Same-Sex Union Presentation Report
April 11, 2003
Dear Concerned Friends:
On Thursday April 10, HWFAC was provided the privilege of presenting to the Federal
Justice Committee regarding 'Marriage and the Legal Definition of Same-sex Unions'.
Currently the Justice Committee is traveling across Canada and receiving presentations
from various groups in an effort to gather feedback on the Supreme Court's order
to address the perceived inequity between Marriage and same-sex unions in Canada.
The federal government has been directed by the Court to address this issue with
one possibility being that same-sex union be given full marital status with every
privilege and benefit that currently applies to marriage. Essentially this would be
mean that under law there would be no difference between marriage and same-sex unions.
HWFAC prepared and submitted a 10-page brief that is available in word perfect format
to all who request it. The report deals with the issue by responding to the question 'Is
marriage a distinct relationship and does it continue to have significant value in
Canadian society?
The presentations for this session consisted of a 7-minute presentation by the Ontario
Federation of Labour presenting on behalf of lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender
persons requesting the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions followed by a
7-minute presentation by HWFAC requesting the current definition of marriage remain
unchanged due to the fact that it is a distinct relationship, with no equal and that
marriage continues to have significant value to Canadian Society. Following the
presentations was a 30-minute question period in which MP's from the committee
asked questions of the two presenters.
The Federation presentation was extremely poor with no research or evidence to back
any of their statements. At least half of the presentation talked about the
Federation and its self-proclaimed greatness. The second half of the federation
presentation was an attempt to muzzle free speech as they tongue-lashed the Committee
for some of the statements made regarding the issue in previous submissions with the
typical 'we are offended' nonsense.
HWFAC with solid data and evidence, presented that Marriage is distinct from same-sex
unions in 3 vital areas:
- Marriage is distinct from same-sex unions in conjugality
- No other conjugal act is natural or equal. Any court or parliament who declares
unnatural conjugal acts to be equal to the conjugal act of marriage does so in error.
- Marriage is distinct from same-sex unions in procreation
- Female anatomy was designed, then created to naturally receive
the male semen, permit egg fertilization and ultimately create new life, children.
- Marriage is distinct from same-sex unions in providing the best
environment in which to raise children
- Marriage historically, and today remains to be the best environment in which to raise
children. No amount of politically correct social engineering or equal rights amendments
will ever change that.
These are 3 vital and positive aspects of marriage, which set it apart from same-sex
unions and show that marriage has a continuing positive value to society.
HWFAC then presented that same-sex unions are distinct from marriage in 3 vital areas:
- Same-sex unions are distinct from marriage as evidenced in the substantially higher
incidence rates of sexually-transmitted diseases associated with same-sex unions when compared
to marriage.
Same-sex unions are directly associated with substantially higher incidence rates
of sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS/HIV, hepatitis and gonorrhea of the throat
to name only a few.
- Same-sex unions are distinct from marriage emotionally as evidenced in the significantly
higher rates of emotional disorders when compared to marriage.
Same-sex unions are directly associated with substantially higher incidence rates of
emotional disorders including compulsive behaviours, binge drinking, alcoholism and
suicide to name only a few.
- Same-sex unions are distinct from marriage spiritually as evidenced in the Holy Bible.
Same-sex unions in the Holy Bible are described as shameful lusts, unnatural relations
and perversions which are subject to due penalty to be received in the body and eternal
damnation of the soul. No human rights tribunal can ever change that.
These are 3 vital and negative aspects of same-sex unions, which set them
apart from marriage and show that same-sex unions have a continuing negative
value to society.
HWFAC then presented other factors to be considered with regard to the issue of redefining
marriage to include same-sex marriage:
- Impact on the Church and Families of Faith
When one considers the controversial bill C-250 (formerly C-415) and its aim to muzzle
public discourse on the dangers of homosexuality by labeling all dissenting views voiced
in public as 'hate', then the ramifications for churches that refuse to marry or
recognize same-sex unions are tremendous. Churches could face court challenges in which
they pay their legal costs while government continues to pay the bills of gay activists.
They face removal of charitable status, censoring of scripture which deals with homosexuality,
closure and imprisonment of pastors and board members.
Homosexual activists claim that this is not their goal at all. These same activists said
that same-sex benefits were not about same-sex unions but within days of the granting
of that special right were setting their sights on the redefinition of marriage.
- Who is requesting that government redefining marriage further sanction same-sex unions?
Homosexual activists largely at the expense of the public are putting this request forward.
The cost of this lobbying and court challenges is often paid for with public funds.
Governments now pay small special interests groups to challenge the laws in the courts in
the hopes of passing the responsibility for these decisions to the courts who cannot be
held accountable by election.
- What percentage of the population is actually claiming to live in same-sex union
relationships?
The 2001 Census Canada questionnaire asked same-sex couple households to declare themselves
for the first time. According to Stats Can, same-sex couple households were only 0.5% of
all couple households in Canada including common-law and married. Gay activists do not
represent all homosexuals in their agenda to redefine marriage. Therefore, the redefinition
of marriage is being considered on behalf of less than 0.5% of the adult couple population.
- Isn't this about equal rights for homosexuals?
In practically every area of life, that equality has already been attained. Even the
national gay and lesbian lobby group EGALE has admitted this to be true. In its
presentation to the House of Commons Justice Committee, EGALE acknowledged that a
previously passed bill, C-23 "already gave to same-sex couples virtually all the
rights and obligations of marriage under federal law and most provincial laws do
the same." (EGALE Canada, "EGALE Submissions to the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights", undated p. 12.)
Presently every Canadian adult has the same privilege of marriage, every adult has the
privilege to marry another adult of the opposite sex. This request for re-definition of
marriage then is not at all about equal rights but rather about special rights.
- What other special interests are challenging the definition of marriage and asking for
inclusiveness?
Polygamists
On October 7, 2002, Immigration Minister Dennis Coderre launched a probe of his staff's
decision to allow a B.C. polygamists' three wives to move to Canada. Coderre asked his
department to investigate. Published reports revealed Winston Blackmore's three wives were
given permanent residence status, even though government officials knew of their illegal
relationship.
The local B.C immigration office rejected their applications for permanent status, but
that decision was overturned in Ottawa because the women had children with Blackmore
and were stepmothers to his other children. (Toronto Sun, October 8, 2002, p. 8)
Should Canada now recognize this polygamist relationship as marriage and extend to the
Blackmore family all the benefits of marriage?
Multi- parents
In February of 2003 a London boy's mother, who is now a practicing lesbian, applied to
have her lesbian partner made a third legal parent. The two lesbians, apparently with
the natural father's support, made the request of Justice David Aston of Family Court.
(London News, February 14, 2002).
Should Canada now recognize this tri-parent relationship and extend to the family all
the benefits of marriage?
The 30-minute, which followed, consisted of approximately 25 minutes of questions and
discussion with HWFAC with very little interest shown to the federation. Even though
many of the questions were oppositional HWFAC was able to confidentially respond to
each question while the MP's offered no argument. The federation fumbled with the
few questions they did receive.
For those who prayed for God's anointing to rest upon HWFAC, be assured this was the case.
Essentially once again God shut the lion's mouths.
Submitted by,
Jim Enos,
Vice-President, HWFAC
Top of Page
Back to Marriage Home Page
Back to HWFAC's Home Page
|
