BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE SORDID STORY OF HOW THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE WAS MANIPULATED IN CANADA

A sordid story lies behind the same-sex marriage issue in Canada. The manoeuvering and skullduggery in high places is nothing Canadians can be proud of. Such manipulation lays bare the seedy intertwining of our judicial and political systems, and exposes how profoundly undemocratic we are as a nation in that a mere handful of individuals has been able to force same-sex marriage on the entire country against its will, and in the name of so-called fairness.

The story begins, as has become customary in recent years, with our ambitious, activist courts. Three homosexual legal challenges were commenced in Canada's most liberal courts - BC, Ontario and Quebec. In 2001-2002, these legal challenges were generously funded by the Court Challenges Program through Sheila Copps' Heritage Department. (See article "Court Challenges Program Undermines Our Social Values".)

While these legal challenges were being argued at the Court of Appeal level in BC and Ontario, the House of Commons Justice Committee was also studying the issue. The race was on as to which would get its decision handed down first. The Courts definitely won this round. Courts usually take six months to hand down a decision, but in this case, both the BC and Ontario Courts of Appeal managed this feat in less than six weeks. In order to accomplish this, they had to borrow liberally from each other, frequently repeating with enthusiasm the words of the other. There was no time for analysis, reasoning or reflection on how their decision in support of same-sex marriages would impact on other matters, such as taxation, inheritance, property rights, divorce, genealogical relationships, medical birth technologies, etc. Clearly the Courts believed it was better to just sweep aside the understood definition of marriage that has existed across cultures, religion and time, and hand down their decision without delay. These decisions made no reference to the evidence before the Courts. That is, it appears that the Courts reached their decisions on the personal views of the judges, not the evidence itself.

Ontario, for good measure, decided to enforce its decision by stating that it was to take effect immediately. The impact of this is that same-sex marriages were performed that day in Toronto without any further consideration of the issue by Parliament or the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus, instantly, a precedent for same-sex marriage was set in Canada. In this regard, it is a concern that Chief Justice McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who under his former incarnation as a politician and Attorney General of Ontario, was instrumental in bringing about the Charter of Rights, was now also interpreting it. The other two judges on the Ontario Court were Madam Justice Eileen Gillese, a well-known feminist, and James MacPherson, known for his liberal views. In their former lives, they were both deans of law at two of our liberal law schools. Although they have only limited practical legal experience, they are both long on theory and ideology.

In no other country in the world have the courts made such a fundamental decision as the redefinition of marriage. In Canada, however, the courts appear to have no hesitation in doing so, knowing there are no checks and balances on their actions.

Meanwhile, in Parliament, the Justice Committee was left behind. It was not able to act in haste as it had to travel to 12 cities, listen to almost 500 witnesses, and deal with over 250,000 letters from the concerned public. As a result of this consultation process, the Committee had only managed to work its way through the first draft of its report when the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down its decision, thereby effectively ending the work of the Committee,

The decision of the Ontario Court was aided and abetted by Minister of Justice Cauchon. Apparently emboldened by the Ontario decision, he decided to accelerate the process by jettisoning the opinion of the Committee and Parliament on the issue by changing the members of the Committee to undermine its effective role in determining the same-sex issue. He did this even though, in his letter dated November 12, 2002, requesting the Justice Committee study the same sex-sex issue, he had stated:

… But marriage is more than a legal question. I believe that it is important that the Government demonstrate leadership in addressing important social issues, such as this, rather than leaving them for the courts to determine alone.

With all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, Mr. Cauchon yanked from the Committee two members who supported opposite-sex marriage, and replaced them with two obliging Liberal MPs, who did not. These two new members had not, of course, been a part of the previous many weeks of public hearings. Even with this manoeuvre, the Committee was still evenly split on the motion to not appeal the Ontario decision, which, significantly, had been proposed by homosexual NDP MP, Svend Robinson. As a result of the even split, Liberal MP Chairman, Andy Scott, (Fredericton, NB), former Solicitor General, cast the deciding vote against appealing the controversial Ontario Court's decision. Clearly, NDP Svend Robinson and the Liberal MPs, by way of Mr. Cauchon and Mr. Scott, were working in close co-operation to prevent an appeal of the Ontario decision.

While this was going on, the public unexpectedly decided to become involved. The role of the public in Canada has heretofore been to accept whatever its masters decide for it, while paying taxes (the highest in the industrialized world), and continuing to sacrifice by producing and rearing children, so that there will be a steady flow of future taxpayers at the government's disposal. On the issue of same-sex marriage, however, the public uncharacteristically decided to exert itself: citizens sent individual MPs (apart from the 250,000 letters already sent to the Justice Committee members) so much correspondence, by far the majority objecting to same-sex marriage, that the e-mail systems and fax machines were spinning in Ottawa. What was even more disturbing to the Liberal elite was that Liberal backbenchers were becoming stirred up about this issue as well, and were expressing their personal views on the matter before the Prime Minister's office had issued instructions to them.

A man concerned about his legacy, Prime Minister Chrétien observed this growing crisis, and was disturbed by the possibility of the issue spinning out of his control. As a result, Don Boudria, Liberal House Leader, quietly slipped into the House of Commons on Friday afternoon, June 13, and, using an obscure Parliamentary rule, adjourned the House of Commons early for a three-month summer break. This was made easy by the fact there were fewer than 25 MPs present in the House at that time. The adjourning of the House of Commons made it absolutely impossible for the Justice Committee to continue with its report, which it seemed might possibly have contradicted the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal - a contradiction that was unacceptable to Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Cauchon.

With the backbenchers out of the way, Mr. Chrétien was then free to consult his usual focus group, the Cabinet, which obligingly concluded that same-sex marriage should become the law of the land, by deciding not to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the controversial Ontario decision.

On June 17, 2003, Mr. Chrétien formally announced that his government would not appeal the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. A decision of a provincial court, however, is not binding on the rest of Canada. Only two provincial appeal courts, those of BC and Ontario, came out in support of same-sex marriages - so what were the other eight provinces, which were not bound by the decision of the BC and Ontario Courts, to do? There are also approximately 200 appeal court judges across Canada, but their opinions did not seem to be relevant to Mr. Chrétien. A question has arisen, therefore, but never mentioned in the media, "Why is all of Canada bound by the opinion of only three obviously prejudiced judges in Ontario?" (See article "Judges Party with Homosexual Activists.") The reason "why" this has occurred is that it is in accordance with the agenda of Prime Minister Chrétien and Justice Minister Cauchon. Nothing more, nothing less.

In making his announcement about not appealing the Ontario decision, Mr. Chrétien did state that he would seek a Reference (see article "Real Women of Canada Seeks Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court on Same-sex Marriage", for definition of "Reference") to the Supreme Court of Canada on the proposed same-sex marriage legislation to ensure that religious beliefs against marrying same-sex couples would be protected

On July 17, 2003, Justice Minister Cauchon made public his proposed legislation and Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. During his press conference, Mr. Cauchon stated that same-sex marriage was a "Canadian value". Polls tell us otherwise. In fact, Mr. Cauchon made his astonishing pronouncement in agreement with the opinion of a mere three Ontario and three BC provincial court judges. How does such a narrow judgement amount to a determination of Canadian values?

Mr. Cauchon also expressed a surprising naivety at his press conference in suggesting that this draft bill will not erode the significance or sanctity of marriage. The marriage bond between opposite-sex couples is the foundation of our society. According to former Supreme Court of Canada judge, Gerard LaForest, in Nesbit and Egan in 1995:

… Marriage is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

However, according to Mr. Cauchon's draft legislation, marriage is defined as being "between two persons." This opens a Pandora's box - as two undefined "persons" includes an assortment of couples, including transgendered, cross dressers, maybe father and daughter, uncle and niece and even combinations of heterosexuals who want the financial benefits of marriage. The "sanctity" of marriage, which Mr. Cauchon says will not be eroded by his legislation, has, in fact, been destroyed by it.

Finally, it is a fallacy that freedom of religion will be protected under this legislation. Religious freedom includes the right to live out one's faith in society, not just within a church. Religion is not protected by this legislation. Moreover, the opinion of the current Supreme Court on this crucial matter provides no assurance that judges sitting on a future Supreme Court will share the same opinion. Consequently, erosion of religious rights is inherent in this proposed legislation.

Mr. Cauchon's enthusiasm for same-sex marriage is evidenced by his second Reference question which asks, "Is extending marriage to persons of the same sex valid under the Charter?" Rather, the central question should have been, "Is the traditional definition of marriage valid under the Charter?"

Mr. Cauchon cannot hide from the fact that by this legislation he is attempting to bring about a revolution in Canada without public consensus.

Any doubt about Mr. Cauchon's bias in support of same-sex marriage became apparent during a press conference on July 17, 2003, when, in response to a question from the press, he stated that he would, in his capacity as Attorney General, argue against the appeal being sought by the Association for Marriage and the Family, and the Interfaith Coalition, to appeal the Ontario decision. Not only does Mr. Cauchon not want to appeal the case himself as Justice Minister, he is clearly opposed to anyone else doing so either.

The Supreme Court of Canada will not resume sitting until October 2003 when it has a full schedule. Technically, the Court would not be able to deal with our application to appeal and for a stay, or the government's Reference, until near the end of the year. However, because of the intertwining of our federal government and judicial court systems, the Supreme Court will be only too pleased to assist the government in its pursuit of same-sex marriage, and will inevitably hear the Reference in early fall. You can count on that.

REAL Women is monitoring the situation carefully. We are awaiting a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on our appeal application. Failing this appeal, we will apply to intervene in the Reference case. We will not give in to this injustice being perpetrated against the Canadian people.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS