BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

SAME SEX MARRIAGE - SO MUCH FOR SO FEW

Marriage defined as a union of a man and a woman, has remained a constant throughout time. It has been given intense protection by all cultures and religions as well as United Nations human rights treaties because marriage serves as the adhesive that hold a society together. Changing the definition of marriage destroys this adhesive and leads to the undermining and ultimate destruction of a society. That is, it is a revolutionary change that detrimentally affects many aspects of society.

Yet only a handful of homosexual activists apparently want this change in the definition of marriage, as evidenced by their own publications as well as by statistical findings.

On May, 12, 2005, Ms Lisa Hitch, Senior Counsel at the Department of Justice, appeared before the Bill C-38 (Anti-marriage bill) Committee. She testified that although the exact number of same-sex marriages that have taken place in Canada was not available, her department had nonetheless estimated that over 3,000 same sex marriages have been preformed in Canada since the court decisions permitting them were handed down. Of this number, she estimated, that approximately 65 - 70% of these same-sex marriages involved Canadians. According to the survey of Statistics Canada 2003, homosexuals/lesbians account for approximately 1% of Canada's population, which amounts to approximately 310,000 homosexuals / lesbians living in Canada. This means that approximately 1,950 same-sex marriages have been performed in Canada involving Canadian same-sex couples.

The very small number of marriages by Canadian same-sex couples makes it apparent that most same-sex couples are not enthusiastic about legitimizing their relationship status. If they had a genuine commitment to each other, one would expect them to take advantage of the legislative options available by the court permitted marriage, or even by registered partnerships. For example, the province of Nova Scotia passed legislation in June 2001 that permitted the registration of homosexual couples in civil unions. Yet, six months later, only 83 homosexual partnerships were registered, although there were 855 couples eligible to do so.

In Belgium, the same-sex cohabitation legal system has proven to be remarkably unpopular. As of June 2000, few same-sex couples had registered in that country: only eight couples did so in Brussels.

This propensity to eschew formal commitment is confirmed by studies in The Netherlands where same-sex "marriage" was instituted in March 2001. As of October 2002, only 2.8% of homosexuals had registered their unions as "married". Similarly, in Sweden, which has permitted registered same-sex partnerships since 1994, only 749 couples have taken advantage of this provision in the first four years. By 2004, only 2% of homosexuals in Sweden had registered their partnerships.

Thus, although very few homosexuals/lesbians appear interested in legitimizing their status, by marriage, activists are, nonetheless, insisting that society change the traditional mode of family formation in accordance with their dictates.

From Where is the Pressure for Same-sex Marriage Coming?

The pressure for same-sex marriage is not coming from the homosexual community itself. This is acknowledged in the homosexual magazine "Fab" (May 5 - 18, 2005) in which the editor-in-chief, Mitchel Raphael, states in an editorial:

The gay marriage movement in Canada has been spearheaded by a handful of lawyers and a few homosexual activists who most queers couldn't name if their lives depended on it. … For a multiplicity of reasons queer apathy - for one - there has been no mass gay movement supporting same-sex marriage here in Canada.

Although few homosexuals are pushing same-sex marriage, the demand for it is nonetheless falling upon sympathetic ears in the Liberal government. There are several homosexual MPs in Parliament, including high profile Scott Brison, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, in the Liberal Party. However, even if homosexual MPs were elected solely to promote the homosexual agenda, they could not achieve this objective without sympathetic officials in the Liberal government. Certainly, former Liberal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, and the present Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, have done everything in their power to push same-sex marriage. They have been assisted by highly placed individuals in the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) in the person of Paul Genest, former chief policy advisor to Jean Chretien, and Paul Martin's Chief of Staff, Tim Murphy. The latter, by the way, a number of years ago pushed homosexual rights when he served as a member of the Ontario Legislature representing a downtown Toronto homosexual dominated riding. He introduced a private members bill to the Ontario legislature to provide homosexuals and lesbians with family benefits. Mr. Murphy is apparently still deeply committed to the homosexual cause, and is currently masterminding the push for same-sex marriage from Martin's PMO.

Although Bill C-38 is supposed to be a free vote, all 29 cabinet ministers are required to vote for it and only 35 backbench Liberal MPs have dared to defy the party policy on this issue. The remaining Liberal MPs appear to prefer to support their party (and their careers) rather than their constituents.

The Clerk of the Privy Council, (administrative arm of the federal government), Alex Himelfarb was named by former Justice Minister Cauchon as one of the key individuals working for same-sex marriage in the Chretien government. (See REALity July / August 2004, p 12) There is no reason to believe that Mr. Himelfarb, who retained his position on the Privy Council when Mr. Martin replaced Mr. Chretien, has lost any of his enthusiasm for same-sex marriage. He continues to be a key player in this regard.

The Liberal party rules from the top down. It takes the position that it knows best, regardless of the views of the Canadian public. That is, a few wheelers and dealers within the party seem to decide policy - in this case of same-sex marriage and Canadians are supposed to quietly acquiesce to their decision.

It is interesting that senior journalist, Douglas Fisher, for the Sun newspaper chain also believes that the passing of Bill C-38 was an "inside job." Mr. Fisher, stated in his July 10, 2005, column as follows:

… my theory is that to a remarkable degree, same-sex marriage was an "inside job" carried out within the federal Department of Justice, among the law clerks of Canada's courts, and lawyers (largely women) in tune with the aims of gay organizations such as EGALE Canada. When the time came for crucial decisions supporting same-sex marriage, the senior courts were ready.

Indeed, by the time the House of Commons finally dealt with the matter, the issue was already a "fait accompli."

Unless a provincial legislature or the House of Commons was willing to to use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution -- and none were -- it was the courts' decisions that effectively became the law of the land (witness the flood of same-sex weddings, well before the new legislation passed in the Commons).

Long before even the court stage was reached, the single most important promoter of gay rights in Canada was Svend Robinson, the now-retired NDP MP from Burnaby.

The first elected federal politician to come out of the closet with a combination of social gall, bravery and stamina, Robinson rarely let a chance pass to advance the cause of homosexual rights. He was later joined by a gay member of the Bloc caucus, Réal Ménard.
It was apparent to me that this duo had the approval of most of the several hundred reporters, producers, and researchers who cover federal politics.

This media gang had become favourable to homosexual rights, just as they had become favourable to the end of capital punishment and a generally open abortion policy long before these matters were decided in the political arena.

This journalistic support showed up most particularly during the last election, especially in the hostility of reporters (again, largely women) towards Stephen Harper over his allegedly backward stance on same-sex marriage.

Pro-gay edge

Much of this pro-gay edge in the media was blazoned after 1989 by one newspaper, The Globe and Mail, and its editor-in-chief in the 1990s, William Thorsell.

Rarely a week went by that the Globe did not advocate for homosexual rights in features, editorials, and news stories, all making the vigorous case for fair play and full citizenship for this too-long-persecuted minority.

CBC-TV news and public affairs also shifted into this attitude, seeing the homosexual "status quo" as an undeserved injustice, with the French side (Radio-Canada) leading the way long years before their English cousins took up the cause.

I have no conspiracy theory of a single mind or team which executed the legislative coup of same sex-marriage. But I am sure when the history is written in the next decade or so, it will have, aside from the media and two prominent gay politicians, women lawyers at its core.

Everything humanly possible was thrown into the pathway of Bill C-38 as it was pushed along the legislative highway. Most Canadians did not agree with Bill C-38 when it was introduced into the House of Commons in early February, and even fewer agree with it now. Yet, the Liberal government, public servants and the media insisted on pushing it through. There is little room for democracy in the world of Canada's Liberal government which listens to anyone but the people.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS