Presented to:
The House of Commons
Legislative Committee on Bill C-38
By:
REAL Women of Canada
Box 8813, Station "T"
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3J1
(613) 236-4001
Table of Contents
Marriage Not a Social Construct
International Support for Opposite Sex Marriage
I WHY BILL C-38 IS UNACCEPTABLE
1. Same-sex Marriage Results in a Decrease in Marriages
Children Thrive Best in an Opposite-sex Environment
2. Same-sex Unions are Harmful to Children
a) Short Duration of Same-sex Relationships
b) High Rate of Infidelity in Same-sex Relationships
c) Lack of Commitment in Same-sex Unions
d) Increased Mental Health Problems
e) Increased Risk of Suicide
f) Increased Substance Abuse Problems
g) Homosexuals Experience a Significantly Reduced Life Expectancy
h) Same-sex Partnerships Have a High Level of Violence
i) Same-sex Parenting Influences Children's Sexual Orientation
j) Sexual Interference with Children by Same-sex Parents
k) Flawed Studies Supporting Same-sex Parenting
3. Same-sex Marriage Leads to Other Relationships Demanding
Marital Status
Justice Minister Cotler Misinforms Committee on May 12, 2005
4. Bill C-38 Fails To Protect Religious Freedom
II Why the Demand for Legalizing Same-sex Relationships by Marriage?
III PUBLIC POLICY ON MARRIAGE
IV RECOMMENDATIONS
ENDNOTES
BRIEF ON BILL C-38,
AN ACT RESPECTING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF LEGAL CAPACITY
FOR MARRIAGE FOR CIVIL PURPOSES
Marriage Not A Social Construct
Marriage is an historical, world-wide institution that possesses an inherent meaning with universal characteristics. It is not, and never has been, merely a construct of common law, such as that set out by the House of Lords in Hyde v. Hyde (1866), L.R. 1 P & D, 130. Common law merely captures the essence of marriage: it did not create it.
Marriage is not a mere social construct. Social constructs change, but the heterosexual nature of marriage has not changed through thousands of years of recorded history or across the wide variety of cultures because it is valued so highly.
The unique essence of marriage, the union between a man and a woman, is one of the great constants across time, culture and faiths. This is no accident. Marriage has remained constant for a very important reason - it is necessary for the survival of the human race.
International Support For Opposite Sex Marriage
English, American and European law, with the recent exceptions of the Netherlands and Belgium, have all confined marriage to the union between a man and a woman. This is also the position taken by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights. In addition, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, all recognize that the legal status of marriage and spousal relationships applies exclusively to married, opposite-sex couples.
A reasonable person should ask the question, why has marriage, defined as a union of a man and a woman, remained a constant throughout time and been given such intense protection by all cultures and religions, as reflected in United Nations Human Rights Treaties? The answer is that the traditional definition of marriage serves as the adhesive that holds a society together. Changing the definition of marriage destroys that adhesive and leads to the undermining and ultimate destruction of that society.
I WHY BILL C-38 IS UNACCEPTABLE:
1. Same-sex Marriage Results in a Decrease in Marriages
In the Netherlands and Belgium, same-sex marriage has been legalized and, in Scandinavian countries, same-sex relationships have been given a same-sex marriage equivalent. Research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, Stanley Kurtz has analyzed the legal recognition of same-sex relationships in these countries over a 15-year period and has found that such a change has led to a marked decline in marriage, with far fewer men and women marrying than previously, along with a greatly increased proportion of children born and raised out of wedlock (the majority of births now). The changes are especially dramatic in what was the most socially conservative country, Norway, where the rate of unmarried cohabitation was previously significantly lower than that in the other two countries.
Kurtz noted that families with children raised outside marriage are much more unstable and prone to break up; the well-being of children therefore is at greater risk from a decline in the rate of marriage vs. cohabitation.
This finding has been verified in Canada by Statistics Canada, which found that only 14% of legally married opposite-sex couples with children in Canada break up after a 10-year period, whereas 63% of common law couples break up during that same period of time.
Children Thrive Best in an Opposite-sex Environment
It is beyond dispute that children thrive best in an opposite-sex family environment where they can learn gender identity and sex-role expectations from their biological parents. These children also do far better academically, financially, emotionally, psychologically and behaviourally.
Unfortunately, with the redefinition of marriage, the young come to realize that marriage has no fixed meaning, its definition changes as society changes. The moral effect is a loss of respect for the institution of marriage, which confirms the viewpoint that marriage is just a piece of paper. Even without same-sex "marriage," young people already tend to see marriage that way. With the redefinition of marriage, that tendency is bound to increase, accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the rate of marriage among opposite-sex couples.
Kurtz acknowledges that expanding the scope of marriage by granting virtual marital status to same-sex couples seems like it should be a numerical gain for the institution of marriage. But in reality, few same-sex couples apply for marriage, and those who do, divorce at a higher rate than heterosexual couples. Meanwhile, the overall trend among heterosexual couples is away from marriage. The net result is a decline in the institution.
2. Same-sex Unions are Harmful to Children
The demand for same-sex unions to be recognized as marriage leads to children being caught up in these arrangements by way of adoption or foster care. This is not in their best interests
The purpose of adoption, foster care, and assimilated families is to provide the best possible upbringing for children who, for whatever reason, cannot live with both their biological parents. That is, children are neither status symbols for couples nor to be used to further a political agenda. Rather, they are human beings who are owed responsible, loving care and dignity in their own right. Therefore, their best interests must be given priority.
Because of pressure by same-sex couples, some jurisdictions have ceased to base adoption and foster care on the best interests of children. Instead, the focus has shifted to a supposed "right" of adults, that is, homosexuals/lesbians, to have access to children for adoption and foster care, even though adoption and foster care are not "rights" for adults, but a privilege.
This is of grave concern because comprehensive, controlled studies indicate that children are at greater risk of harm if raised in same-sex relationships. The reason why harm is caused to such children is because same-sex unions are not equivalent to opposite-sex unions, and it is these differences that cause the harm. The differences causing harm to children include the following:
a) Short Duration of Same-sex Relationships
It is a major concern that homosexual relationships generally last only a fraction of the length of time of most marriages. The literature indicates that few homosexual relationships last longer than 2 - 3 years. Other studies indicate an even shorter period for such relationships. For example, a study of homosexual men in The Netherlands found a duration of only 1.5 years. The short duration of same-sex couples' relationships creates instability and insecurity in the lives of children living within them.
b) High Rate of Infidelity in Same-sex Relationships
Faithfulness is absolutely axiomatic for the institution of marriage. However, this concept does not appear to be a requirement in same-sex relationships.
According to psychiatrist McWhirter and psychologist Mattison , who had been cohabiting as sexual partners for a 12-year period at the time they studied 156 other homosexual couples, most homosexual men regard sexual relations outside of marriage to be the norm, and regard monogamy as an act of oppression.
That is, the meaning of "commitment" usually has a quite different meaning in same-sex, than in heterosexual relationships. Many sexual partners are generally the norm, even in "committed" homosexual relationships.
According to another study, published in the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7% of older homosexual men had one sexual partner in their lifetime.
This perspective appears to be confirmed by homosexuals themselves. Gareth Kirby, Managing Editor of Vancouver's homosexual newspaper, XtraWest, stated:
… In our culture, we haven't created the same hierarchy as has heterosexual culture. We know that love has many faces, and names, ages, places. … We know that a 30-year relationship is no better, no better, than a nine-week, or nine-minute, fling - it's different, but not better. Both have value. We know that the instant intimacy involved in that perfect 20-minute[sic] … in Stanley Park can be a profoundly beautiful thing. We know a two-year relationship where people live apart is as beautiful, absolutely as beautiful, as a 30-year relationship where people live together. We know that the people involved in an open relationship can love each other as deeply as the people in a closed relationship …
The high infidelity rate among homosexual couples is in sharp contrast to that of couples in a traditional marriage. In the United States, studies on fidelity within an opposite-sex married relationship indicated a markedly higher incidence of marital fidelity. Approximately 75% - 77% of males and 85% - 88% of females remained faithful in an opposite-sex marriage relationship. A Canadian poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found that 91% of married opposite-sex Canadian couples remain faithful to their married partners.
According to psychologist Bradley P. Hayton, the high incidence of infidelity in homosexual/lesbian relationships serves as a poor role model for children. He states:
Homosexuals … model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.
c) Lack of Commitment in Same-sex Unions
Same-sex partners are reluctant to legally legitimize their relationship status. If they had a genuine commitment to each other, then one would expect them to take advantage of legislative options available in some jurisdictions, such as "marriage," civil unions or registered partnerships. This, however, has not occurred: there has been a very low utilization of these legal options among same-sex couples.
For example, the province of Nova Scotia passed legislation in June 2001 that permitted the registration of homosexual couples in civil unions. Yet, six months later, only 83 homosexual partnerships were registered, although there were 855 couples eligible to do so.
In Belgium, the cohabitation legal system has proven to be remarkably unpopular. As of June 2000, few couples had registered in that country: only eight couples did so in Brussels.
This propensity to eschew commitment is confirmed by studies in The Netherlands where same-sex "marriage" was instituted in March 2001. As of October 2002, only 2.8% of homosexuals had registered their unions as "married". Similarly, in Sweden, which has permitted registered same-sex partnerships since 1994, only 749 couples have taken advantage of this provision in the first four years. By 2004, only 2% of homosexuals in Sweden had registered their partnerships. Even though very few homosexuals/lesbians appear interested in legitimizing their status, they are, nonetheless, insisting that society change the traditional mode of family formation in accordance with their dictates.
d) Increased Mental Health Problems
Further detrimental effects on the well being of children in same-sex relationships include the high level of mental health problems in the homosexual community. Empirical evidence indicates that the prevalence of mental disorder is significantly higher among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals. For example, in 2000, homosexual psychologist Theo Sandfort and his colleagues conducted a study from a large nationwide survey of 7,076 Dutch adults (male and female) between 18 and 64 years of age, which indicated a greater prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders and substance abuse among homosexuals. The authors speculated that because the Dutch social climate toward homosexuals has long been, and remains, considerably more tolerant than that found elsewhere, "the observed differences might be greater in other Western countries than in The Netherlands."
In a 1994 national survey of lesbians by Professor J. Bradford, published in Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , it was found that 75% of homosexuals/lesbians required psychological counseling, with two-thirds of these requiring treatment for long-term depression. This high incidence of emotional problems among homosexuals/lesbians has also been acknowledged in their own literature. For example, in 2001 in Ottawa, the Canadian service agency, Pink Triangle Services, operated by and for homosexuals/lesbians, conducted a survey called "The Wellness Project" which concluded that the number one health concern for homosexuals was depression. In regard to this study, columnist Ouri M. stated, in the homosexual publication entitled , to be:
It is my opinion that many gay men are extremely lonely, and feel very isolated. Our gay culture has not celebrated the virtues of long-term relationships, love, faithfulness, and monogamy. The gay culture celebrates and worships youth, physical beauty, and sex. Being young and gay is fun, going out to clubs and cruising is adventurous and exciting. However as the years pass us by, and we do not settle down that adventure becomes less and less fun in my opinion. One begins to feel lonely, and frustrated, and in many cases seeks out many sexual partners to fill the void inside. Drugs are also often used to cover up the pain of ones [sic] loneliness, or reality.
e) Increased Risk of Suicide
There appears to be a link between homosexuality and suicide. According to a study published in 1999 in the Archives of General Psychiatry , homosexual and lesbian teens are 6.5 times more likely to commit suicide than are heterosexual teens. A study by Christopher Bagley et al. at the University of Calgary, Canada, found that homosexually-orientated males between 18 and 27 years of age accounted for 62.5% of suicide attempts. The authors speculated that the predominant reason for this high rate of suicide attempts was due to intolerance in a homophobic society. However, this hypothesis is not credible. For example, the suicide rate among youths in the Canadian province of Quebec, which was the first province to include protection for sexual orientation in its human rights legislation (1977) and which is the most liberal province in Canada in regard to both legislation and public attitudes toward homosexuality, has a higher incidence of suicide than that in the province of Alberta. The latter province is one of the most supportive of the traditional family in Canada. Alberta did amend its human rights legislation to provide special protection for sexual orientation in 1999, but only did so because of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada requiring it to do so.
Further, statistics published by Health Canada on Suicide in Canada, Update of the Report of the Task Force on Suicide in Canada (1994), indicated that Quebec's youth suicide rates rose dramatically between 1977 and 1992. By contrast, Alberta's youth suicide rates slightly decreased in the same period.
It is significant, according to Statistics Canada, that in the province of Quebec the "teen" suicide rate is the highest in the Western world. In 1950 when Quebec culture was one of the most traditional in Canada, the teen suicide rate stood at just two per 100,000 population, about the same as the national average. Then, in 1970, it started rising inexplicably each year, reaching 20 per 100,000, at the present time. By comparison, the teen suicide rate in Ontario is 12 per 100,000, and the national rate is 10 per 100,000. While unable to explain the increase in Quebec, psychiatrists do not attribute it in any way to so-called "anti-gay" sentiments in that society.
There would appear, therefore, to be no correlation between societal pressures against homosexuality and a high suicide rate among homosexuals. Rather, it would appear that the high suicide rate among homosexuals is more related to their lifestyle and culture.
f) Increased Substance Abuse Problems
According to the Netherlands study by Theo Sandfort , homosexuals and lesbians have a higher prevalence of substance abuse disorders than heterosexuals. This confirms the results of many previous studies.
g) Homosexuals Experience a Significantly Reduced Life Expectancy
One of the more disconcerting aspects of the homosexual lifestyle is that it gives rise to increased risk to health which shortens life expectancy. It follows that this shortened lifespan among homosexual parents leads to instability in and disruption to the lives of children under their care.
The shortened lifespan can be attributed, at least in part, to the high incidence of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals.
On June 30, 2002, Health Canada Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control reported that 77.7% of the 16,669 adult male AIDS cases in Canada were attributed to men who had had sex with men (MSM).
A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals stated as follows:
In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.
This risk to homosexuals' health and shortened lifespan is acknowledged in their own literature. For example, Brian Gallant, the publisher and editor in chief of the Ottawa-based homosexual publication, Capital Xtra, listed among homosexual health problems, the increased risk of HIV infection, eating disorders, tobacco and substance use, depression and anxiety. He stated:
It shouldn't be too difficult to convince you that gay men face greater health risks than our heterosexual counterparts. And if you're a sexually active gay man, there are health risks in our culture or subculture that healthcare providers simply don't understand ...
h) Same-sex Partnerships Have a High Level of Violence
There is a much higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in heterosexual ones. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. This is verified in a number of other studies. According to the homosexual authors of Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them, domestic violence affects half of all gay couples.
The U.S. Department of Justice has confirmed that homosexual and lesbian relationships have a greater incidence of violence than opposite-sex relationships. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 39% of same-sex couples reported violence by their partners compared to 21% of opposite-sex married partners.
i) Same-sex Parenting Influences Children's Sexual Orientation
Another troubling aspect of same-sex parenting is that children raised in such relationships are more likely to become homosexual or lesbian. A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, stated,as follows:
… there are developmentally important statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behaviour [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behaviour.
Psychologist Paul Cameron found that 13.9% of children raised in homosexual relationships became homosexual , versus only 2.4% of children raised in heterosexual relationships. Another study found that 12% of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves. This is at least four times higher than the rate of lesbianism in the U.S. adult female population.
j) Sexual Interference with Children by Same-sex Parents
Having a homosexual parent appears to increase the risk of sexual interference by one of the partners. According to a study by psychologist Paul Cameron, 29% of adult children of homosexual parents were subjected to sexual interference by one of the homosexual parents compared to only 0.6% of adult children of heterosexual parents.
k) Flawed Studies Supporting Same-sex Parenting
It is acknowledged that there are studies that purport to establish that same-sex parenting is equivalent to heterosexual parenting. Experts in psychometrics and empirical research in psychology, however, have extensively reviewed this literature, and have determined that such studies fail scientific standards and that the conclusion that there are no adverse consequences for children due to the sexual orientation of their parents is unjustified.
This was confirmed by the Attorney General of Canada in his arguments before the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2003 on the same-sex marriage issue. To corroborate his arguments against same-sex marriage in the Ontario appeal case, the federal Attorney General submitted in evidence an affidavit by Sociology Professor Stephen Nock of the University of Virginia, Associate Editor of the "Journal of Marriage, and the Family and Social Science Research." According to his affidavit, Professor Nock concluded that studies supporting homosexual parenting were based on unreliable research and flawed methodology, and, as a result, provided a very tenuous basis on which to set public policy.
Other experts41,42,43 in psychometrics and empirical research in psychology have also extensively reviewed the literature affirming same-sex parenting, and have determined that such studies have failed to meet even minimal scientific standards and do not justify the conclusion that there are no adverse consequences for children due to the sexual orientation of their parents.
Children must not be held hostage to social engineering experimentation. Opening the door to same-sex marriages leaves vulnerable children as innocent prey in environments that are not in their best interest.
3. Same-sex Marriage Leads to Other Relationships Demanding Marital Status
The characteristic that defines same-sex partners as a group and, as couples, is not belief or biology, but behaviour - a particular kind of erotic behaviour. Sexual and sex-like behaviour is not an inherent personal characteristic, such as race or gender, nor is it an exercise of conscience, like religion or speech. Homosexual behaviour, incidentally, is not comparable to race as a basis of marriage regulation, since race is irrelevant to the capacity to marry. However, heterosexual behaviour is directly related to the fundamental purpose of marriage laws, which regulate sexual behaviour and protect the mores that define the core identity, boundaries, structure, and order of society. In short, skin colour is a benign, non-behavioural characteristic. Sexual orientation is a human behaviour characteristic. Comparison of the two is a convenient, but wholly invalid argument.
Moreover, if the guiding rule to marriage is behaviour, then there can be no valid, reasoned, or principled argument to exclude other sexual relationships from the definition of "marriage," such as a brother and sister, a father and adult daughter, or perhaps three or more individuals together In a marriage. In short, if we accept behaviour as the guide, then there can be no meaningful limits to such "marriages", which can only lead society to social and moral confusion.
In short, claims for same-sex marriage not only demand a radical redefinition of marriage, but are also predicated on a foundation of relativism that compels almost unlimited extension and virtually unrestricted restructuring of marriage as a legal and social unit. Marriage, then, becomes just another socially created institution that can be shaped by the power-builders.
Justice Minister Cotler Misinforms Committee on May 12, 2005
In this regard, it was disingenuous of a Minister of Justice to argue in his testimony before this Committee on May 12, 2005 that polygamy, incest, etc. will not result from the passage of Bill C-38, since "bigamy and incest are criminal offences in Canada. That is the law of the land. That will not change." Perhaps Mr. Cotler believes Canadians are easily confused. It would be extraordinary if the government could make the revolutionary change in the definition of marriage, by opening it up to two "persons," but is incapable of making further amendments to the legislation at a later date. Also if the courts find "opposite-sex marriage" to be a denial of equality because of the "feelings" of the same-sex couples who "feel" demeaned and that their relationships are being marginalized, - the criteria to determine "equality" selected by the Supreme Court of Canada in Law v. Canada [1999] I.S.C.R. 497 - then why cannot that same criterion be applied to polygamy, incest, etc.? Despite Mr. Cotler's assertion to the contrary in his testimony, there is no distinction between criminal law or civil law in respect to amendments. Does one not recall that, prior to 1969, all homosexual acts were deemed to be criminal acts contrary to the Criminal Code? This provision was subsequently amended. Further, the Criminal Code provisions on abortion, prostitution, pornography etc., have all been amended over the years. What is a criminal offence today may well not be one tomorrow. It seems clear that the definition of marriage can and will also be changed to expand to other relationships. Perhaps Mr. Cotler is not aware that advocates of polyamory (group marriage) are taking their cue from the movement for gay marriage which is now the favourite cause of scholars of family law (see The New York University Review of Law and Social Change: "Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence 2004," Volume 29. Number 2). Polyamorists have long treated their inclination toward multi-partner sex as analogous to homosexuality. In short, the arguments for the logic of gay marriage extend to state sanctioned polyamory as well.
The truth is, by keeping the label and the legal status of marriage, but changing the meaning and concept, legalization of same-sex marriage necessarily involves rejection of what marriage means and has meant for millennia. Instead, it is replaced by relativistic, post-modern extensions of private preference (choice) or personal intimacy (commitment) relationships. Thus, legalization of same-sex marriage entails a radical rejection of marriage, by redefinition and replacement. If marriage means everything and includes anything, it means nothing.
4. Bill C-38 Fails To Protect Religious Freedom
Both the Preamble and Clause 3 of Bill C-38 state that officials of religious groups are protected from performing same-sex marriages if it is contrary to their beliefs. These are absolutely meaningless provisions, totally without substance. Religious groups are not protected by this legislation.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the same-sex marriage reference case, specifically stated that religious rights are matters of provincial jurisdiction only and that the federal government has no authority over them.
Marriage commissioners in some Canadian provinces have already been ordered to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, despite their religious beliefs. The federal government can do nothing to halt this denial of the religious rights of these commissioners, despite its statement in the preamble that "everyone" has freedom of conscience and religion, which will not be affected by this same-sex legislation.
In addition, in every case where religious rights have competed with homosexual rights, the Supreme Court of Canada has ordered the trumping of homosexual rights over religious rights. The parade of cases to diminish religious rights on same-sex marriage issues has already commenced with a BC lesbian couple claiming discrimination because a Catholic men's organization, the Knights of Columbus, has refused to rent their hall for their marriage celebration.
The preamble also claims that same-sex marriage respects the "right" of same-sex couples to equality without discrimination. The Supreme Court of Canada did not state in the reference case that opposite sex marriage was discriminatory against same-sex couples. It merely stated that the government may, as a matter of policy, extend marriage to same-sex couples, but the court did not require the government to do so, on the basis that it was an equality or human right issue.
It is obvious that, in its effort to push through this unpopular legislation and make it more palatable, the Liberal government is deliberately misleading the public on this highly charged issue.
Finally, freedom of religion is more far-reaching than merely presiding at wedding ceremonies. It affects church property, public statements, religious interpretation of sacred texts - the list is endless and none of this is covered in Bill C-38 and can never be since these are matters of provincial jurisdiction only.
II WHY THE DEMAND FOR LEGALIZING SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS
BY MARRIAGE?
According to a survey by Statistics Canada, 2003, homosexuals / lesbians account for 1% of the Canadian population, and, according to the 2001 Census, only 0.5% of same-sex couples cohabit in Canada.
Since so few same-sex couples wish to legalize their unions by way of marriage, this raises the important question as to why, since same-sex relationships are so different in values, structure, practice and longevity from married relationships, homosexual activists are demanding legal marriage for their partnerships? Could it be to achieve validation of the homosexual lifestyle as if it were as normal and healthy as heterosexuality? Could it be to destabilize and erode the very nature of the institution of marriage?
William Eskridge,44 a prominent U.S. homosexual advocate, states that building a marriage law which includes gay experience:
… invokes the reconfiguration of family - de-emphasizing blood, gender and kinship ties and emphasizing the value of interpersonal relationships.
Unfortunately, the re-interpretation of the basic concept of family is already being attempted in Canada and this will be accelerated and confirmed if Bill C-38 becomes law. For example, the federal Heritage Department gave a $73,903. grant in 2003-2004 and Canada Council for the Arts gave $47,100 to a Toronto feminist publishing company to publish a book entitled Mom and Mum are Getting Married.
There is no hint in the book that a father exists anywhere in the child's life, or that same-sex unions are not acceptable to a majority of Canadians. Instead, the book paints a rosy picture of grandparents, uncles, aunts and friends all joyously celebrating the wonderful event without a single reservation or moment of hesitation. This book was obviously published for the purpose of the indoctrination of children on the same-sex marriage issue. The book also exposes the fact that activists for same-sex marriage know that same-sex unions have nothing to do with equality rights, but everything to do with fundamentally changing the meaning of traditional marriage and the family. The book is essentially all about exchanging a heterosexual society for a homosexual one. This book is just the beginning of what's in store for our schools if same-sex marriage is ever passed into law.
Again, children will be held hostage to adults' games to promote a particular agenda.
In effect, legal marriage for same-sex partners forces the law and public policy to realign marriage and family to accommodate same-sex experience and practices. This will bleach out the central features of opposite-sex marriage that now provides cultural affirmation, support and encouragement to married couples who make the tremendous sacrifice to give birth to and rear children, which is of such crucial importance to the future of society. Opposite-sex marriage is also the affirmation of the unique bonding that arises in a heterosexual relationship, which serves as the bridge between past, present and future generations. The deconstruction of opposite-sex marriage leads to the unraveling of society.
III PUBLIC POLICY ON MARRIAGE
Public benefits should not be awarded to promote personal or special interest agendas. Evidence supporting the claim that the contribution to society of same-sex couples is comparable to that of traditionally married ones is lacking.
Public laws are intended to protect and promote public interests, not private lifestyle preferences. The question to be addressed is whether the social interest - the public good - is served, not whether some private interests are advanced by same-sex unions. Legal marriage is a public institution established to achieve public purposes. It is not meant to promote private interests.
This issue is not a mere matter of "tolerance" of other relationships. This is to confuse tolerance with preference. The issue is much deeper. Marriage as the union between a man and a woman is not just a tolerated relationship, but is the classic example of a preferred relationship, essential for the good of society. It must be preserved and protected from those who wish to undermine it.
IV RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The public must be consulted on Bill C-38 by way of a national referendum pursuant to S.3 of the Referendum Act (1992).
2. Bill C-38 should not be passed into law due to its harmful implications for society and especially because of its harmful effects on children.
3. If the legislation is passed into law, amendments are crucial to provide full protection for all Canadians. These protections must include:
a) Religious protection to fully protect not only officials refusing to perform same-sex marriages, but all faith based schools and organizations, as well as the use of religious properties.
b) Freedom of speech on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage for all Canadians both religious and lay, including government officials, whether in education, churches or during public discourse. This will require an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
4. Royal Assent
If Bill C-38 is passed, it should not receive Royal Assent until all the provinces have amended their legislation to allow full freedom of religious speech and opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage as outlined above.
Kurtz, Stanley, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" The Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004
Sarantakos, S. "Children in three contexts: family, education and social development", Children Australia, 21, (1996), 23-31; "National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth," Statistics Canada, 1996, 1998; Pitirim Sorokin, "The American Sex Revolution," Porter Sargent Publisher, Boston, 1958; Affidavit of Prof. Edward Shorter, submitted in evidence by the Attorney General of Canada in Halpern and the Attorney General of Canada et al, (2002), O.R. (3d) (S.C.J.,Div. Crt.) and the Ontario Court of Appeal, Halpern and the Attorney General of Canada et al. (2003), 65 .R. (3d.) 161
Statistics Canada and Human Resources and Development Canada National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth (Ottawa: 1999)
IBID
McWhirter, David and Mattison, Andrew, "The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop," Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984, pp.252, 253; Michael, Robert T. et al., "Sex in America: A Definitive Survey," Boston: Little, Brown & Company, (1994)
Xiridou, Maria et al., "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003):1031
McWhirter and Mattison supra
Bell, A.P. Weinberg, M.S., "Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women," Simon and Schuster, New York, 1978, pp. 308-309; see also Bell, A.P. and Weinberg, M.S. and Hammersmith, S.K., "Sexual Preference," Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981
Van de Ven, Paul et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men, Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354
Kirby, Gareth, XtraWest, Pink Triangle Press, Vancouver, Sept. 6, 2001
Wiederman, Michael W., "Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 170; Laumann E.O. et al., "The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States," Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1994): 216
Ipsos-Reid, March 14, 2001
Hayton, Bradley P., "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institutes, (1993): 9
Registration of Domestic Partnerships Regulations made under Section 59 of the Vital Statistics Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 494 O.I.C. 2001-263 (May 31, 2001, effective June 4, 2001), N.S. Reg. 57/20, Halifax, online: Province of Nova Scotia
LaViolette, Nicole, "Registered Partnerships: A Model for Relationship Recognition," "Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships," Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada (2001)
Wocker, R., "Belgium Partner Law Unpopular" (2000) |
