|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE - A PECULIAR MOTION
On December 6, 2006, the Conservative government,
as promised, tabled its motion on same-sex marriage. It was
a very peculiar motion:
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.
The motion raised concerns among those Liberal
MPs who are in support of traditional marriage. If they voted
for the motion they were concerned that they then would also
be supporting civil marriages as well as all the same-sex
marriages that had taken place under the same-sex legislation
(Bill C-38) passed in June 2005. The Conservatives, however,
argued that they had joined together the civil union provision
and recognition of previously performed same-sex marriages
into one motion so as to prevent MPs from voting against the
motion on the grounds that it might later result in the banning
of civil unions or in rejecting same-sex marriages previously
undertaken in "good faith." It was a very confusing
motion for all concerned. The bottom line, though, was that
if the MP was a pro-family MP, he supported the motion (13
Liberal MPs did so) and if he/she was for same-sex marriage,
they voted against the motion (13 Conservative MPs did so).
The Conservative votes opposing the motion included the votes
of six Conservative Cabinet Ministers. These were: John Baird
former President of the Treasury Board, now Minister of the
Environment; Peter McKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Jim
Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs; David Emerson, Minister
of International Trade; Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transportation;
and Josée Verner, Minister of International Co-operation
and Official Languages. The motion was defeated 175 to 123.
Fraudulent Vote
This vote, however, was fraudulent. Although
Mr. Harper had given a free vote to his own caucus, this was
not the case for the NDP and Bloc Québécois,
which required their members to vote along party lines. The
Liberal Leader, Stephane Dion, was not much better. Begrudgingly,
he allowed a free vote for his MPs on the same-sex marriage
motion, but he gravely misled them and the public on the issue
by claiming same-sex marriage was a "fundamental"
right under the Charter. Either Mr. Dion was deliberately
misrepresenting the situation or he is ignorant about the
fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has never at any time
ruled that traditional marriage was unconstitutional and that
same-sex marriage was a "fundamental" right. Canadians
and the Liberal party members deserve better leadership than
that.
A Lackadaisical Debate
The debate on same-sex marriage was lackadaisical.
The party leaders, with the exception of NDP leader Jack Layton,
did not participate in the debate. Noted homosexual MPs from
the Bloc Québécois, Réal Ménard
(Hochelaga - Montreal), NDP Bob Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas),
Liberals Bill Graham (Toronto Centre), and Mario Silva (Davenport-Toronto)
figured prominently in the debate. However, Christian Liberal
lawyer MP John McKay (Scarborough-Guildwood) supported the
Conservative motion stating:
I believe that marriage is between a
man and a woman and it is the central institution in society
by which society perpetuates itself. That is the core reason
for marriage. It is the central bridging institution. It
bridges between the genders and it bridges back into previous
generations and it bridges into future generations. I take
those as self-evident truths. That is the core reason for
marriage.
There will be consequences. We cannot
renovate the institution with nothing happening or expecting
that nothing will happen. I expect the first consequence
will be that heterosexuals will accelerate their detachment
from marriage. There is a trend that is already there. We
see more and more couples living together. We see more and
more couples living together and then getting married. In
both cases, there is less stability in those relationships.
The second, and more troubling, consequence
is that we will need to redefine parenthood and limit children's
rights. We already see the same sex couples, who are inherently
sterile, asking courts to declare that their child, conceived
by whatever means, is in fact their child, regardless of
the biological rights.
Other traditional marriage supporters included,
among others, Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough), Harold Albrecht
(Kitchener-Conestoga), Stockwell Day (Okanogan-Coquihalla),
James Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni), Ken Epp (Edmonton-Sherwood
Park), and Bev Shipley (Lampton-Kent-Middlesex).
Conservative Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell)
who replaced the highly partisan Liberal Don Boudria in the
2006 election stated during his speech:
Marriage concerns not only adults. Marriage
concerns families and families concern children. Children
need a stable environment in which to grow and mature. A
healthy family founded on the traditional definition of
marriage provides just this environment.
Children have been ignored within this
debate. We have focused on adults to live as they so choose,
but we have forgotten our children.
The children of same sex couples are
deprived of the right to be raised by both a mother and
a father. They do not have role models in the home to teach
them and to show them how to be wives and mothers, husbands
and fathers and they do not have the opportunity to experience
how a man and a woman live out their married life.
I also remind my fellow MPs that our
time as an MP is short, even when we think it is long, and
when we cease to be MPs, sadly, we will likely be forgotten
by our fellow man but not by God, who knows each of us intimately.
If God himself is truly the author of
marriage, then let us be able to give a good account of
ourselves when we stand before Him as we must all stand
before Him.
I shall conclude my speech as follows,
'Almighty God, protector of all families, guide us in our
efforts to defend the holy sacrament of marriage as the
union between a man and a woman. I ask You this in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.'
Mr. Lemieux's speech and prayer are a lament
for our nation.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
