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. _______________________________________________________________________
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.
|