Removing the Masks Worn at the Leadership Debate
Each of the 5 Political Leaders of Canada (Jean Chretien, Stockwell Day, Joe Clark, Alexa McDonough and Gilles Duceppe) either directly (fax or e-mail) or indirectly (through their Party members) received a copy of my article entitled, "Spiritual Eyes for the Religion & Politics of Same-Sex Marriages... Spiritual Eyes for the Love of Common Sense :-)" in October/2000. It can be viewed at http://www.geocities.com/danhanewich/writings07.html. In fact, this article was sent to 155 Premiers, Attorney Generals, Government Ministers, Catholic Bishops, Anglican Priests, United Church Ministers, News Media, Gay & Lesbian Activist Groups, Communities, and common people.
Yet, during the televised English language Leader's Debate on Thursday November 09, 2000 all of our political leaders fell far short of the necessary vision, support and any reassuring fortitude favouring the possibilities of social equality being extended towards alternative lifestyles seeking same-sex marriages. When very little is said on such an important issue affecting the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Canadians (and their families and friends), this speaks volumes for the relative importance our Political Leaders place on our freedoms as assured under the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
Jean Chretien said in the debate, "We are more than just citizens of a single province or a single region. We are more than just taxpayers, we are citizens of a great country. We have responsibilities to each other."
To Jean Chretien: I agree. We are more than just citizens of a single province or a single region. We are diversified. And, we do have responsibilities to each other. The willingness of your government to start discussion around the same-sex marriage definition and issue seemed to be a credit to the just and diversified spirit of co-existence for social equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. However, Stockwell Day says that the Canadian Alliance Party agrees with your Liberal Party - that marriage is defined for only heterosexual couples. Does this mean that under the Liberal Party, marriage between heterosexual couples also falls under the "I am 'better'" category? Does the Liberal Party lack the necessary quality of respect and strength of character needed to support and legislate (spiritually, definitively, and legally) alternative lifestyle unions? Are we not important enough to be a vital part of social equality when it comes to marriage? Do only our tax dollars and church tithes count in the final analysis? In other words, does the Liberal Party in reality support a two-tier marriage inequality system - one for heterosexuals and another for alternative lifestyles whereby alternative lifestyles are not to be treated on the same social equality level as heterosexual marriages, even though true social equality for all marriages is a very real possibility spiritually, politically, legally and legislatively? And if re-elected, will the Liberal Party be open for social equality to being extended to alternative lifestyles and help support same-sex marriage legislation? Under the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, will the Liberal Party extend this basic responsibility to us?
Stockwell Day has tried to make himself perfectly clear on his and his Party's definition of marriage - that it can only be extended to heterosexual couples. This stand by the Canadian Alliance seems to stem from those US-based, right-winged spiritualists, who are not grown up enough to be able to consider all spiritual possibilities. Stockwell Day makes what amounts to a fundamental restriciting of marriage to heterosexual couples, which is close-minded to the true spirit of love and all it's possibilities. Such a restriction blatantly spoken, blatantly belittles us, does not speak on behalf of us,
