Vol 12 No 14  April 6 2005

History lesson


In 1969, Ottawa introduced ‘no-fault’ divorce; the result is that today 45 out of 100 marriages fail.


A few years later, Ottawa created a tax category called “equivalent to married”; according to Statistics Canada, between 1995 and 2001, the number of couples living common-law rose by 20 percent to nearly 1,200,000 couples. In contrast, the number of married couples increased by just three percent, growing to 6,400,000.


Do these statistics matter? You bet they do! Because marriage is a shelter for children and their mothers.


Now the government is threatening to re-define ‘marriage’ to include same-sex couples.  Why? Partly because in 1969 Pierre Trudeau said “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” Many Canadians—and almost all the media—have swallowed this quip whole, accepting it as though it were some new gospel. And so we let our government de-criminalize sodomy. “After all,” we reasoned, “it’s not my business what two people consent to do together in private.”


But perhaps it is.


Pierre Trudeau didn’t merely decriminalize sodomy with his permissive policies; he also validated all promiscuous behaviour, both homo- and hetero-, as well as trans-sexual and/or trans-generational and trans-species. Under the philosopher-king’s sanction—with a shrug and an insouciant “Who cares?”— the postmodern dictum has become that any and every kind of behavior, if conducted in private, and assuming the consent of those present, can no longer be judged or condemned by anyone else—regardless of the effect that behavior may have on others or on society.


But it is our business, and it’s the responsibility of any society is to protect marriage, because marriage—better than anything else—protects children and their mothers. Among other important benefits, marriage is a bulwark against domestic violence.


Statistically, domestic violence is lowest among married heterosexual couples—much lower than in any other kind of ‘household’. Violence is much higher among unmarried couples; couples who live together before marriage are twice as likely to divorce; children are at greater risk of physical, verbal and sexual abuse when their mother and father are unmarried; the greatest risk of all for children is when their mother lives, unmarried, with a man who is not their father.


And the risk of domestic violence is extremely high in same-sex couples.


Two homosexual men, Ireland and Letellier, in their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, said, “The dirty little secret of the gay lifestyle is that domestic violence is greatest among same-sex couples.” A gay website in Boston reported its survey which revealed that in the previous year, one gay couple in four experienced violence severe enough to require medical attention.


Marriage is an essential haven for children and their mothers, and vehicle of commitment for fathers. That’s why Ottawa must not tamper with it. It’s also why legalizing “same-sex unions” is also bad public policy.


And a further one from this group on the present situation in the House of Cammons on this subject:

URGENT update on C-38 debate


Current debate on Bill C-38 is, technically speaking, on the amendment that CPC leader Stephen Harper tabled at the end of his 2nd reading speech. Once everyone who wants to speak to this amendment has done so, a vote will be taken on the amendment. The way debate is going, this vote will probably take place by APRIL 5.


AFTER THAT VOTE TAKES PLACE, DEBATE RESUMES ON THE MAIN MOTION. That means that every single MP, except Harper and Martin, can speak again; thus extending debate on the Bill or requiring the government to impose closure to cut debate short.


Some MPs will automatically want to speak again to the bill; BUT for some other MPs who will oppose the bill, it isn't a big priority. There will be some MPs who don't like speaking in the first place and can fulfill their basic conscience obligation by speaking only once on the bill. And newly elected MPs, who may not be as well versed in strategic considerations as veteran MPs, may well not plan to speak to the bill a second time during 2nd reading debate --unless they are encouraged to do so by their constituents.


The duration of 2nd reading debate, following the April 5 vote, will likely be directly proportionate to the pressure asserted by pro-marriage Canadians on their MPs to put their name forward to speak a second time to the bill.


The NDP and the Bloc are not putting up any more speakers to the bill, which puts much more pressure on Conservative and Liberal MPs to delay the 2nd reading vote.


The normal course of events, without sustained pressure to get all pro-family MPs up to speak to the bill again, could see the 2nd reading vote take place as early as April 14. Lobby groups and pro-family Canadians have their work cut out for them to ensure an extended slate of speakers to lengthen debate and delay the 2nd reading vote to a later date.

Same sex marriage