Why is it that 33 U.S. states have resoundly rejected same-sex marriage, either by way of referenda or legislation? Even the liberal states of California, New York, Maine and New Jersey have rejected same-sex marriage. What is the secret of the pro-family groups in the U.S. that has eluded Canada on the same-sex marriage issue?
There are a number of differences which made our efforts in Canada much more difficult. These include:
The definition of marriage in Canada under the Constitution Act of 1867 falls solely within federal jurisdiction, with the provinces having jurisdiction only to apply the federal marriage law. Consequently, homosexual activists in Canada had only to pressure the federal government, not the 13 provincial governments and territories to pass a law legalizing same-sex marriage. In the U.S., on the other hand, each state has the jurisdiction to define marriage under its individual constitution so that homosexual activists in the US have a much more difficult time because they have to lobby each of the 50 states individually.
There is a provision in most of the individual U.S. state constitutions for a referendum to take place when court decisions or legislations are unacceptable as long as a specified number of names have been obtained on a petition requesting such a referendum.
In Canada, only the federal government may call for a referendum on a constitutional matter (Referendum Act 1992). Obviously, the Liberal government, under Prime Minister Paul Martin, which brought in the same-sex marriage legislation in June 2005, did not want to hear from the public on the issue by way of a referendum or otherwise!
The U.S. voters play a much more influential role in legislative decisions, since members of the U.S. Congress are independent in their voting because they are not controlled by their political parties, as occurs in Canada. Consequently, elected U.S. politicians are more likely to respond to the voters’ wishes, unlike the situation in Canada, where the views of the voting public are largely ignored – or at least, take a back seat to party policy.
That is, in Canada, the prime minister decides party policy and MPs dare not vote against the party, especially on a major issue, such as same-sex marriage. In 2005, Prime Minister Martin ordered all his Cabinet to vote for the same-sex marriage legislation (they all obediently did so), with only a few Liberal MPs daring to vote against the party’s policy on the issue.
Most Significant Reason for the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage
The above differences in Canada all took their toll on the outcome of the debate in this country. However, one of the most significant reasons that the federal Liberal government successfully pushed through same-sex marriage legislation was the terms on which the debate was framed.
In Canada, the issue was framed as an equality issue – the homosexual activists calling themselves the Canadians for Equal Marriage. That is, the debate was framed as a civil rights issue, similar, for example, to the right to vote, or protection under the law for race and gender. It was argued that homosexual marriage was a right or entitlement based on equality. However, homosexuality is not a civil right, it is a behaviour. That is, all scientific evidence indicates that no homosexual gene exists and that homosexuality is a psychological behaviour, rather than an innate, unchangeable characteristic, such as race and gender. Hence, the debate here was a false one.
Prime Minister Paul Martin encouraged this misinterpretation of the issue when he claimed that same-sex marriage was a civil or human right and a “charter” value. It was not. The Supreme Court of Canada did not order same-sex marriage as a constitutional right at all -- it simply said the government could, if it so wished, provide a policy for same-sex marriage under the Charter – but there was no requirement that the Liberal government do so.
U.S. Approach
The pro-family approach in the U.S., however, was to frame the same-sex marriage debate on the basis that it would result in severe consequences for the public school system. In a series of ads, it was made clear that if same-sex marriage were legalized, it would lead to government indoctrination of the children in public schools and the suppression of free speech. These ads ran successfully in California’s Proposition 8 referendum held in November 2008, which overruled the court decision in support of same-sex marriage. Again, more recently, in the Maine referendum in October these ads were highly effective and successfully diminished the civil rights argument. Same-sex marriage activists in the US did produce ads in retaliation, with state officials claiming, unsuccessfully, that same-sex marriage had nothing to do with education – which is clearly not the case.
Voters Concerned about Children
The voters in the U.S. were influenced by the warning that same-sex marriage would be a corrupting influence on their children. This became the hot-button issue during the same-sex marriage debates there.
We, in Canada, know that the ads sponsored in the U.S. by defenders of traditional marriage were correct in that same-sex marriage does have a serious impact on the education system. The normalization of homosexuality is now a part of school curricula – especially in B.C. and Ontario – and has led to a hostile environment for those with a socially conservative point of view on the issue.
Similarly, in the State of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was made legal by the court, legalization has been used as a hammer to force acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on children in the public schools. For example, the year following the legalization of same-sex families in that state, the elementary school curricula in Massachusetts taught children that same-sex couples were just like any other family. School libraries were quickly filled with books promoting homosexuality and gay marriage. A federal court judge in Massachusetts held that because same–sex marriage was legal, the schools actually had a duty to teach the normalization of homosexual relationships to children, and, further, that schools had no obligation to notify parents or let them opt out of these programs. Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!
Homosexuals Misunderstood the Effect of Pro-Family Ads
It was fortunate indeed that homosexual activists in the U.S. underestimated how deeply the carefully crafted public school message resonated with the public, and, ultimately, this led to the rejection of same-sex marriage in many states.
It is surprising though that they did not foresee this would happen as they had previously developed the concept of “safety” in schools as an effective way to promote homosexual advocacy and blunt pro-family resistance to it. This approach had been previously implemented in Canada and in some US States. That is, homosexual activists decided to make their campaign for the promotion of homosexual instruction in the schools, not as a fairness issue, but rather as an issue of “safety” for children. This was a particularly effective way to explain “homophobia” as a threat to student “safety,” which, if permitted to exist, would create a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems and suicide would result. The “safety” issue argument automatically threw the pro-family position on the defensive and stole their line of attack. Portraying homosexuality as a “safety” issue in the schools, immediately gained favour in the eyes of the public and was one of the keys to their victory in promoting homosexuality in the schools. Similarly, pro-family ads during the same-sex marriage referendums in the US found favour in the eyes of the public and was key in rejecting same-sex marriage.
By the way, the claim that homosexual students were suicidal because of the alleged bullying of them has no legitimate medical, psychological or factual foundation. In short, all the pro-homosexual programs in the schools, both in the U.S. and in Canada to-day, have simply been put together in order to normalize homosexuality in the minds of children, if possible, without any parental knowledge or consent, and is nothing more than a scam and deception.
In contrast, as we know in Canada, it is a fact that legislation of same-sex marriage does have a direct impact on the education system. The pro-family ads in the US were absolutely accurate.
|
