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:

REAL Women of Canada

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

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

M E D I A R E L E A S E

Democracy Denied on Same-sex Marriage Vote

Referendum Demanded

Ottawa, Ontario December 7, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

The Necessity for a Referendum on Same-sex Marriage

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

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.

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

Spanish protests [sic] calls for defence of family