BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

MARTIN CAUCHON REVEALS THE LIBERAL POLITICAL STRATEGY BEHIND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

We already know how the judiciary, by way of a handful of judges in the Appeal Courts of Ontario and BC, brought about same-sex marriage in those provinces. For example, in June 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered same-sex marriage to take effect immediately, disregarding both Parliament and the Canadian public. The decisions of these erratic courts were based neither on the law nor the evidence. Rather their decisions were based solely on the biases and prejudices of the judges. It is significant that just a few days after the Ontario decision was handed down, the judges happily partied with the homosexual litigants. (See REALity, June/July 2003.) That was how it was done judicially.

We now have the inside story as to how the political decision on same-sex marriage was made in Canada.

This story was revealed by former Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon during a speech he gave when he accepted an award from a U.S. homosexual organization, Equality Forum, in Philadelphia on May 1, 2004.

During his speech, Mr. Cauchon revealed that, politically, there were actually only four individuals who were instrumental in bringing about same-sex marriage in Canada.

Besides himself, Mr. Cauchon singled out the work of Paul Genest, who was policy advisor to former Prime Minister Chrétien, who, according to Mr. Cauchon, played "a key role" in the same-sex marriage question. Mr. Cauchon stated that he met with Mr. Genest on a daily basis to talk about how he should manage the approach and the strategy on the same-sex marriage issue. Mr. Cauchon also related that Mr. Genest heavily lobbied former Prime Minister Chrétien on a daily basis to get his support for same-sex marriage. Once he got Mr. Chrétien on side, everything fell into place since Mr. Chrétien ruled as a semi-dictator over his Caucus and rubber stamp Cabinet.

Mr. Genest, by the way, was also in attendance at the homosexual award ceremony.

The two other movers and shakers on the issue behind the political scene were Alex Himelfarb, Clerk of the Privy Council, and the Deputy Minister of Justice, Morris Rosenberg. Mr. Cauchon stated that, "the four of us have been a fantastic team that allowed the delivery of the draft bill on same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court".

Mr. Cauchon also mentioned the fact that homosexual Senator, Laurier LaPierre, gave a "fantastic speech" at the National Liberal Caucus meeting in North Bay last August, which helped change the minds of some of the Liberal caucus members on the issue.

The superficial mind of Mr. Cauchon was exposed in his speech in Philadelphia when he stated:

When I started traveling across the country talking about same-sex marriage, I faced a lot of opposition of course. When I was talking to people, trying to understand why they were opposed, I've realized that there is no valid reason to oppose, and I've realized that, sadly, there is a lot of homophobia. In my society there is no place at all for homophobia. And that is why I decided to proceed in making sure we put in place in Canada, and if we can around the world, a just society based on equality. Sadly enough homophobia exists still in Canada, and in other countries around the world.

To dismiss the objections to same-sex marriage as "homophobia" is to make it all too apparent that Mr. Cauchon lacked understanding of the issue, and failed to grasp the depth of the opposition to same-sex marriage in Canada.

Mr. Cauchon also stated in his speech:

I believe that if the institution of marriage would be basically more open, if the institution of marriage would be more inclusive, at the end of the day, it's a much better institution reflecting who we are … a stronger institution that [would remain] a cornerstone of society.

Canada is to be pitied that a mere handful of individuals - that is, one apparently manipulative politician (Cauchon) plus three public servants (Alex Himelfarb, Deputy Minister of Justice Rosenberg and Paul Genest from the Prime Minister's office), had the personal power and influence politically to bring about same-sex marriages. There is little integrity and little democracy when this can be achieved by the manipulation of so few.

The game is not over yet. The all-important vote on same-sex marriage will be held in Parliament in 2005. We have work to do. Now that the manipulations behind the scene on the issue of same-sex marriage have been exposed, we must prevent these manipulations from striking again.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS