December 18, 2006
Dedicated to Preserving Family Values
P.O. Box 66714, 38 King Street East,
Stoney Creek, ON CANADA L8G 5E6
| Muzzling Free Speech Why can't people speak against same-sex marriage? |
|
Originally printed in
The Hamilton Spectator, Dec. 11, 2006 By Gwendolyn Landolt Two views of homosexuality are creating tensions in Canada. Some believe, on the basis of equality, that there should be no distinction drawn in any way by society between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Others are opposed to homosexuality for practical, medical, moral and/or religious reasons. The "no distinction" approach has dominated primarily because of the decisions of appointed judges and human rights panelists. It was on this basis that the legalization of same-sex marriages was made. Even within the parliamentary process, the decision on same-sex marriage has been made by a very few individuals. When same-sex marriage was first debated in Parliament in June 2005, 19 NDP MPs and the 39 Liberal Cabinet members were ordered by their leaders to vote in support of it. The Liberals then rammed through the legislation by disallowing any amendments and imposing closure to cut off debate. In debate last week, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties again excluded the public from the same-sex marriage debate by requiring its MPs vote along party lines. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was not much better. He begrudgingly allowed a free vote, although making the claim that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental" right under the Charter of Rights. He was wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision on same-sex marriage, which assumed the leadership role among the provincial courts on this issue, is now under a cloud, due to a complaint laid against Chief Justice Roy McMurtry before the Canadian Judicial Council for serious judicial impropriety and the apprehension of bias for his part in that case. Same-sex marriage is now public policy and has already triggered some significant changes. This new definition of marriage has a profound impact on the welfare of children. A large body of social scientific research indicates that children thrive best with a mother and father who teach them gender identity and sex role expectations. This was the conclusion of a committee of the French National Assembly, which recommended, in January 2006, that France not accept same-sex marriage due to its detrimental effect on children. The French committee criticized studies on same-sex parenting that claimed it had no ill effects on children, on the basis that these studies lacked scientific rigour, included inadequate sampling, and showed a lack of objectivity. The Court of Appeal of New York and the Supreme Court of Washington last July also rejected same-sex marriage because of concern for the welfare of children. Same-sex marriages are not functionally equivalent to opposite-sex marriages, but are different in structure, values and practice. It is widely acknowledged that these differences include the fact that sexual faithfulness is not usually regarded as a requirement in same-sex relationships, but is of vital importance in a heterosexual marriage. Same-sex partners experience a higher incidence of health problems resulting in shorter life spans. The duration of same-sex marriages is shorter than that of opposite-sex relationships: on average, the former last only two to three years. These factors are detrimental to children who require stability in their lives. A trend resulting from same-sex marriage is evident in the Netherlands, which has allowed homosexual couples to register their partnerships since 1997 and which legalized same-sex marriages in 2000. Statistics show that the out-of-wedlock birthrate there has increased by an average of 2 per cent a year -- more than in any other country in western Europe. This indicates a marked decrease in a desire for legal marriage and an increase in cohabitation. The legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has put law and religion on a collision course. The Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus, in Port Coquitlam, B.C., was required to pay a fine for causing "hurt feelings" when it denied the use of the organization's hall to a lesbian couple to celebrate their wedding. Religion-based social services, such as counseling and adoption services, are now required to conform to the same-sex marriage law. The tax-exempt status of churches has become the subject of intimidation and harassment. Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary was threatened by the Canada Revenue Agency with removal of the Roman Catholic Church's tax-exempt status if he persisted in speaking against same-sex marriage during a federal election. Those who favour same-sex marriages are free to speak their views, but those opposed to them are being harassed and coerced into refraining from doing so. This was evident at Ryerson University in June when a respected professor of ethics from McGill University, Dr. Margaret Somerville, who opposes same-sex marriage, was subjected to public attack, including picketing when she received an honorary degree there. Within school boards, teachers and other individuals are being forced to deny their religious beliefs and freedom of speech by being required to promote same-sex marriage, and publicly refraining from expressing any opposition to it. A teacher and school counsellor in British Columbia, Chris Kempling, submitted a letter to his local newspaper objecting to homosexuality. This resulted in his suspension for one month without pay by the B.C. College of Teachers, which alleged that Kempling's letters "poisoned the school environment." Subsequently, Kempling was a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party and, in that capacity, had a letter to the editor published in his local newspaper opposing same-sex marriage. He received a further suspension of three months without pay. School boards in Quebec and Ontario, especially in Toronto, Hamilton and London, now require homosexual "education" in their school systems. Such programs do not provide balanced instruction on the issue, and the medical, psychological and legal impact of homosexuality are not mentioned. As these examples show, these are monumental consequences to same-sex marriage. Are these the changes that Canadians want? Who knows? We've never been given the opportunity to express our views. A referendum on the issue is clearly required. Gwendolyn Landolt is national vice-president, REAL Women of Canada Back to HWFAC Editorial Response |
Top of Page
Back to Newsletter Articles Main Page
Back to HWFAC's Home Page