As of this date, 06-05-15, this folder contains 15 items.
******* item 1 PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
******* item 2 THE ARROGANCE OF THE COURTS
******* item 3 DON'T KISS OFF MARRIAGE
******* item 4 BRAZEN DEFIANCE OF PARLIAMENT BY THE COURTS - Rory Leishman
******* item 5 JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN CANADA
******* item 6 'GAY MARRIAGE' PROTEST
******* item 7 'GAY' BOOKS
******* item 8 WE'RE NOW RULED BY THE COURTS - Ted Byfield
******* item 9 JOHN REYNOLDS ON HOMOSEXUAL "MARRIAGE"
******* item 10 RE-DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE - Ron Gray
******* item 11 LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER JEAN CHRETIEN
******* item 12 BC MARRIAGE COMMISSIONERS & BILL C250 - HATE CRIMES - GET READY FOR THE KNOCK ON THE DOOR
******* item 13 BISHOP FREDERICK HENRY CHALLENGES FUNDAMENTAL MORAL INCOHERENCE OF PRIME MINISTER PAUL MARTIN
******* item 14 REAL WOMEN OF CANADA - SAME SEX MARRIAGE ANALYSIS
******* item 15 THE END OF MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT
**********************************************************************************************************************
******* item 1 PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
******* From: John McKellar
******* Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 9:22 PM
******* file:///Macintosh%20HD/Netscape%20Communicator%AA%20Folder/Justice%20Standing%20Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
******* There's HOPE for the World
******* Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism
******* [email protected]
******* February 2003
******* The Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
*******
The Honourable Andy Scott, Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights
******* Re: The Discussion Paper on Marriage and the Legal Recognition of Same-sex Unions
******* THE PEOPLE vs. THE COURTS
******* As an openly gay man and as National Director of HOPE, it is essential and important that I address the misinformation and the inadequacies contained in the above referenced Discussion Paper. In the opening 'Message from the Minister', The Honourable Martin Cauchon states, 'In my view, the roles of Parliament and the courts do not conflict, but complement each other.
*******
When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added to our Constitution
*******
in 1982, Parliament and the legislatures decided to make explicit the right of Canadians to go to court and challenge laws. At the same time, our Constitution makes it clear that Parliament has an essential role to play in deciding important social questions.' Unfortunately, this ideal complementary relationship is far from what is really happening and numerous distinguished
and erudite Canadians have expressed their concern over this.
******* In their book, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party, F.L. Morton and Rainer Knopff state, 'a long tradition of parliamentary supremacy has been replaced by a regime of constitutional supremacy verging on judicial supremacy. Encouraged by the judiciary's more active policymaking role, interest groups - many funded by the very governments whose laws they challenge - have increasingly turned to the courts to advance their policy objectives. Not only are judges influencing public policy to a previously unheard-of degree, but lawyers and legal arguments are increasingly shaping political discourse and policy formation.'
******* In an essay, F.L. Morton expresses, 'there are two Charters: the mythical Charter and the real-world Charter. Canadians love the former because they don't know the latter. Canadians don't know the reality, because it is conducted in a rare dialect - Charterese - of a foriegn language - legalese. Those who practise the dark arts of the Charter - lawyers, judges and Charter-based interest groups - have a vested interest in obscuring the reality and perpetuating the myth. The myth is constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. The reality has become judicial supremacy and the rule of lawyers. This new jurocracy has given wealth to lawyers, power to judges and influence to a new breed of rights-advocacy groups. Rather than being offended by their loss of power to the courts, many re-election-minded politicians have welcomed the development as a convenient way to avoid controversial issues.'
******* On this same subject, McGill University's William Watson says, 'post-Charter courts are not just fiddling at the margins of our laws, they are remaking them wholesale'.
******* Personally, I have discovered that ordinary citizens cannot easily avail themselves of Charter protection, because the Court Challenges Program, which was established to provide funding for Charter litigation by individuals has been captured by partisans of the so-called 'equality seeking' groups. On gay and lesbian issues, EGALE always gets preferential intervenor status, even though they clearly represent none other than their activist membership. So, rather than encouraging a complementary and equitable relationship between Parliament and the courts, a tendentious and authoritative judiciary elite imposes its supremacy over Parliament and therefore over the people.
******* GAY ACTIVISM vs.GAY SOCIETY
******* Throughout the Discussion Paper, there is a conspicuous failure to differentiate between the gay and lesbian lobby and the gay and lesbian community. There are also numerous false assumptions about the interests and desires of the majority of ordinary gays and lesbians.
******* It is with dismay and frustration that I read the often repeated phraseology, 'some same-sex partners seek ... some gay and lesbian couples say ... some same-sex partners feel ... some gay and lesbian couples consider ...'.Has anyone bothered to figure out or care about the quantiative definition of 'some'? From my vantage point as an active and well-informed gay
male, 'some' represents the handful of meticulously orchestrated gay activists and legal radicals who have the disposable time, finances and energy to make lifelong petitions to the courts.
******* In December 2002, I wrote an essay for Ethics and Medics entitled, 'The Irony of Same-sex Marriage'. And the irony that seems to be lost among most media and politicians is that, for a long time, the gay press has been replete with articles, letters and editorials sneering at the whole concept of gay marriage. Clearly, most of us don't want anything to do with it. Even lesbian
icons such as Camille Paglia and Jane Rule stridently reject the entire notion. The tone of the dissension undoubtedly indicates that we neither need nor want the state in our bedrooms, and we neither need nor want to be shackled by rules regulations or paperwork. We've already won the same-sex benefits battle and so there is no longer concern over matters of pensions or estates. We need to be liberated from the mainstream, homogeneous, egalitarian mindset that is destroying what is left of gay culture.
******* Even the January 14, 2001 gay wedding spectacle at Toronto's Metropolitan Community Church, although treated as the social event of the season by a delirious media circus, was shunned and scoffed at by the gay community. Although the participants were hailed as pioneers and revolutionaries by the 'choice and diversity' crowd, they do little more than
reinforce every public prejudice against us and contribute to the inevitable societal backlash against gays and lesbians.
******* In the Spring 2000 edition of BC Bookworld, celebrated lesbian author, Jane Rule, denounced the fight to win gay marriage. 'I've worked long and hard in the gay movement, and I don't like the energy that is being spent on this. Over the years when we have been left to live lawless, a great many of us have learned to take responsibility for ourselves and for each other, for richer
or poorer, in sickness and in health, not bound by the marriage service or model but singularities and groupings of our own invention. To be forced back into the heterosexual cage of coupledom is not a step forward but a step backward into state-imposed definitions of relationship. With all that we have learned, we should be helping our heterosexual brothers and sisters out of
their state-defined prisons, not volunteering to join them there.' Indeed, there is more truth, wisdom and common sense contained in those four sentences, than in the combined voluminous dissertations from EGALE, the courts or the Justice Ministry.
******* My limited experience as an intervenor in lower court challenges or human rights tribunals, concerning sexual orientation matters, has shown me that: a) The judges who make the rulings are always presented with an incomplete, sanitized and partisan view of gay life and gay reality.
******* b) The family values and religious organizations who habitually intervene in cases involving same-sex issues, though well-meaning and reputable, always narrowly frame their arguments around religious doctrine and Scripture which inevitably restricts the debate and subsequent decision to a conflict between State and Church. c) There is rarely oppositional gay and lesbian input into these matters. Conclusively, if a court ruling is made, based on false or inadequate information, and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, then Parliament must legislatively override the ruling.
******* As an openly gay male, I have no problem conceding that heterosexuality is and always will be the great human norm. But I wholly reject the modern, feel-good, pop-culture mentality that facilely equates homosexuality with heterosesuality and asks no deep questions about human psychology beyond the superficial liberal-vs-conservative, freedom-vs-oppression dichotomy. And I even more thoroughly reject the unsatiable demands and infantile whining of my radical brothers and sisters, whose undemocratic tactics threaten my freedom and compromise the traditions and institutions of my country.
******* So, I formed HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) in 1997 to, a) expose the lies, myths, distortions and propaganda of modern gay activism, b) deconsruct the oppression activism, and victimology politics, c) give a credible voice to happy, successful and independent gays and lesbians.
******* Over the past five years, my supposedly controversial stance has brought me considerable media attention, writing articles or being written about in both the gay and mainstream press, and participating in radio and television interviews and debates. In April of 2001, I was asked to prepare an affidavit on behalf of the respondents in the same-sex marriage cases being heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
******* It's truly unfortunate that sexual orientation has become the identity and religion to many gay and lesbian activists who have succeeded in blurring all distinctions between personal and political issues. Even worse, under the guise of tolerance, compassion, choice and diversity, they misuse the Charter and enlist the courts to institutionalize all manner of lifestyle and behaviour. Because the sole purpose of sexual activity between same-sex individuals is carnal pleasure, and because sex is the most powerful human drive and most autonomous form of self-_expression, anyone who interferes with this ideology will feel the sting of activist vengeance via the courts or the human rights commissions. The legal radicals who litigate on behalf of the petitioners are well practised and habitually successful in their countless court challenges against the family based society.
******* Most Canadians believe that gays and lesbians should be able to pursue any brand of consensual sex as we see fit and form whatever relationships that make us happy. But I'm utterly fatigued with the activist mantra that my dignity and my relationships are devalued because the state will not codify same-sex marriage. And I'm not so insecure and so selfish to demand that marriage be redefined for everyone else. Marriage is not an arbitrary convention and is not meant to change with the times. We're not talking about music, fashion or art. We're talking about an institution whose 4 prohibitions - you can only marry one person at a time, only someone of the opposite sex, never someone beneath a certain age, and not a close blood relative - have
been grounded in morality and in law for millennia. Humankind yearns for these stabilizing factors in our kaleidoscopic world, and if we abandon these standards, then everything becomes legal and everything becomes moral. If gay marriages are permitted (a prerogrative of the most decadent Roman emperors), why not polygamy? Why not brother and sister or parent and child?
******* One does not have to be a "fanatical, right-wing, religious fundamentalist" to oppose gay marriage. It is significant to note that an interfaith coalition of Roman Catholics, Sikhs, Muslims, Anglicans and Evangelicals intervened in the court challenges to the Marriage Act and have presented briefs to the current Standing Committee hearing this issue. That such diverse body of religious organizations, all of whom have numerous disagreements in matters of doctrine, theology and practice, are unanimous in their defence of marriage, clearly shows a universal pressing concern for this issue. So gays need to stop complaining about sincere Christians, Jews and Muslims who are merely exercising their constitutional rights to free speech about homosexuality and whose vast philosophical perspective easily triumphs over the provincialism and amorality of the gay world. Indeed, their position is far more credible and honest than the tortuous casuistry of self-interested clerics who take the path of least resistance by creating their own church, tailor-made to affirm their Rainbow philosophy.
******* Gay activists and their ever-willing accomplices in the media, relentlessly drum into the public psyche that homosexuality is "not a choice", because no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. Firstly, there is an element of choice in all behaviour, sexual or otherwise. Secondly, despite public fanfare and trendy hypotheses, there is no conclusive scientific evidence as to the biological, genetic, psychological and sociological
influences on sexual orientation. The modern change in opinion concerning homosexuality, though presented as a scientific advance, is contradicted rather than supported by science.
******* It is a transformation of public morals consistent with widespread abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our civilization is based. Though hailed as "progress", it is really a reversion to ancient pagan practices supported by a counter-culture restatement of gnostic moral relativism.
******* It is well documented that long term relationships and fidelity are extremely rare in the gay world. From Hollywood Boy Parties to Fire Island, from Gay Pride to Gay Games, homosexual men are relentlessly searching for "Mecca" - even if it's just for a weekend.
******* Even at the Annual Global Conference on AIDS, the nightlife is more noteworthy than the daytime activities. Every night the discos are packed with gay doctors, nurses, activists and researchers shamelessly cruising one another. Likewise the bathhouses do land-office business. In spite of the solemnity and tragedy in dealing dealing with a wasteful and fatal disease, the hedonistic, promiscuous, sex-carnival atmosphere never lets up.
******* One of the most popular and essential resource guides for gays who travel, are those which reverently chronicle cruising areas for anonymous gay sex, from bathhouses, parks, public washrooms, rural highways to big-city bus stations. Anyone who, thinks that same-sex marriage will quell the gay male compulsion for libidinal excess, is either naive or disingenuous. Recently, Xtra, Canada's gay and lesbian bi-weekly, ran a feature entitled "How to Stay Married and Still Be a Slut" which, at first glance, seems satirical but
which is actually a serious guideline on how to have one's cake and eat it too. Another article in the same journal, spoke of the perverse irony that the right to marry is being fought by those who are already hitched, their youth gone, their kids growing or grown, and their parents shrinking before their very eyes.
******* In its affidavit in support of same-sex marriage, EGALE contends that if gays and lesbians are excluded from that which is available to the rest of society, we will always remain marginalized and stigmatized. That's the typical party-line rhetoric, crafted to invoke guilt and sympathy. Gay activism has always been naive in its belligerent confidence that 'homophobia' will disappear with massive and forced education of the benighted. But
such relentless indoctrination cannot be achieved without fascist obliteration of all individual freedoms. And since freedom always trumps diversity and tolerance, you can rest assured that any perceived threat to freedom will result in a societal backlash which will guarantee oppression of all homosexuals. Gay males, especially, are forever on the edge of a precipice,
because in a political cataclysm we are always the first to be purged.
******* Another spurious contention from EGALE is that 'gender purity' is tantamount to 'racial purity' This is not only intellectually dishonest, but is insultingly disrespectful to Blacks, Jews and other ethnic minorities. Lesbian author and professor of humanities, Camille Paglia, succinctly states: 'The gay activist establishment has been stupid and narrow in the way it has conducted its civil rights campaign. There is no gay leader remotely near the stature of Martin Luther King because Black activism has drawn on the profound spiritual traditions of the church, to which gay political rhetoric is childishly hostile. The parallel claimed by gay leaders between Blacks
and gays as oppressed minorities has always been questionable, and many African-Americans have angrily rejected it. Indeed, discrimination against skin color is not wholly comparable to the complicated resistance of virtually all societies to open homosexuality, which involves thorny questions of morality and psychology. Most gays can 'pass' whenever they want - an option available to few Blacks.' (Vamps and Tramps, 1994)
******* Whatever society teaches or doesn't teach about homosexuality, no gay or lesbian, surrounded overwhelmingly by heterosexuals, will feel at home in his or her sexual and emotional world, even in the most tolerant of cultures.At a young age we learn the rituals of deceit, impersonation and appearance, and anyone who believes political. social or even cultural revolution will change
change this fundamentally is denying reality. The unhappy truth is that male homosexuality will never be fully accepted by the heterosexual majority, who are obeying the dictates not of 'bigoted' society or religion, but of procreative nature. Yet this desperation deepens our artistic insight and
and allows us to create civilization. Look, at such historical icons as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Tchaikovsky, Somerset Maugham, Gore Vidal, et al, who were homosexual, and who undoubtedly experienced hardship and alienation. But look what they gave to the world. Look how they advanced the cultural heritage. They were too cultivated, creative and cosmopolitan
to be concerned with the trivialities of sexual pride, queer studies or diversity. One of them glorified God and Church by painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, despite the Vatican's unequivocal denunciation of homosexuality.
******* Now compare those cultural giants with what passes for gay culture today. We used to be trendsetters, tastemakers and at the forefront of creativity in art, music, literature, fashion etc. In recent times, however, we have massacred our most promising by ignoring, tolerating and embracing destructive conduct. We've institutionalized decadence and promiscuity. We've
adopted victimology and oppression politics. We're steeped in narrow, rigid thinking, pious cliches and empty ideology. We engage in lies, myths, distortions and misleading propaganda.
******* We overpoliticize and polarize viewpoints, labelling people pro-gay or anti-gay with little room between. From the exalted creativity of the Rennaisance to the infantile vulgarity of Gay Pride, we've managed to dumb ourselves down to the level of barnyard animals.
******* No major world religion has ever endorsed homosexuality which can be openly practised only in peaceful, affluent and cosmopolitan times. Even in classical antiquity, homosexuality was controversial, and despite the exaggerated claims of todays partisans, there was no place or period where it flourished in complete feedom from moral opprobrium. History shows that
male homosexuality flourishes with urbanization, soon becomes predictably ritualized, and always tends toward decadence. The following has been excerpted from an article by Charles Karel Boulay published in America's premier gay publication, the Advocate, and presents a stinging indictment of gay life in the new millennium.
******* If the religious right has a preconceived notion of who and what gay people are, maybe it's because we fed it to them ... the bars are full of substance-abusing queers with little or no self-respect, twirling, bumping, shopping - whatever they call their new drug trips.
******* Vocabularies are now full of letters - E G K Y - ad infinitum. The most popular gateway drug is no longer pot or coke but serostin or creatin or a host of other steroids used to make our bodies the epitome of perfect. Countless hours are devoted to the gym so that we can have that perfect physique and then use that muscular bicep to pour alchohol into our system, chemicles into our bloodstream and smoke into our lungs ...That's just a subculture you say.
That's not everyone. Really? Go to any Pride event, any, and then disagree with me.
******* Hundreds of thousands of shirtless men with perfect pecs - so generic, if you cut off their heads, you'd never be able to identify their lifeless, chiseled bodies - being stepped over by campy drag queens or lesbians on Harleys wearing only nipple caps and leather vests ... And let's talk about sex ... 5 minutes into a Gay.com online chat room someone asked me to
come over and bareback ... one of my best friends admitted that in the last 6 months he's allowed not one but two men to actually finish the job inside of him without a condom ...
******* When the centers of Disease Control and Prevention announced recently that AIDS cases are rising and that the number one group of new infections is gay men ages 16 - 25, I thought there has to be something in the Aqafina. God help me, I thought anyone over the age of 15 that contracts HIV deserves it . They are ignorant to a disease which has been around over 20 years. And if they are gay and male, they doubly deserve it. We've seen first hand what it can do but choose to ignore that in favor of our own carnal desires ... Bathhouses are still open. How ridiculous is that? And men still flock to them. Not you? Not anyone you know?
******* You'd be surprised ... It's a shame gay men have come to this as a culture. We have such hope, such brilliance. But why would society grant us anything? Because it's the right thing to do? We need to prove we deserve it ... Yes, I'm generalizing. In general we are promiscuous.
******* In general we abuse more substances than straight people our age. In general we are narcissistic. And in general that is how we are perceived.
******* By far, the scariest and most insidious corollary to same-sex marriage is same-sex adoption (already legal in some jurisdictions). This is blatant child abuse. Children need a biological mother and father. We know this is not always possible, even in the context of opposite-sex marriage, but we don't solve the problem or alleviate the inconsistency by augmenting it.
******* Children are not meant to be guinea pigs for social engineering experiments. Self-interested partisans will manufacture statistics to support ther specious claims that children of gay marriages fare as well as those of traditional families. But the phenomenon of same-sex parenting doesn't have the longevity needed for such conclusive evidence, whereas the experience of single-parent families has not always, but often shown detriment to the development of the offspring.
******* When society allows men to marry men and women to marry women, it perpetuates the alienation of the sexes and contributes to the ever-increasing crisis in the sex roles.
******* Before Stonewall, gays and lesbians mixed socially and in the clubs with a pretty good good understanding of and appreciation for one another. But as gay liberation took hold, gay males, feeling ebullient from their new-found freedom, descended into a bacchanalia of narcissism and promiscuity. Segregated bars, orgy rooms and bathhouses exploded in number and luxury. Strange parasitic diseases soon began appearing, and by 1981, a "gay cancer" was identified as AIDS. We must honestly admit that even gay men's attempt to create a world without women failed catastrophically.
******* GENUINE PUBLIC DISCOURSE or PATRONIZING PLACEBO?
******* Even as a young, radical college student, I was able to recognize the petulant nihilism and assumed martyrdom of the self-annointed mouthpieces purporting to represent gays and lesbians. What astonishes and worries me in my post-graduate maturity, is how anyone who is sufficiently astute to be elected to public office and, moreover, sufficiently worldly to hold a ministry or cabinet position, could so foolishly succumb to the flim-flammery of current
gay activism. There are only two possible explanations for this inconsistency: naivete or disingenuousness. The former is easily correctible through education and information. The latter is unthinkably frightening. Such collusive insincerity from our legislative and judicial leaders would mean that the outcome is predetermined. It means that the appearance of public opinion and public input is a facade. It means that the Discussion Paper and the Standing
Committee is a money wasting pretext designed to appease the Canadian populace. And considering the facility with which the advocates constantly win their court challenges, and the alacrity with which Parliament upholds these rulings, how could any rational person not be suspicious?
******* The lobbyists quite willingly acknowledge that only a small minority of gays and lesbians are interested in same-sex marriage, but that, in the interest of fairness and equality, the choice should be available, regardless of numbers. Firstly, this is not fairness and equality, but rather parity and egalitarianism. Laws are written for the good of all society and not for the individual, the special rights advocates or the legal radicals. We are first of all social, interdependent beings, and because human community can only arise from some prevailing unity, society always has a natural and logical primacy over the individual.
******* It is commonly known that gays and lesbians are omnipresent in the 'artistic' professions. We are also highly represented in the civil service and social welfare industry. In fact, it would not be exaggerating to state that if every gay and lesbian abandoned Ottawa, the wheels of government
would grind to a halt. Because of our high profile in the civil service (federally and provincially), politicians interact with and depend on us habitually. Therefore, the decision makers of our country have a favourable bias as well as a personal and professional admiration for the multitude of gays and lesbians with whom they work. This attitude, although understandable, presents a conflict of interest and causes an inclination towards empathy, support and partiality.
******* The only logical and responsible solution to this vital and transitional issue is to leave marriage as an opposite-sex institution. It cannot be left to opinion polls and surveys. It requires strong and
courageous leadership from our elected representatives. Canadians look to Parliament and the courts for guidance and wisdom, and if all they see is legislative acquiescence to the demands of the gay lobby then, of course, their attitudes and positions will, in due course, shift from opposition to
support. Honourable Members of Parliament, do you really want this massive and potentially cataclysmic shift in convention and precept to take place under your watch?
******* It's neither convincing nor reassuring to point out how Belgium or the Netherlands have dealt with same-sex marriage. Europe has had centuries of notoriety and upheaval, and has paid dearly for its mistakes. To imply that we should look to these countries as role models in deciding how to approach
and resolve such significant and sensitive social issues, is insulting to Canadians.
******* Unfortunately, most people's sense of history begins the day they were born, which means all that precedes is 'outmoded and irrelevant' and all that follows is 'enlightened and progressive'. However, we cannot and must not ignore the lessons of history and natural law. Again and again, it has been shown that whenever humankind fails to protect time-honored political, moral and social institutions, whenever humankind attempts to embrace pride as a virtue and mainstream behavior that contravenes natural law, and whenever humankind becomes arrogant, autonomous, egalitarian, nihilistic and foolish, civilization fails - always and without exception. So, here we are repeating the cycle and getting ready to crash and burn one more time.
******* John McKellar
******* National Director, HOPE
Toronto, ON, Canada
******* 416 469 8144
******* Copies to all MP's and numerous interested parties
***********************************************************************************************************************
******* item 2 THE ARROGANCE OF THE COURTS
******* from Real Women of Canada
******* Ottawa, June 10, 2003
******* Predictably, the political appointees to the Ontario Court of Appeal have used their unelected position to impose their own vision on the country ?a vision based not on the law, but on their own politically correct ideology. In no other nation, do the courts enjoy the power now held by the Canadian courts which operate without any checks and balances. Consequently, the Canadian courts are the only ones in the world that have had the arrogance to change the definition of marriage.
******* The truth is that judges do not have special or secret knowledge with which to interpret the general and ill-defined words in the Charter of Rights. Instead, judges come to the bench with their own political and ideological axes to grind, and make their decisions accordingly.
******* The decision on the definition of marriage touches on social, political, cultural, emotional and legal implications, that are extremely complex. Yet, after scarcely six weeks?deliberation, the judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal have handed down a decision setting aside the heterosexual definition of marriage, which latter transcends culture, religion and time. This decision would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
******* The courts are now knee-deep in public policy decisions, a function which they are not set up to carry out because they do not have:
******* 1.access to the social facts of the issues as does Parliament;
******* 2.the luxury of time to adequately reflect on the issue;
******* 3.access to the research facilities available to Parliamentarians;
******* 4.access to the practical experiences of the public on matters which are growing increasingly complex, economically, socially and scientifically;
5.the ability to evaluate the full range of policy alternatives available to the government.
******* Consequently, it is not possible for the courts to entirely grasp the long-range implications and ramifications of the narrow arguments placed before them by the litigants.
*******
The appointed, unaccountable courts should not be permitted to continue their bizarre role of determining public policy.
*******
To restore democracy to Canada, Parliament must undertake a pre-emptive strike by assuming its proper role of determining public policy, by defining the legal definition of marriage, rather than relinquishing this role to the unscreened, unscrutinized judges.
*******
For further information contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Diane Watts
National Vice President Researcher
(905) 731-5425, (905) 787-0348 (613) 236-4001
***********************************************************************************************************************
******* item 3 DON'T KISS OFF MARRIAGE
******* Globe and Mail Update
******* Statement on the Status of Marriage in Canada 18 June 2003
******* Introduction
******* Over the past year four Canadian courts have ruled that marriage, recognized under the common law as "the union of one man and one woman," is inconsistent with constitutional values in modern Canadian society and offends the equality rights of homosexuals under section 15 of the Charter. These courts have determined that the existing legal framework for marriage is too narrowly defined and does not offer equitable treatment for non-traditional unions.
******* Two of the courts acknowledged the unique role of Parliament in formulating a proper response to this question. They gave the federal and provincial legislatures until July 2004 to rectify this situation. On June 10, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal acted unilaterally. It pre-empted further discussion by Parliament by striking down the common law definition of marriage and reformulating it as "the voluntary union for life of two persons." The court ordered that this remedy take effect immediately.
******* In reaching its decision the Ontario Court of Appeal does three noteworthy things. First, it imposes a new and disputed ideology of "close relationships" upon marriage. On this view marriage (for legal purposes) is reduced to the public recognition of committed relationships between two adults. This theory bleaches out the significance of sexual difference and dismisses any "rational connection" between marriage, gender complementarity, procreation, and the rearing of children by their biological parents. It renders a very pale concept of marriage with a doubtful claim on the public interest.
******* Second, the Ontario Court adopts a strategy which effectively disallows any attempt to defend the traditional, more robust view of marriage from the charge that it is unacceptably discriminatory. It takes up the subjectivist notion of human dignity which has recently been advanced in Canadian courts - viz., that "dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth" - and insists that "the impugned law must at all times be viewed from the perspective of the claimant." According to this formula, the law of marriage must be reconfigured to the experience of same-sex couples. "The question to be asked is whether the law takes into account the actual needs, capacities and circumstances of same-sex couples, not whether the law takes into account the needs, capacities and circumstances of opposite-sex couples." This establishes a circular form of reasoning which no arguments in favour of the existing definition of marriage can hope to penetrate.
******* Third, and uniquely, it insists that "the courts have jurisdiction to alter the common law definition of marriage" without reference to Parliament. While allowing that the common law did not invent, but only recognized, marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it nonetheless claims the power to re-invent marriage as the union of two persons - contrary to the expressed will of the people of Canada through their parliamentary representatives as recently as 1999.
******* This decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal has been heralded by some as bringing the whole debate about marriage in Canada - a debate still in its infancy - to a fitting conclusion. By others it has been denounced as an especially egregious example of judicial activism. In our view it only serves to underscore the conclusion of earlier judgments, namely, that Parliament, not the courts, is the place to forge an appropriate legislative response to the complex and multi-layered issues surrounding the public definition of marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions. Given the very grave significance of this public debate for three vital institutions in our nation - the family, the judiciary, and Parliament - a great deal more serious deliberation and democratic input is required.
******* I. Proposals for Respecting Marriage
******* The institution of marriage has a long history of development and adaptation. So too, of course, does our society. We recognize that there is a need now, for a wide variety of reasons, to re-think our society's approach to marriage. We also recognize that there is a need to provide new legal frameworks for various forms of adult inter-dependent relationships. However, we maintain that marriage as the common law has long recognized it - as "the voluntary and lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" - is something distinct from other forms of human relationships. We do not accept that this time-honoured institution, which continues to provide the vital core of family life in Canada, can justly be impugned as discriminatory. We therefore make the following proposals:
******* a) Parliament should assert its right, by whatever means necessary, to determine the ways in which marriage is to be recognized in Canadian public life, and to forge patiently a comprehensive legislative response to the complexities of the current situation.
******* b) Canadian law should continue to embody the conviction that marriage, as an opposite-sex union which is commonly aimed both at mutual support and at the procreation and rearing of children, is the principal social basis upon which our society seeks to ensure its vitality, stability, and perpetuation.
******* c) Legislative changes made in order to facilitate the recognition of other forms of adult relationships involving cohabitation and mutual support should be made under appropriate titles that do not negate the recognition of marriage as the union of two persons of opposite sex.
******* II. Why Preserve the Existing Definition of Marriage?
******* Marriage is a unique cultural institution that affirms and supports a distinct social ecology in human culture: the bridging of the gender gap; the generation of life through the fusion of the sexes; the birth-right of children to know, to be connected to, and to be in stable relationship with, their natural parents.
******* Marriage pre-exists European colonization and reaches back into Canada's aboriginal traditions. It is also a pillar of the Judeo-Christian traditions that have helped to shape Canadian life. In the recent parliamentary hearings aboriginal, Muslim and other cultural or religious groups in our diverse society have urged parliamentarians to resist proposals to abolish (by over-extension) the legal recognition of this distinctive human institution so vital to Canadian culture and history.
******* Without implying that there is one comprehensive understanding of marriage to which everyone ought to give full assent, nevertheless there are core elements, purposes, and aspirations of marriage that have won wide approval and deserve to be handed on from one generation to the next:
******* Marriage is based on the free consent of one man and one woman to join as husband and wife in a union of life together.
******* Marriage is truest to its nature when monogamous and faithful.
******* Marriage serves the vast and complex social-sexual ecology of male-female bonding (99.5% of all couples in Canada are heterosexual).
******* Marriage serves the procreativity of male/female bonding; conjugal union between a man and a woman is the only social union that can be a reproductive union.
******* Marriage, as an institution, has a child-centred dimension; it directs mothers and fathers to the care and support of their children.
******* Marriage establishes the norm that children have a prima facie right and a need to know, to be connected to, and to be raised by their own mother and father, unless exceptional adverse circumstances dictate otherwise.
******* Marriage is generational and genealogical; it binds together the past and the future.
******* Marriage pre-exists the state and religion; while it is appropriately recognized, regulated and affirmed by the state and religions, nevertheless, it is not created or determined by the state or religions.
******* While marriage has a unique and indispensable place in human existence, nevertheless it is neither necessary nor good that every human person should enter into this particular form of social union. All of the above can be affirmed without prejudice to the fact that there are other forms of personal relationships that have their own distinct dignity and purpose.
******* III. The Perils of the Current Remedy
******* By a narrow and disputed vote of the Commons justice committee, our federal government has been urged to capitulate to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and now appears to be in the process of doing so. While we applaud the government's decision to put the impending legislation to a free vote in the House, we urge it to recognize the danger in taking the country down the path marked out by the Court, in the face of so many unresolved questions and in the absence of anything like a consensus. We recognize that there is a need to address patterns of unjust discrimination, wherever they occur, against persons of homosexual orientation. But we ask our parliamentarians to consider closely the many good reasons for objecting to the Court's remedy, among which are the following:
******* This remedy is not in continuity with the history, tradition, and values of Canadian society. It attempts to re-design an institution which is older and more fundamental to Canadian society than Parliament itself.
******* This remedy wrongly impugns that institution, and its many supporters, as discriminatory.
******* This remedy, while meant to respect diversity, actually diminishes diversity by homogenizing very different forms of relationship. However well-intentioned, it is an inappropriate and inadequate response to concerns about the equality under law of persons of homosexual orientation.
******* This remedy pre-empts legitimate debate, inside and outside of the legal system, as to the meaning of Section 15 equality rights.
******* This remedy threatens to obstruct the ability of governments to develop public policies which promote the distinct characteristics of marriage, affirm the good of intact families, and support the relationship of children to their mothers and fathers.
******* This remedy threatens the freedom of individuals and communities working to support and promote the common human understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, inasmuch as it may open such activity to charges of discriminatory speech or conduct. It threatens religious freedom, academic freedom, and the freedom of parents to educate their children according to their traditions, norms and beliefs.
******* This remedy, in the words of Mr. Justice Robert Blair of the Ontario Superior Court, is not merely an incremental change in the law, but a "profound change." Justice Blair points out that "the consequences and potential reverberations flowing from such a transformation in the concept of marriage are extremely complex. They will touch the core of many people's belief and value systems, and their resolution is laden with social, political, cultural, emotional and legal ramifications. They require a response to a myriad of consequential issues relating to such things as inheritance and property rights, filiation, alternative biogenetic and artificial birth technologies, adoption, and other marriage-status driven matters." Previous experience in Canada with far less radical changes to marriage legislation demonstrates that such concerns cannot reasonably be dismissed as "speculative."
******* Conclusion
******* The commitment of Canadians to fairness, equality, and tolerance may entail the extension of legal recognition to various kinds of relationships beside that of marriage; indeed it has already done so. But that commitment will not be served by expropriating and reconfiguring an historic institution designed to meet the unique challenges and complexities of opposite-sex conjugal relationships. It would be better served by maintaining the existing institution of marriage and simultaneously affirming the federal government's right and obligation to recognize in appropriate ways those other forms of relationship which merit legal status across Canada. Canadians, whatever their faith or ethnic backgrounds, whatever their sexual orientation, should resist any approach that would undermine, rather than meaningfully develop and enrich, an institution so essential to the well-being of Canadians past, present and future.
******* Principal authors: Dan Cere and Douglas Farrow Montreal, Quebec
******* Signatories
******* Affiliations listed after the signatory's name are for identification purposes only.
******* Douglas Allen, Simon Fraser University
******* Iain T. Benson, Barrister and Soliciter
******* Spencer Boudreau, McGill University
******* Bishop Anthony Burton, Anglican Diocese of Saskatchewan
******* Barry Bussey, General Counsel, Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada
******* Ernest Caparros, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Ottawa
******* Daniel Cere, Institute for the Study of Marriage Law and Culture
******* Bruce Clemenger, President Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
******* Veronica N. Dewar, Inuit Women's Association of Canada.
******* Lorna Dueck, Broadcaster
******* Salam Elmenyawi, Muslim Council of Quebec
******* Douglas Farrow, McGill University
******* Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, President Emeritus, Pontifical Council on the Family
******* M. D. Khalid, Director, Islamic Society of North America
******* Janine Langan, University of Toronto
******* Thomas Langan, University of Toronto
******* Francois Lehmann, University of Montreal
******* Preston Manning, Massey College
******* Lois Mitchell, Canadian Baptist Ministries
******* Rabbi David Novak, University of Toronto
******* Archbishop Terrence Pendergast, S.J., Catholic Office for Life and the Family
******* Mark Petersen, R. L. Petersen Family Foundation
******* Darrel Reid, President of Focus on the Family Canada
******* Ruth Ross, Christian Legal Fellowship
******* Claude Ryan, retired politician and journalist, Montreal
******* Cathy Towtoongie, President of Nunavut Tunngavik Limited
******* John Vissers, President, Presbyterian College, Montreal
******* David Williams, McGill University
******* John Zucchi, McGill University
******* Christopher Gray, Concordia University
***********************************************************************************************************************
******* item 4 BRAZEN DEFIANCE OF PARLIAMENT BY THE COURTS - Rory Leishman
******* The London Free Press
******* Sunday, June 15, 2003
******* By Rory Leishman
******* Following the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal to overturn the historic definition of a legal marriage, Liberal MP John McKay pointed to the obvious conclusion: "We apparently have judge-made law in this country, and we're just here for decoration."
******* McKay is right. Why, then, do most Canadians still think Canada is a democracy? Why can't they see that while our elected representatives go through the motions of debating and enacting laws, it's the courts that impose all crucial laws under the pretence of upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
******* Nothing better illustrates this judicial subversion of democracy than the gay-marriage dispute. In 1999 and again in 2000, an overwhelming majority of the Commons affirmed that, "marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." Among the backers of these motions were Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon and the Liberal leadership candidates Paul Martin and John Manley.
******* In brazen defiance of these parliamentary declarations, a three-judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court proceeded last year to strike down the traditional, legal definition of marriage as endorsed by the Commons. The court held that this law, which has stood the test of centuries, violated equality rights for homosexuals that the courts have read into the Charter.
******* Instead of denouncing this judicial attack on the authority of Parliament, Cauchon asked McKay and his colleagues on the Justice Committee to revisit the issue of gay marriage. To this end, the Committee has criss-crossed the country for the past three months, holding public hearings. Hundreds of Canadians showed up to express their feelings about marriage for gay and lesbian couples.
******* All these efforts were a complete waste. On Tuesday, just as the Committee was preparing its report for the Commons, a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal flouted the democratic process, by unilaterally reformulating the legal definition of marriage as, "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others," and ordering the Registrar General for Ontario to issue marriage licences to gay and lesbian couples.
******* If Canada were still a genuine parliamentary democracy, our MPs would have responded to such a scandalous affront to their rights, by instructing the speaker of the Commons to bring the judicial culprits before the Bar of the House on charges of contempt. As it is, Parliament should at least promptly rewrite the traditional definition of marriage into law and invoke section 33 of the Charter to declare that this law shall operate notwithstanding the court-imposed equality rights for homosexuals in section 15.
******* Appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada for a definitive ruling on gay marriage will accomplish nothing. Like their counterparts on the Ontario Court of Appeal, the judge-politicians on Canada's top court have time and again manifested their resolve to write their personal ideological preferences for gay rights into law in contemptuous defiance of the express will of Parliament.
******* Nonetheless, the Commons Justice Committee is planning to hold hearings on Bill C-250, legislation introduced by New Democratic Party MP Svend Robinson that would stifle even reasonable debate on homosexual issues, by including sexual orientation in the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code. Why is the Committee wasting its time on this bill? Why do the honourable members persist in a charade of law-making when it's clear that no matter what our elected representatives in Parliament might prefer, the Supreme Court of Canada is bound sooner or later to read sexual orientation into the hate-propaganda law on its own?
******* Meanwhile, the Ontario Court of Appeal insists its ruling, "is not about the religious validity or invalidity of various forms of marriage." Coming from our ideologically driven courts, such assurances are worthless. McKay has good reason to warn: "As sure as God made little green apples, gay activists will take clergy to court if they refuse to marry gay couples."
******* Clergy who refuse to conform their thinking to the corrupt pattern of the world should take heed: If they do not soon bow down to the courts and embrace the judge-imposed orthodoxy of gay rights, they could end up in jail as prisoners of conscience.
******* Rory Leishman
836 Wellington St.,
London, Ontario,
Canada N6A 3S7
******* Home/Office Phone: 519-439-2676
******* Home Page: www.roryleishman.com
******************************************************************************************************************
******* item 5 JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN CANADA
******* original Message -----
******* From: Robert A Jason
******* Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:18 PM
******* LifeSite Daily News - Monday June 16, 2003
______________________________________________________
******* Homosexual 'Marriage' In Ontario, Canada Worse Than Any Other Country
******* TORONTO, June 16, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canada's current homosexual 'marriage' situation is far worse than the Netherlands or Belgium where homosexual 'marriage' legislation has restrictions. Unlike the other two counties, the Ontario marriage registrations are not restricted to Canadian citizens and there are no adoption restrictions.
******* Toronto city council commenced handing out marriage licences to homosexual couples on the day of the court ruling. A city council website listing requirements for marriage licences notes under "Residency" that "There are no residency or citizenship requirements."
******* Toronto city hall alone issued 89 licences to homosexual couples last week - 49 to male and 40 to female couples. Homosexual activists have admitted they are getting 'married' in order to subvert efforts at reversal of the court's decision. "If scores of us get married, how do they put the horse back in the barn?" lesbian activist Alison Kemper told the Toronto Star.
******* See the City of Toronto website:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/depts/legserv_marriage.htm
*********************************************************************************************************************
******* item 6 'GAY MARRIAGE' PROTEST
----- Original Message -----
******* From: Robert A Jason
******* Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:18 PM
******* 1000 Protest at Ontario Court House against Homosexual Marriage Ruling
******* TORONTO, June 16, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Demonstrating the impact of the Ontario Appeals Court ruling redefining marriage, a prayer rally for clergy, leaders and supporters had one thousand participants.. Organizers who hurriedly attempted to put together the rally in only a few days were praying for a turn out of 500.
******* The event was the initiative of Dr. Charles McVety, President of Canada Christian College in Toronto. Dr. McVety, who is also the President of the Evangelical Association and a board member of the Canada Family Action Coalition, told LifeSite, "We thought it was great. We were praying for 500 clergy to come out and God blessed us with more." Participants joined in the rally from across the country. After having found out about the demonstration only last night, Ken Campbell flew in from Tumbler Ridge BC.
******* Predominantly made up of clergy, the assembly was representative of most Christian denominations. "The response was passionate; there was a deep sense of outrage by the clergy present that the holy institution of marriage has been defiled and violated by three unelected judges," said McVety. The group was led in prayer in five different languages. "A dramatic moment," recalled McVety, "was when everyone knelt on the pavement in front of the courthouse and prayed."
******* See Dr. McVety's speech at the event at:
http://canadachristiancollege.com/upcoming.html
***********************************************************************************************************************
******* item 7 'GAY' BOOKS
******* B.C School Board Rejects Books Depicting Homosexual Marriage
******* VANCOUVER, June 16 2003 (LifeSite News.com) - The same day as the Canada Commons justice committee urged the government not to appeal court decisions allowing same-sex marriages, a B.C. school board rejected three books depicting homosexual marriage from being used as a teaching resource in kindergarten and Grade 1 classes.
******* Despite a Supreme Court of Canada ruling last December that said trustees did not have the right to ban the books primarily on religious grounds, a review by the board rejected the books on grounds that the grammar, continuity, and various non-sexual images in the book do not match the board's criteria for appropriate learning aids.
******* See report from The Canadian Press:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1055503912453_7///?hub=TopStories
******* See related LifeSite coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/dec/02122004.html
***********************************************************************************************************************
******* item 8 WE'RE NOW RULED BY THE COURTS - Ted Byfield
******* From: Robert A Jason
******* Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:18 PM
******* June 15, 2003
******* If you tally up recent events, they would seem to spell something of a disaster for us narrow, bigoted, rigid, warped, judgmental, arbitrary, dogmatic "religious" people, who want to tell everybody how they should live.
******* There was, for starters, the celebrated decision of the Ontario Appeal Court last week authorizing the marriage of same-sex couples and ordering - that is the correct word - Parliament to bring the marriage laws into conformity forthwith.
******* Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon came smartly to attention. Ottawa recognizes it must move quickly towards a "national solution" on this question, he said. "We see the direction that the courts are taking now. I'm asking for a little time to look at the decision and come back with a statement."
******* Cauchon was elected. The Ontario Appeal Court wasn't. Cauchon takes orders from the court. So much for democracy.
******* The British Columbia and Quebec courts have made similar decisions, but they were more lenient with their lackeys in Parliament. The unelected judges of their courts gave the MPs a full year to act. The Ontario court is apparently less considerate of its parliamentary toadies.
******* Cauchon could have told the court to go to hell, of course. He could say Parliament would act on this when it was damned good and ready, and that elected representatives don't take orders from unelected judges. There's absolutely nothing the court could do about that, but we're a long, long way from having that kind of politician.
******* The second calamity is the Svend Robinson bill that would make it a "hate crime" to morally criticize the practice of homosexuality in any public place, which would include a church service. This means that to read any of the biblical injunctions against it in a church would become a hate crime. That law is expected to be passed by Parliament soon.
******* "Oh no, no, no!" say the MPs who are about to vote for it. "It wouldn't mean that at all."
******* Yet every one of them knows that what it "means" will not be decided by them, but by the judges, who will then order Parliament to bring the law into conformity. And Cauchon or whoever succeeds him, will click his heels and "move quickly" for a "national solution."
******* Finally, in Edmonton, Mayor Bill Smith announced that while he does not want to approve gay pride week he had no choice because he would face human-rights charges in court if he refused and thereby expose the city to expensive - and futile - legal action.
******* All of which is, as I say, most discouraging to us Christian bigots who have opposed these things from the beginning. "What's gone wrong with this country?" you hear people ask. "Suddenly we seem to be going nuts."
******* Which is certainly arguable. To kick over all moral curtailment on sexual behaviour - and that's what we are in the course of doing - may validly be regarded as insanity. After all, the Ontario court held that the restriction of marriage to two people, "a man" and "a woman," is a violation of the Charter. Its restriction should simply be to "two persons," said the court.
******* But then why just two? Why the "discrimination" against polygamy? Why not five, four wives and a husband? And is a child not a "person"? The anti-spanking people want a child so defined. So why not a marriage between an adult and a child or between several adults and a child or children?
******* The public would never stand for that, you say. True enough - now. But public attitudes change. Twenty years ago they would never have stood for the legal marriage of two men or two women.
******* The point is that we no longer have a Christian society, and we cannot expect a non-Christian society to observe Christian morality. The courts are telling us that we have "advanced" beyond all that, that secularism is in and Christianity is out.
******* This may be true in Canada. It is not true in the world at large. But to tell that story will take another column.
******* http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/byfield.html
============================================================
*****************************************************************************************************************
******* item 9 JOHN REYNOLDS ON HOMOSEXUAL "MARRIAGE"
****** From: "Roy Hamel"
The following warning is a prophetic message given to me, Frank Wagner, in November of 1974.
******* LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE ABORTED CHILDREN. THEIR CRY IS NO. THEIR CRY IS A CRY OF TERROR. HEED THEIR CRY.
******* This prophecy is now being fulfilled.
******* For details about the source, meaning and fulfillment of this prophetic message go to
******* http://ca.geocities.com/fwagner4/index.html
******* email me at *** [email protected] ***
Links to other sites on the Web
(A4c4d2b) Rory Leishman's web page
(A4c4d2f) (A) home page