|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE CHALLENGE OF THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE VOTE
Prime Minister Harper has made it clear that
there will be another vote on same-sex marriage. Indications
were that the vote was to take place during the first two
weeks after Parliament resumed sitting on September 18th,
2006. However, it didn't happen.
It has now been rumoured that this vote will
take place in December. No matter when it is called, it will
be a sticky wicket for a number of reasons, including the
expected closeness of the vote, as well as problems inherent
in the actual questions themselves. The first question will
be whether the MPs wish to have the debate re-opened. If so,
then the second question will be whether they are in support
of upholding the traditional definition of marriage. Unfortunately,
the first question changes the whole dynamics of the debate,
since the vote will not be a simple question, for or against
same-sex marriage, but whether the issue should be re-opened.
Regretfully, there are some MPs who, although opposed to same-sex
marriage, do not want the matter re-opened because they don't
want the issue to dog them into the next election.
Next Federal Election
The next federal election will probably take
place in the spring of 2007 because there is a good chance
that the budget will be defeated by the opposition parties.
If not at that time, then an election may be expected later
in the spring due to the possibility that the Senate will
continue to refuse to pass legislation passed by the House
of Commons. For example, one of Prime Minister Harper's priorities,
the Federal Accountability Act, was held up in the Senate
from June, and was returned to the House of Commons only in
November with no less than 150 amendments. This bill was again
debated and passed in the House of Commons and then returned
to the Senate for approval where it now sits waiting for Senate
approval. Treasury Board president, John Baird, blamed the
Senate (64 Liberals and only 23 Conservatives) for gutting
the legislation with its amendments and promised that the
government means to have the bill passed into law. This indicates
that a possible showdown between the elected House of Commons
and the appointed Senate is looming. The average life of a
minority government is approximately 18 months, and some MPs
are already unstrung that the same-sex marriage issue will
create problems for them in the next election - hence their
reluctance to re-open the issue.
Defence of Religion Act (DORA)
Even if the same-sex marriage vote is defeated,
this may not mean the end of the matter. According to the
Globe & Mail, (October 4, 2006) the government is rumoured
to be considering a "Defence of Religions Act"
(DORA) to permit public officials, such as Justices of the
Peace and marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex
marriages for reasons of conscience. Further, such a proposed
bill might also protect free speech rights of religious leaders
and all others who criticize homosexual behaviour or who refuse
to do business with homosexual organizations or to rent out
their halls to homosexual couples, etc. The DORA would also
protect individuals from the predatory hands of human rights
tribunals on the homosexual issue.
In effect, introducing the DORA would breathe
new life into the same-sex marriage issue, which may possibly
be very pivotal to the 2007 federal election.
Homosexual Bullies
There is no question that legal protection
is necessary to put a stop to the bullying that is now going
on against churches, schools, parents and other individuals
who oppose the homosexual agenda.
These bullies use the sympathetic courts and
human rights tribunals as their instruments of terror to stamp
out dissent against them. In short, these bullies are trying
to drive a faith-based, or a conscience perspective from the
public square by intimidation and legal manipulation on the
false basis that same-sex partnerships are "equal"
or have the same moral value as heterosexual partnerships.
This clearly is not the case. The union of a man and a woman
creates children, whereas homosexual unions do not. Granted,
not all heterosexual relationships produce children, but they
are the minority or exception, since the vast majority of
heterosexual relationships do produce children. The state
takes an ardent interest in heterosexual marriages and encourages
them by providing married couples with special benefits and
recognition because heterosexual marriage is necessary for
the orderly progression and future of society. Whatever homosexuals/lesbians
may choose to call their relationships, they are not now and
can never be "marriages."
Moreover, the legal and social acceptance
of so-called same-sex marriages does not make them actual
"marriages" and neither does it make their sexual
preference either right or acceptable. Further, such unions
cannot be justified on the grounds that their so-called "marriage"
is a human right since there are no international human rights
documents or treaties anywhere in the world that provide such
a right. In fact, the human rights documents say the opposite
i.e.: they define marriage as a union between a man and a
woman. Further, homosexual arguments that the legal protection
of their relationships is the same as protection on the grounds
of race and gender are without merit. Race and gender are
unchangeable, whereas thousands of former homosexuals now
contentedly live heterosexual, faithful, married lives and
are a living testimony of the falsity of the claim that homosexuality
is an inherent or unchangeable characteristic. Try as they
might, homosexuals have never been able to come up with any
competent studies to establish that homosexuality is an inborn
trait because this apparently is not the case. Same-sex "marriages"
are merely artificial creations set up by the liberal courts
and a coerced, undemocratic Parliament.
Canadians Vulnerable to Homosexual Attacks
It is obvious that some legal action has to
be taken to protect free speech and religion in Canada from
these homosexual bullies and their allies. The provisions
in the Charter of Rights, which are supposed to provide this
protection on both religious freedom and freedom of speech
grounds, have shown themselves to be hopelessly inadequate
for this job.
For example:
- In B.C. the government contracted
with homosexuals to re-write the entire school curriculum
to make it inclusive of positive portrayals of homosexual
culture and denied parents the right to opt their children
out of such a propaganda initiative.
- Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry
and Pastor Stephen Boissoin of Alberta were the subject of
complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for publicly
expressing their religious views on homosexuality.
- The Catholic men's organization,
Knights of Columbus ("K of C"), in Coquitlam, BC,
was fined $2,000 for refusing to rent its hall to a lesbian
couple wishing to celebrate their wedding there. This was
despite the fact that the organization had the right to freedom
of religion, and the fact the K of C agreed to find the lesbian
couple an alternate premise to celebrate their supposed union
and despite the fact that the K of C also offered to pay the
cost of printing new invitations for them.
- Marriage Commissioners in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have lost their jobs because
they refused to perform same-sex marriage.
- A Toronto printer, Scott Brockie,
was fined $5,000 for refusing to print material for a homosexual
organization and was ordered by the court to print the material.
- A BC teacher and school counselor,
Chris Kempling, was suspended for several months for writing
letters to his local newspaper opposing homosexuality - even
though he did so on at least one occasion in his capacity
as a candidate in the federal election.
- A Catholic High School in Ontario
was ordered by the court to allow a homosexual student to
bring his male partner to the school prom held on the Catholic
High School premises.
The list of supposed offences above is only
an abbreviated one of attacks on those holding differing views
from those of homosexual activists. Many more attacks will
take place if same-sex marriage is confirmed by Parliament
in the upcoming vote.
DORA Creates a Firestorm
Predictably, the mere suggestion that the
Conservatives may bring in DORA created a firestorm in the
media, which went into full attack mode to oppose it. In fact,
most newspapers were apoplectic at the mere thought of such
legislation. An exception was the National Post, which, in
an editorial on October 6, 2006 stated that the idea of a
DORA deserved consideration. The editorial noted, however,
that the provinces have sole jurisdiction over education,
provincial human rights, human rights tribunals and the solemnization
of marriage (i.e. marriage commissioners) and therefore any
federal legislation cannot reach into these areas. The federal
government, according to the editorial, does have jurisdiction
over the Criminal Code (i.e. hate crime provisions) and the
federal Human Rights Tribunals and DORA could be applied there.
This is an accurate analysis, as DORA would not have any effect
provincially because it is the provinces that have jurisdiction
under the constitution for religious and civil rights.
Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson had
a "take" on the Conservative government's DORA.
He stated in his column of October 5, 2006 that a constitutional
challenge of DORA would help settle "nagging and unsettled
constitutional questions on the limits in which Ottawa can
intrude in areas of provincial government …" He
also went on to say that DORA might also influence a large
number of voters who are not bigots but who do feel that the
gay rights agenda has become relentless and is threatening
traditional freedoms of religion and speech. As a result,
he said such voters would not see a Defense of Religion
Act as dangerously homophobic. Instead, they would welcome
it as a sensible insurance policy against present and future
excesses by zealots of all persuasions. This too may be an
accurate assessment of the situation.
Certainly the homosexual issue has created
ongoing problems for society and Canadians are now having
serious concerns about them.
A Compas poll in October 2006 found that:
- 72% of Canadians believe the clergy
should have the right to refuse to marry a same sex couple;
- 57% believed officials (marriage commissioners) conducting
secular weddings be permitted to decline to do so;
- 68% believed that teachers should be allowed to write
letters to newspapers opposing same-sex marriage and printers
should have the right to refuse to print homosexual materials;
- six of seven Canadians want a review of the same sex
marriage legislation "to make sure that freedom of speech
and religion" are fully protected.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Harper seems
to have backed down, for now, on the possibility of DORA legislation.
He stated in the House of Commons on October 3, 2006 after
a barrage of questions from the opposition, that his government
has "no plans" to draw up such legislation. In view
of the reality of the homosexual tyranny Canadians are experiencing,
he should reconsider.
Please write to the Prime Minister, the Minister
of Justice and your MP and urge them to enact DORA legislation.
Their addresses are as follows:
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Fax: (613) 941-6900
The Honourable Victor Toews
Minister of Justice
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Fax: (613) 995-1049
Your MP
c/o House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
