Prime Minister Harper reiterated on June 2, 2006 that he would call the vote on same-sex marriage this fall. Parliament returns after the summer recess on September 18th but it is unlikely that the vote will take place immediately.
Making an educated guess, it is likely the vote will probably occur some time after the middle of October.
It is therefore crucial that we contact our MPs. No MP, no matter from which party, should be able to say that this issue was not raised by his/her constituents. It must be raised and now is the time to do so.
However, not all communications with your MP are equal. An e-mail is of almost no help, nor is a postcard.
The order of effective communication by a constituent then is as follows:
1.a personal visit with your MP,
2.a hand written letter,
3.a phone call leaving your name, address and phone number.
DO’S AND DON’T’S ABOUT SPEAKING TO YOUR MPS THIS SUMMER
DO’s
DO express your appreciation for your MP. If there’s something you particularly like, offer the MP your thanks (a card?).
DO attend events where your MP will be present: parades, fairs, barbecues, Chamber of Commerce / Board of Trade meetings.
DO make an appointment to speak to your MP about marriage, notify how many will attend, and take no more than three or four people – stay only a ½ hr. If you want him to read something, send it ahead.
Do invite your Member of Parliament to speak to your organization, service club, a meeting hosted by your church, etc. He is your MP and you are entitled to hear him between elections.
DO express your point of view in two or three sentences ending with how you want your Member of Parliament to vote in the House of Commons when the marriage vote comes before it.
DO give the Member of Parliament your contact information, including phone number, address, and e-mail address, either on a business card or BLOCK PRINTED on a 3” x 5” card.
DO be prepared to counter “equality arguments” about so called “gay marriage”: “Marriage is an INSTITUTION – not a right – that is limited to one man and woman. This institution is intended for the procreation of children and raising the next generation. As such, marriage is foundational to families and society.” Or, “What about the rights of children to have both a father and a mother?”
DO write a letter to your MP, in your own words, in your own handwriting (if legible):
(Name), MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
DO encourage your family, friends, and neighbours who are like-minded on marriage to use these “DO’S AND DON’TS”.
DON’TS
DON’T berate or harass our Members of Parliament, their spouses, their families, or their staff.
DON’T be afraid to express your point of view on marriage – clearly and succinctly.
DON’T permit your Members of Parliament or their staff to bully you into silence.
DON’T use a form letter. They tend to end up in “the round file” when they arrive in Members’ offices.
DON’T flood your MP’s fax machine. Put your letter in the mail, instead.
DON’T forget to “be polite,” to thank your Member of Parliament, and to express your point of view clearly and succinctly on how you want the Member to vote when marriage comes before the House of Commons.
If you don’t know who your Member of Parliament is, please go to:
www.canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html
and click on the link:
“Find your Member of Parliament”
Using your postal code
OR, contact:
REAL Women of Canada
National Office
Telephone: (613) 236-4001
Fax: (613) 236-7203
MAKING THE CASE FOR MARRIAGE
Some Facts and Arguments About Marriage
1.Marriage is, and always has been, a unique relationship which is fundamentally and exclusively heterosexual in nature. This fact has been recognized by all the great religions of the world since time immemorial and even by atheistic states like communist China and the former USSR. Why? Because marriage as the union of a man and a woman:
Constitutes a unique good for society;
Has a fundamental and irreplaceable role;
Is the stabilizing force for the family which is the basic unit of every society throughout all human history;
Forms the basis of society through the binding love of the husband and wife, their inherent ability to bear children, and their ensuing responsibility for their children as a mother and a father.
1.It is not discriminatory to treat different realities differently. Same-sex relationships are fundamentally different than heterosexual relationships. Non-discrimination does not require uniformity – it requires respect for diversity and differences.
2.The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled that the heterosexual definition of marriage must be changed to include same-sex relationships.
3.Not a single federal court, not a single federal human rights tribunal, nor the United Nations has ever ruled that calling same-sex relationships marriage is a question of human rights. Some lower courts have so ruled, while others have not. Even the legal community in Canada is divided on this question.
4.Marriage has evolved over time, but never before in a way that contravenes its fundamental heterosexual nature.
ON MARRIAGE AND “THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN”
1.A child has a natural right to know and be raised by his father and his mother, a right that is recognized in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 (UNCRC, Section 7). Canada is a signatory to this convention.
2.In all decisions concerning children taken by courts of law and legislative bodies, “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration” (UNCRC, Sec. 3).
3.So-called same-sex marriage violates the right of a child to have both a father and a mother, to know who they are, and to be raised by them. Marriage by two same-gender partners places children’s rights and interests behind those of adults.
4.The laws of Canada should protect children and not be complicit in creating fatherless or motherless children.
5. Adults can represent themselves, but children cannot promote or defend their own interests. They need legal protection. Man-woman marriage protects their rights.
SOME COMMON OBJECTIONS AND POSSIBLE RESPONSES
OBJECTION: “But isn’t marriage an equality right?”
RESPONSE: Marriage is not a bundle of rights and benefits. Marriage is an institution intended at its core for the procreation of children and for raising the next generation of people. As such marriage is INSTITUTED as the union of one man and one woman, excluding all others. It is the foundation of families and, therefore, of human society.
OBJECTION: “Why should heterosexual couples be given privileges and benefits that homosexual couples don’t get?”
RESPONSE: Marriage entails responsibilities, and comes with certain privileges and benefits to assist a husband and a wife bear and rear children, and to assist them in creating a stable environment.
OBJECTION: “What about heterosexual couples who don’t want children? Why do they get the privileges and benefits?”
RESPONSE: This is known as the “free rider” problem. That is, some people get a “free ride” on benefits and privileges without the responsibility of rearing children. Many heterosexual couples who marry without any intention of having children, later do have them. It would be impossible to predict that people won’t have children, except if they’re past childbearing age. And most who do remarry later in life after their childbearing years have already raised children. We have decided to tolerate free riders to male-female marriage. But gay activists want to expand the number of “free riders” even further.
OBJECTION: “Isn’t it better to have loving gay parents than unloving, uncaring parents who are heterosexual?”
RESPONSE: Research shows again and again that the best family environment for the raising of children includes a mother and a father present in the home, not two mothers or two fathers. Male children need male role models, and female children need female role models – in their parents. And male and female children need an opposite-sex parent in the home to learn how to relate to the opposite sex.
OBJECTION: “You would be fine with the whole thing if they just called it something other than marriage because you don’t’ think you should be in the same category.”
RESPONSE: No. It’s not just a matter of terminology. A relationship between two friends living together platonically is qualitatively different from two people living together and engaging in sexual intercourse. In a similar way, the relationship between a man and a woman in a married relationship is qualitatively different from two men or two women living together and engaging in a sexual relationship. Marriage – one man and one woman, excluding all others – is intended at its core for the bearing and rearing of children. That makes it quite different! Taking away a business enterprise’s ability to make a profit means it ceases to be a business. Require a charity to make a profit and it’s no longer a charity. In a similar way, taking away the heterosexual character of marriage causes it to cease being marriage.
|
