Marriage belongs in the House

Toronto Sun ^ | December 10, 2004 | (editorial page)

[Clive]

Paul Martin and his Liberals can prattle on all they like about how they needed the Supreme Court's direction on the very sensitive matter of same-sex marriage, the Charter of Rights, blah, blah, blah.

The fact is, they have used the court all along as a dodge, when it has been clear since the dying days of Jean Chretien's regime that they intended to legalize gay marriage.

Instead, they've managed to divide Canadians on an issue they care deeply about -- and unite us in anger over what has turned out to be an utterly pointless legal excercise.

Let's review this sorry story of non-leadership.

Barely five years ago, the Liberals and most of Parliament voted 216-55 to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." Then-justice minister Anne McLellan declared "the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages."

But that was then. Last year, with the first of several provincial court rulings allowing gay marriage, the Grits decided to reverse themselves. But, recognizing their proposed law was politically explosive -- even among Liberals -- they sent it to the Supreme Court for the okay. Martin's people even added a specific question asking the judges whether the traditional definition of marriage -- restricting it to a man and a woman, period -- was unconstitutional.

The intention was clear: If the court said yes, the Grits could say "the judges made us do it." A heck of a lot easier than showing leadership and taking a stand.

Well, the judges have called their bluff. While they noted lower courts in six provinces have already struck down the traditional definition (and also indicated they see nothing wrong with allowing same-sex marriages, provided religious institutions aren't forced to sanction them), the Supreme Court judges pointedly refused to rule on that question, sending it back to Parliament -- where it belongs, and has always belonged.

While we, along with a majority of Canadians, continue to support the traditional marriage definition -- along with full rights for same-sex couples in civil unions -- we've always said this was an issue for Parliament, not judges, to decide.

The Grits' sneaky dodge has justly failed.

The least they can do now -- if they truly welcome "debate" on this matter, as they say -- is to allow a fully free vote on the legislation. But they won't. Cabinet ministers will be forced to toe the party line, as will Jack Layton's NDP.

And these are our defenders of "rights" and "freedoms"?

And another thing ...

After a three-day hearing, U.S. army deserter and would-be refugee Jeremy Hinzman has been told there won't be a decision on his case until February. What's the holdup? This guy is only fleeing prosecution at home, not persecution. He's not a refugee. Send him home. Next!

[Clive]

-

[Defiant]

Canada is descending into socialist authoritarianism. The vast majority of Canadians don't want this. But the liberal elites do. St that's that.

[cvq3842]

Time for the legislators to take a stand, and face the consequences . . .

[In The Crease]

This issue should be on a referendum that we can all vote on. Even our legislators are ignoring the wishes of their constituents.

[Nuzcruizer]

"Canada is descending into socialist authoritarianism."

It's been like that for the past 12 years under liberal dictatorship. Where have you been? This is why the west wants senate reform and equal representation. The same thing happens here in the USA when Democrats get in power. They don't listen to the will of the people, they push their agendas. The way the eletorate is structured in Canada with the majority of seats in the lefty east, the west can never vote them out, so the liberals win although they only get 35% of the vote.

[longtermmemmory]

So perhaps the wester provinces should just leave the Canadian Confederation and join the USA.

http://www.unitednorthamerica.org