had no intention of winning it. And, now it's
settled, like abortion." Mr. Ellis said the social conservatives have no
electoral option, and the threat of simply sitting on their hands in the
next election will only weaken their cause.
Muzzling
free speech
Why
can't people speak against same-sex marriage?
By
Gwendolyn Landolt
The
Hamilton
Spectator(
Dec 11, 2006
)
Two
views of homosexuality are creating tensions in
Canada
.
Some
believe, on the basis of equality, that there should be no distinction drawn
in any way by society between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
Others are opposed to homosexuality for practical, medical, moral and/or
religious reasons.
The
"no distinction" approach has dominated primarily because of the
decisions of appointed judges and human rights panellists. It was on this
basis that the legalization of same-sex marriages was made.
Even
within the parliamentary process, the decision on same-sex marriage has been
made by a very few individuals. When same-sex marriage was first debated in
Parliament in June 2005, 19 NDP MPs and the 39 Liberal Cabinet members were
ordered by their leaders to vote in support of it. The Liberals then rammed
through the legislation by disallowing any amendments and imposing closure to
cut off debate.
In
debate last week, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties again excluded the public
from the same-sex marriage debate by requiring its MPs vote along party lines.
Liberal
Leader Stephane Dion was not much better. He begrudgingly allowed a free vote,
although making the claim that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental"
right under the Charter of Rights.
He was
wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether the traditional
definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal
decision on same-sex marriage, which assumed the leadership role among the
provincial courts on this issue, is now under a cloud, due to a complaint laid
against Chief Justice Roy McMurtry before the Canadian Judicial Council for
serious judicial impropriety and the apprehension of bias for his part in that
case.
Same-sex
marriage is now public policy and has already triggered some significant
changes.
This
new definition of marriage has a profound impact on the welfare of children. A
large body of social scientific research indicates that children thrive best
with a mother and father who teach them gender identity and sex role
expectations. This was the conclusion of a committee of the French National
Assembly, which recommended, in January 2006, that
France
not accept same-sex marriage due to its detrimental effect on children.
The
French committee criticized studies on same-sex parenting that claimed it had
no ill effects on children, on the basis that these studies lacked scientific
rigour, included inadequate sampling, and showed a lack of objectivity.
The
Court of Appeal of
New York
and the Supreme Court of Washington last July also rejected same-sex marriage
because of concern for the welfare of children.
Same-sex
marriages are not functionally equivalent to opposite-sex marriages, but are
different in structure, values and practice. It is widely acknowledged that
these differences include the fact that sexual faithfulness is not usually
regarded as a requirement in same-sex relationships, but is of vital
importance in a heterosexual marriage.
Same-sex
partners experience a higher incidence of health problems resulting in shorter
life spans.
The
duration of same-sex marriages is shorter than that of opposite-sex
relationships: on average, the former last only two to three years. These
factors are detrimental to children who require stability in their lives.
A trend
resulting from same-sex marriage is evident in the Netherlands, which has
allowed homosexual couples to register their partnerships since 1997 and which
legalized same-sex marriages in 2000. Statistics show that the out-of-wedlock
birthrate there has increased by an average of 2 per cent a year -- more than
in any other country in western Europe. This indicates a marked decrease in a
desire for legal marriage and an increase in cohabitation.
The
legalization of same-sex marriage in
Canada
has put law and religion on a collision course. The Catholic organization, the
Knights of Columbus, in Port Coquitlam, B.C., was required to pay a fine for
causing "hurt feelings" when it denied the use of the organization's
hall to a lesbian couple to celebrate their wedding.
Religion-based
social services, such as counselling and adoption services, are now required
to conform to the same-sex marriage law.
The
tax-exempt status of churches has become the subject of intimidation and
harassment. Bishop Fred Henry of
Calgary
was threatened by the Canada Revenue Agency with removal of the Roman Catholic
Church's tax-exempt status if he persisted in speaking against same-sex
marriage during a federal election.
Those
who favour same-sex marriages are free to speak their views, but those opposed
to them are being harassed and coerced into refraining from doing so. This was
evident at
Ryerson
University
in June when a respected professor of ethics from
McGill
University
, Dr. Margaret Somerville, who opposes same-sex marriage, was subjected to
public attack, including picketing when she received an honorary degree there.
Within
school boards, teachers and other individuals are being forced to deny their
religious beliefs and freedom of speech by being required to promote same-sex
marriage, and publicly refraining from expressing any opposition to it. A
teacher and school counsellor in
British Columbia
, Chris Kempling, submitted a letter to his local newspaper objecting to
homosexuality. This resulted in his suspension for one month without pay by
the
B.C.
College
of Teachers, which alleged that Kempling's letters "poisoned the school
environment."
Subsequently,
Kempling was a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party and, in that
capacity, had a letter to the editor published in his local newspaper opposing
same-sex marriage. He received a further suspension of three months without
pay.
School
boards in
Quebec
and
Ontario
, especially in
Toronto
,
Hamilton
and
London
, now require homosexual "education" in their school systems. Such
programs do not provide balanced instruction on the issue, and the medical,
psychological and legal impact of homosexuality are not mentioned.
As
these examples show, these are monumental consequences to same-sex marriage.
Are these the changes that Canadians want? Who knows? We've never been given
the opportunity to express our views. A referendum on the issue is clearly
required.
Gwendolyn
Landolt is national vice-president, REAL Women of Canada
Pope
slams "dismal" theories on gay marriage rights
Fri
Dec 22,
7:35 AM
ROME
(Reuters) - Pope Benedict spoke out on
Friday against legal recognition for unmarried couples and "dismal
theories" on the rights of gays to marry which he said stripped men and
women of their innate sexual identity.
"I
cannot hide my concern about legislation on de facto couples," the Pope
said in a Christmas address to the
Rome
clergy, weighing into a raging debate in
Italy
over what legal rights should be given to
unmarried and gay couples.
Tensions
have been rising in recent months between the
Vatican
and left-wing parties in Prime Minister
Romano Prodi's ruling coalition, which has pledged to grant some kind of legal
recognition to unmarried couples.
Some
centre-left politicians have scorned the
Vatican
for speaking out against the initiative, but
the Pope said the Church had the right to be heard.
"If they say the Church shouldn't interfere in these
matters, then we can only reply: should mankind perhaps not interest us?"
he said.
The Pope said granting legal recognition to unwed couples
was a threat to traditional marriage, which required a higher level of
commitment.
But he saved his strongest words for those who suggest
gay couples should be put on the same level as a husband and wife.
"This tacitly accredits those dismal theories that
strip all relevance from the masculinity and femininity of the human being as
though it were a purely biological issue," the Pope said.
Theories "according to which man should be able to
decide autonomously what he is and what he isn't," end up with mankind
destroying its own identity, he said.
Two
parliamentarians in the ruling coalition this week outraged fellow lawmakers
by placing four dolls representing homosexual couples near the baby Jesus in
the official nativity scene in
Italy
's parliament.
They said their gesture was to promote legal recognition
for unmarried couples and the legalization of gay marriage.
Left
Apoplectic Over Dr. Dobson's Time Platform
[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
Time magazine.
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."
Questionable rebuttal
The other attack against Dr. Dobson came in the form of a
rebuttal op-ed published in Time's online edition last week. It's written by
Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of a pro-gay group called Family Pride,
and in it she accuses Dr. Dobson of "lying" about the data he cites to
support his conclusions.
Focus on the Family's Earll scoffed at the charge.
"The truth is, Time's editors fact-checked Dr.
Dobson's piece before they published it," she said. "Not one fact he
laid out was excised as untrue. Calling him a liar just points to the
desperation of those on the left. When they can't fight facts with facts, they
fight them with name-calling."
In fact, Focus on the Family research analysts did a
point-by-point examination of Chrisler's piece and found it to contain many
questionable assertions. The most egregious may be this one: "According to
the 2000 census, the vast majority -- more than 75% -- of American children, are
being raised in families that differ in structure from two married, heterosexual
parents and their biological children."
Not true, Focus' analysis finds.
"Anyone can go online to the U.S. Census
Bureau's recent data and learn that in 2001, 71 percent of children lived in a
two-parent home and 67.6 percent lived with two married parents," the
report states. "Of the children living with two parents, 88 percent lived
with their biological mother and father, and only 10 percent lived with one
biological and one step-parent.
"In fact, the Urban Institute, a liberal
child-advocacy organization, reports that a child is more likely to be living
with her married parents today than in the mid 1990s, rising 2.5 percentage
points since that time."
Chrisler also makes the stale argument that
"professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers
have all issued position statements supporting same-sex parents."
What she doesn't say is that the associations that have
issued such statements have done so via very small and special-interest driven
committees -- hardly representing the views of the groups' entire memberships.
You can read more of the refutations of Chrisler's
work by seeing the "FOR MORE INFORMATION" box below, but the outrage
over the attacks on Dobson is more than just a case of Focus on the Family
coming to its own defense. Prominent academics have written to Time to back up
the conclusions of Dr. Dobson's commentary.
"It comforts me as a pediatrician when a
health-professions colleague of Dr. Dobson's stature presents the science of
child rearing so clearly," wrote Joseph Zanga, M.D., a professor of
pediatrics and president of the American College of Pediatricians. "Of
course children need a mother and a father, female and male, to optimally guide
them through all of their developmental stages to adulthood. This is not new
science. It was
taught to me in every year of my education through and including medical school."
Robert George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and
Institutions at Princeton University, noted the issues Dr. Dobson wrote of are
"common sense to most people." Dr. James Dobson's
critics call him names ('extremist,' 'liar') but actually confirm his central
point," George explained. "Their focus is on the wants and preferences
of adults, rather than the obligations adults have as a matter of basic justice
to children they may conceive."
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To read Focus on the Family's point-by-point rebuttals of
the allegations made against Dr. Dobson over his Time commentary, visit the
CitizenLink Web site. You can find supporting statements and research for his
piece here, and refutations of the points made by Jennifer Chrisler here.
http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/Time_Response_121406.pdf
http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/Chrisler_Refutation_121906.pdf
You also can hear more about this subject from Dr. Dobson himself in the January
edition of his Focus on the Family newsletter. If you don't receive it at your
home, you can find it online beginning Jan. 1.
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/
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
issue.
"[T]here is simply not enough evidence from the research done to date that
could allow firm conclusions to be drawn as to the consequences of same sex
marriage particularly in the area of the welfare of children."
The United States-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy commented on
the Irish court decision, saying:
'Of particular interest may be the court's discussion about the evidence
purporting to show no difference between children raised by same-sex couples and
those raised by married couples. The judge accepted testimony about the
methodological shortcomings of available evidence and said: "It also seems
to me having regard to the criticism of the methodology used in the majority of
the studies conducted to date that until such time as there are more
longitudinal studies involving much larger samples that it will be difficult to
reach firm conclusions on this topic."'
'The court concluded that the Irish Constitution's explicit reference to a
constitutional right of opposite-sex couples to marry justified the legal
distinction between same- and opposite-sex couples in the marriage law. The
court further noted, however, that the marriage law was further justified by
concerns with the 'welfare of children' since in the absence of good research,
'the State is entitled to adopt a cautious approach to changing the capacity to
marry.'"
Justice Dunne said the decision to grant legal recognition to same-sex couples
apart from marriage should be up to the legislature, not the courts.
Currently in Ireland, legislation has been proposed that would permit homosexual
couples to enter in to civil unions with some of the legal benefits given to
married heterosexual couples.
Read the full Ireland
High Court decision .
Canada's
PM Won't Try Again on Marriage
and has No Plan to Protect Religious Freedom
Says, "I don't see reopening this question in the future."
By John-Henry Westen
OTTAWA, December 8, 2006 (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
protection."
In that speech Harper enumerated many of the threats to religious freedom that
would ensue from the homosexual 'marriage' legislation if passed. Already his
predictions have been realized as marriage commissioners have been forced either
to perform homosexual 'marriages' or resign. A Knights of Columbus hall was sued
after it refused to host a homosexual 'wedding'. And school curricula at all
levels are being altered to ensure the indoctrination of children in the
'equality' of homosexual 'marriages' and the legitimacy of homosexuality.
At the time, Harper promised, "Should the bill survive second reading, we
will propose amendments in areas like these to ensure that in all areas subject
to federal jurisdiction nobody will be discriminated against on the basis of
their religious beliefs or practices regarding marriage."
In September, Campaign Life Coalition asked the Prime Minister to honour those
promises to protect religious freedom should the effort to restore traditional
marriage fail. The Conservatives floated a 'trial balloon' Protection of
Religions Act, but it apparently did not receive the press they desired.
In the wake of yesterday's vote in the House not to reopen the marriage debate,
more groups are demanding the safeguarding of religious freedom, and freedom of
speech.
"Now, more than ever, core conservatives will be demanding strong federal
legislation protecting children and protecting freedoms of speech, religion, and
conscience," said Canada Family Action Coalition executive director Brian
Rushfeldt, in a release yesterday.
"We must ensure judges do not continue prosecuting people for holding or
expressing views that do not endorse a liberal politically correct philosophy.
We must ensure that Canadians are free to express their views on issues of
sexuality including homosexual behavior, as well as other foundational issues
such as marriage, family, and morality. We must demand that such views are not
quenched, oppressed or prosecuted in this democratic nation that boasts of its
tolerance."
To express your concerns to the Prime Minister:
pm@pm.gc.ca
See Harper's full speech: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/050217b.html
Canadian
Government Motion to Reopen Debate on Homosexual "Marriage" Defeated
175 to 123
Only 20 of 308 MPs were in Commons for the Debate
OTTAWA, December 7, 2006 (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
showing up."
RESPONSE TO THE DEFEAT OF THE MOTION TO REOPEN
THE MARRIAGE \DEBATE:
“Women’s
Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights”
NGO
in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the
United Nations
M
E D I A R E L E A S
E
Democracy
Denied on Same-sex Marriage Vote
Referendum
Demanded
Ottawa,
Ontario
December 7, 2006
The
NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties have excluded the public from the same-sex
marriage debate by insisting their MPs vote along party lines.
Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has begrudgingly allowed a free vote,
although making the claim that same-sex marriage is a “fundamental”
right under the Charter of Rights. He
is wrong. The Supreme Court of
Canada has never ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is
unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision on same-sex marriage,
which assumed the leadership role among the provincial courts on this issue,
is now under a cloud, due to a complaint laid against Chief Justice McMurtry
before the Canadian Judicial Council for serious judicial impropriety and
the apprehension of bias for his part in that case.
Moreover,
there is no human rights treaty that recognizes same-sex marriage.
In fact, the UN treaties say quite the opposite in that they define
marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Same-sex marriage is not included in the Charter of Rights, nor in
the European Convention of Rights.
Further,
the vote in Parliament on same-sex marriage, held in June 2005, was farcical
with 39 Cabinet Ministers being denied a free vote, the refusal to accept
amendments, and the invoking of closure, which prevented the critical issues
surrounding same-sex marriage being debated.
These issues include the impact of same-sex marriage on the welfare
of children, the right to religious freedom and conscience by both religious
and secular organizations, and the impact of same-sex marriage on education
policies.
Elitist
political leaders apparently believe that Canada is still in the twentieth
century, where political parties ignored the opinion of the voting public.
However, in today’s technologically advanced world, a well-educated
public must be allowed to participate in setting government policy, and
especially so on the same-sex marriage issue -- the most important issue of
this generation.
Arrogant
political leaders do not, in fact, know what’s best for everyone.
The
Necessity for a Referendum on Same-sex Marriage
Since
the Canadian public has been denied a voice on the issue of same-sex
marriage, a very persuasive argument can be made for a referendum on the
same-sex marriage issue. The
1992 Referendum Act provides that the government may call for a
referendum on a constitutional issue. Marriage
is an issue under our constitution, as it is set out in S.91 and S.92 of the
1867 British North America Act [BNA].
The time for a referendum has now arrived.
Contact:
C.
Gwendolyn Landolt, LLB
Diane Watts
National
Vice President Researcher
(905)
787-0348, (905) 731-5425 (613)
236-4001
NEWS
RELEASE
For
Immediate Release
December
7, 2006
Government
Abandons Marriage, says CFAC
Calgary
-
After witnessing the weak performance by the small number of MPs that bothered
to show up for the so-called “debate” in Parliament on marriage yesterday,
some things have become painfully clear.
Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) says it is not just the opposition
parties who have abandoned marriage. “The “progressive” Conservative MPs
appear to be taking over the party in their abandonment of marriage” says
Brian Rushfeldt, CFAC’s Executive Director. “Peter McKay, Gerald Keddy,
Jim Prentice, James Moore and other likeminded “progressives“ have just set
a tone that could result in a Conservative loss in the next election. When a
party abandons the values of its core base, it loses support.”
Rushfeldt
points out that over a million additional voters went to the polls in the last
election. Who were those people? And what got them out? Did Gomery
drive people to the polls by exposing the corruption of the Liberals? No –
many may have not bothered to vote as a result of that issue because they lost
trust in all politicians. On the other hand, CFAC believes that Prime Minister
Harper’s promise to seriously re-visit the marriage issue did bring many
additional voters out.
“The
lack of a genuine defense of marriage or proposed solution in this week’s
parliamentary debate signals the abandonment of conservative values,” says
Rushfeldt. He adds, “The marriage issue must be re-opened regardless of the
vote. A study to expose the impact upon children and society of the Liberal
redefinition of marriage and the attempt to normalize homosexual behavior has to
be done, regardless of this vote.”
The old “progressives” have all but guaranteed, at best a Conservative
minority next election, and at worst a defeat. “We are well aware that the
“old progressives” are unwilling to support any social conservative values
or policies. I would like to remind the party that the old
“progressives” under McKay’s leadership held all of 15 seats. And after
Mulroney the abandonment of social conservatism they held – two. I would hope
the Conservative Party would learn from its own history.”
“Now, more than ever, core conservatives will be demanding strong
federal legislation protecting children and protecting freedoms of speech,
religion, and conscience,” says Rushfeldt. “We must ensure judges do
not continue prosecuting people for holding or expressing views that do not
endorse a liberal politically correct philosophy. We must ensure that Canadians
are free to express their views on issues of sexuality including homosexual
behavior, as well as other foundational issues such as marriage, family, and
morality. We must demand that such views are not quenched, oppressed or
prosecuted in this democratic nation that boasts of its tolerance.”
Judges must be checked from altering the Constitution whenever their ideology
needs to be written into law. We have an amending formula for Constitutional
change – I don’t see in it the power of one judge in one case to amend OUR
Charter. Will a Conservative government protect the Charter that Dion is so
proud to use when it suits liberal dogma.
What will the Conservatives do to regain support and trust of their core base
before the next election? asks Rushfeldt. “We believe the Conservative’s
only hope for a majority government is to appeal to the majority of Canadians
and majority of their core support base.”
-30-
"The Marriage Battle Continues," says Campaign
Life Coalition
"Unfortunately, there was no vote today on traditional marriage in the
House of Commons"
OTTAWA, December 7, 2006 (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
marriages."
In recent months a French government advisory board rejected same-sex
'marriage' for the sake of children. "Canadians know that a child
needs a mother and a father and will accept nothing less," said Mary
Ellen Douglas, national organizer of CLC.
In light of today's vote some are calling for a halt to the marriage debate,
however those in favour of traditional marriage are rejecting the
proposal.
"The battle for the right of the traditional family, like the battle
for the rights of the unborn Canadian children will continue," stated
Mr. Hughes. Contrary to the wishful thinking of the National Post and
others, he added, "the issue is far from decided."
Catholics and
Evangelicals Say Marriage Battle Not Over
“True democracy does not exist without a foundation of real marriage and the
natural family”
By Hilary White
December 8, 2006 (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
status.
In Wednesday’s debates in the House, MP’s arguing for retaining homosexual
“marriage” depended heavily on the theme that the decision was finished
and the country wanted to “move on.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper appeared to accept that the vote in the House
was decisive and said the democratic process had been honoured. However,
today’s reaction from religious groups shows there is still considerable
public turmoil.
“That's pure nonsense,” said Rev. Tristan Emmanuel the President of
Equipping Christians for the Public-square (ECP) Centre. “Democracy is not a
commodity that belongs to political pragmatists so that they can twist it and
manipulate it for their own career advancement.
“True democracy does not exist without a foundation of real marriage and the
natural family. Until marriage and family are respected, we won't respect
yesterday's result,” Rev. Emmanuel said.
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) said it “will continue to
maintain that the institution of marriage is the public covenanting together
of a man and a woman in a loving, enduring and exclusive relationship.”
The EFC reconfirmed a statement on the nature of marriage signed November 9 by
over 50 religious leaders from various faiths across Canada – including
Roman Catholic, Evangelical and Orthodox Christians and Muslims.
Douglas Cryer, EFC director of public policy called the process used to
redefine marriage “flawed.” “In redefining marriage, the government has
failed to either study the issue or give consideration to studies completed by
other countries,” Cryer said.
Bruce J. Clemenger, president of the EFC. “In the wake of today’s vote, we
call on Parliament and all Canadians to respect the diversity of views on the
nature and meaning of marriage and to affirm the legitimacy of faith
communities to abide by an understanding of marriage that has served the
public good.”
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement they are
“deeply disappointed” that the House of Commons refused to revisit the
issue. The bishops are calling on Canadian Catholics to “guard against
further changes to the definition of civil marriage, including polygamy” and
urge political parties “to allow their members a free vote on basic ethical
and moral questions.”
The Catholic bishops said, “Marriage is an issue intimately related to human
nature which has been created male and female.” The bishops urged Catholics
to call on government to “safeguard faith groups” from being penalized by
their charitable tax status.
Campaign Life Coalition Canada, REAL Women Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights
League, Enshrine Marriage Canada, Vote Marriage Canada and the Canada Family
Action Coalition all vowed yesterday not to give up until natural marriage is
restored in Canadian law.
"Politics
and Same-Sex Marriage," by Stephen Baskerville is the
"feature article" in the current issue (November-December, 2006) of
Society magazine. The following
is an excerpt from that article:
Opinion:
A
Statement Worth Considering
"Politics
and Same-Sex Marriage," by Stephen Baskerville is the
"feature article" in the current issue (November-December, 2006) of
Society magazine. The following
is an excerpt from that article:
"Granting gay couples the right to have children by definition means
giving at least one of the partners the right to have someone else's children,
and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to
part with them or committed some transgression to warrant losing them. Current law governing divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse
render this question open. ... gay marriages and gay adoption ..
the latest of many consequences that inevitably ensued once government
officials got into the business .. of distributing other people's children."
(quotation given on the “Equal
Parenting” website)
Conservative Party Marriage Motion Wording Revealed
By John-Henry Westen
OTTAWA, December 1, 2006 (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."
Tories
plan December vote on same-sex marriage
The Conservatives will follow
through with their election promise to revisit same-sex marriage, with debate
expected to begin as early as next week.
The government confirmed Tuesday
they will begin debate Dec. 6th with a vote planned before the House breaks
for the holidays.
The motion is expected to ask
MPs to reopen discussion on same-sex marriage, but will not directly challenge
the existing legislation. However, it may ask whether parliamentarians wish to
repeal or amend the existing law.
[Click
here to read the whole article from CBC online.]
REAL Women Cite “Horrendous” Media
Bias in “Gay Marriage” Coverage
The few journalists writing in favour of traditional marriage are being
harassed, threatened
By Hilary White
TORONTO, October 13, 2006 (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
findings.
“The public has been deprived of valuable information as the debate has
been deliberately framed in terms of human rights and Charter rights only.”
“The traditional position on marriage did not receive fair exposure except
for columns by a few stalwart journalists who put their careers on the line to
report the facts against the promotion of same-sex marriage. Some
columnists were and continue to be harassed by their editors for doing so.
Many have received nasty hate mail and threats to their lives and safety.”
“These journalists often stand alone, never knowing when the axe will fall
to end their employment as a result of a complaint from a reader whose feelings
are hurt.” REAL Women is asking supporters of marriage to contact journalists
personally and support them. “Write letters to the editor defending their
point of view. .. Brave journalists writing for major media outlets serve their
country well during these difficult times for the family, and they need our
support.”
See Don Martin column:
Tory strides hurt by a misstep
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=cccbe276-3aed-4ded-98fe-2efc67afa011
and much, much more.
Back to Top | Email
to a Friend
Defending
marriage Take up the pen!
By LAUREEN McMAHON
Archbishop Raymond Roussin, SM, of Vancouver has written a letter to Prime
Minister Stephen Harper clearly stating why Catholics must reject last year’s
passage of legislation attempting to redefine marriage in this country.
The letter thanks Mr. Harper for keeping his campaign promise to reintroduce
the issue before Parliament during the fall session now underway.
The archbishop reiterates the fact that marriage has historically been
defined as a “life-long covenant of love between a man and a woman” and long
understood as the best way to raise and educate children.
Catholics, the archbishop suggests, should alert their MPs to the fact that
the debate which led to the passing of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, was
unfairly curtailed and pushed through the House and Senate without most MPs
being permitted a free vote, leaving their constituents unrepresented.
Attempts to redefine marriage, Archbishop Roussin notes, threaten the
protection of religious freedom for all people of faith, ignore numerous studies
showing that children do much better when they are raised by a married mother
and father, have been rejected by other countries such as the U.S. and France,
and open the door to talk of legalizing polygamy and other relationship choices
harmful to society.
Bishop Richard Gagnon of Victoria, writing in the Diocesan Messenger, has
requested that Catholics in his diocese contact federal party leaders and MPs to
express the view that “the traditional definition of marriage should be
restored for the good of the nation and for the protection of children.”
Letters defending marriage should also go to newspapers, magazines, and other
media, says Bishop Gagnon, and he urges everyone to pray for Canada’s
politicians.
The Office of Life and Family of the Vancouver Archdiocese has information on
how to contact MPs and B.C. senators posted at 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
be won
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
be won.
The do’s and don’ts list is being promoted in their various publications
by all the cooperating groups. CLC says that winning the upcoming vote “can be
done” but also that “It won’t be easy to accomplish” and “We must do
everything in our power to ensure that the motion is passed.”
The national pro-life group’s newsletter stresses that between “now and
the vote on the motion, pro-family Canadians have two vitally important tasks:
1. lobby their MPs on the marriage issue and
2. become involved in the candidate nomination process to help select pro-life
and pro-traditional marriage candidates in all parties”
Candidate nominations are part II to the overall strategy, the lobbying for
the vote being considered the most immediate priority since the MPs are still in
their riding offices. It is there, among the constituents that elect them, that
the Members of Parliament can be most affected, says CLC.
The newsletter article stresses that many MP’s, including even some who
voted for traditional marriage in the past, “would like the issue to go
away” and therefore personal lobbying in the riding is “crucial”. As well,
it is emphasized that some who voted for the change in the definition can still
be convinced to change their position to pro-traditional marriage.
As for the nominations, CLC notes that the all Conservative and NDP
incumbents “will have to face challengers” and so no MP for these parties,
whether for or against traditional marriage, is secure in his nomination. As for
the Liberals, whose MPs are protected from nomination challenges, it is noted,
“there might be an unusually large number of incumbents retiring from
politics.”
Seattle
Archbishop Condemns Gay “Marriage”, Fears State-made Theology, Lawsuits
By Gudrun Schultz
SEATTLE, Washington, July 25, 2006 (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
women."
While the brief marks Archbishop Brunett’s first contribution to the legal
battle underway in the state, in September 2005 he issued a pastoral letter
clarifying the Church’s teaching on marriage. Entitled The Gift of Marriage, A
Union Most Sacred, the letter responded to “challenges to the understanding of marriage commonly held in our
society.” . . . .
The battle over the state’s ban on homosexual marriage has been in the
courts since 2004, when Seattle King County Superior Court Judge William Downing
ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage violated the state
constitution. Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens said Thursday the decision on
the same-sex “marriage” case would likely come September 19, according to
the AP.
Marriage Amendment Stopped
in U.S. Senate
by Hilary White
WASHINGTON, June 7, 2006 (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
preserve marriage.”
Forty-five states have passed laws or amended their constitutions to establish
marriage between one man and one woman. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act allows
states to refuse to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. Supporters believe
that a constitutional amendment defining marriage is necessary to prevent courts
from overturning state bans.
President Bush and the supporters of marriage in both parties have vowed to keep
trying. “Our nation's founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution
and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an amendment
builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress,” the
president said.
"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is
protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
“Clearly as time goes on there will be more votes in favour of this,"
said South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune, according to the Washington Post.
"We make a little headway each time this is debated."
Prime Minister Harper says Same Sex
"Marriage" Vote Coming this Fall
OTTAWA, June 2, 2006 (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
campaign promise.
Pro-family groups were seeking a delay, at least till the Fall, on the vote
to have time to shore up support for the measure to reopen the debate, but
homosexual activists were pressing for a vote as soon as possible.
Parliamentary sources told 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
marriage.
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
than later”.
“This vote will also be extremely crucial,” says Defend Marriage, “for
religious organizations in Canada, because, contrary to the former Liberal
government's assertions, religious groups will inevitably be subject to legal
challenges if the legal definition of marriage remains unchanged and continues
to include same-sex partners”.
The delay so far in calling the vote is seen by the Coalition as “a window
of opportunity to ensure a winning vote in support of traditional marriage”
but the group emphasizes that “this will only occur if we are able to
effectively marshal articulate voices in defense of children, families, and
religious freedom”.
The letter goes on to explain and illustrate the specific threats to
religious freedom posed by the current situation and warns “the same-sex
marriage legislation has created serious problems which warrant our deepest
concern.”
Defend Marriage emphasizes, “The initial vote will be, as the Prime
Minister has promised, on a motion to re-open the issue in Parliament. We must
win that initial vote. Only then will the issue advance to a next stage which
will be the Prime Minister calling for a vote on the actual definition of
marriage”.
The religious leaders are given three specific action items to undertake to
influence parliamentarians and the |