Posted on 02/01/2005 4:30:23 AM PST by Clive
Prime Minister Paul Martin is sounding ever more desperate as opinion polls indicate that ever more Canadians are rejecting the travesty of same-sex marriage that his Liberal government is bent on enacting into law.
Canadians who have still not made up their minds on this most vital issue should consider the Declaration on Marriage issued by Enshrine Marriage Canada (www.enshrinemarriage.ca) Here, in seven succinct articles, is a summary of the essential secular arguments for upholding the traditional, time-honoured concept of marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman.
In Article 1, the declaration points out that marriage is a universal institution supported by the state, "because it promotes and protects the father-mother-child relationship as the only natural means of creating and continuing human life and society."
Article 2 affirms: "Governments may want to support other relationships, but these should not be called 'marriage,' or confused with it."
Why not? The answer is, or should be, obvious. Marriage protects children. There is overwhelming sociological evidence that children thrive best under the care and guidance of their own mother and father.
Article 3 sensibly affirms: "No one has the right to redefine marriage so as to intentionally impose a fatherless or motherless home on a child as a matter of state policy."
Article 4 notes that under the law as it is, and always has been, in Canada, a person can only marry one person at a time who is of mature age, the opposite sex and not a close blood relative. All four of these conditions are essential to safeguarding the well-being of children.
In Article 5, the declaration reminds us: "Marriage is about more than equality." Just as the state justifiably confines veterans' benefits to veterans, so also the state should continue to restrict marital benefits to the marital unions of one man and one woman. As this article explains, the imposition of "same-sex marriage" is "an attempt to persuade the public that (same-sex) partnerships are of the same value to society as marriages. But they can only be made so by denying the unique contribution of marriage as a biologically-unitive, child-centred institution."
Marriage is also about more than love. A cohabiting brother and sister might love each other, but they have no right to marry. The same goes for homosexuals.
Article 6 underlines the general rule: "The fact that two people say they love each other does not, in itself, justify a right to the benefits conferred by the state on married couples."
In Article 7, it affirms: "Marriage is an institution that has arisen from long-held beliefs and customs of the people that are prior to all states and all courts, and are essential to the very fabric of society.
"Any attempt by unelected officials of the courts or by any other branch of government to claim ownership of marriage, to alter it without the support of a significant majority of the people, or to diminish the father-mother-child relationship in favour of the state-citizen relation, usurps the natural rights and freedoms of the people and constitutes a serious breach of the public trust."
Consider, in contrast, Matin's stance. Following the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in December that draft legislation granting same-sex couples the right to marry "flows from" the alleged equality rights of same-sex couples in Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Martin announced his government would proceed with enactment of the bill, "because quite simply we believe in the Charter of Rights and the guarantee it provides to equality."
In effect, Martin declared: We do not care what the great majority of Canadians think about same-sex marriage: We are going to enact this parody into law in obedience to the clearly implied wishes of nine unelected Supreme Court judges.
With solid backing from gay-rights ideologues in the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois, Martin will probably get parliamentary approval for his same-sex marriage legislation.
But that's not likely to end the matter: Opposition Leader Stephen Harper has vowed to fight the next election on this issue.
Please, let us have that election sooner than later.
-
If these Liberal wacko's force this sickness on society,
it will be the fatal dagger in the heart of the same.
It can only lead to the complete and total colapse of all moral guidlines, the loss of the ability to determine wrong from right, good from bad, normal from perverted.
Canada's society will rot away from sickness of the mind.
Oh Canada. Self destructing right before our eyes.
Never. allow this band of sick twisted perverted individuals to normalise their sickness by calling what they do a marriage.It is a sex act and not too healthy a one at that.
I'm surprised that Martin, with the Liberal party hanging on by a slim thread, would go against a referendum on such an issue. It's hardly even divisive; Canadians are overwhelming against Martin's actions on this issue. This issue might very well deliver a minority government to the Liberal party in the next election.
Martin is pushing this through, knowing full-well that most Canadians oppose it. His defense of that is that the majority of Canadians should not have it in their hands to decide the fate of a minority, thus no referendum.
I guess it is much better his way...that the minority be able to change things that the majority oppose being changed. Martin is Canada's Prime Minister and activist judge.
One of the arguments that the Liberals make is that "my marriage isn't changed by allowing gays to marry. I still love my wife..." etc.
This misses the point. It's not a question of the impact it will have on individual relationships, but on society and ultimately, on the ability of heterosexuals to have the religious sacrament of marriage.
Because the Liberals' promises that changing the definition of marriage won't affect churches are just not believable.
Gays will sue to be married in the Church, they will win, and if it wants to stand by its beliefs, the Church will just stop marrying people.
Furthermore, changing the definition of marriage DOES affect my personal relationships. It doesn't affect my marriage, but it certainly affects how I am able to explain the concept of love, marriage and family to my children.
Denny Crane: "I want two things. First God and then Fox News."
Denny Crane: "I want two things. First God and then Fox News."
I would say "let the people decide," but I have no faith that some judge wouldn't just impose his/her ideological will on the country.
Canada may be the next domino to fall in the Conservative Revolution. Martin is doing a bang-up job in making the Liberals unelectable for a long time to come.
Once it occurs, Canada will be warmly welcomed back into the Coalition.
Regards, Ivan
One augument my liberal neighbors make is that marriage has civil benefits and should be allowed by the government to any one in love and who are committed to each other. After all - a child only needs two people who love them to be raised to a healthy adult.
Now of course I do not agree with this but I am not very good at debating my beliefs but I do the best I can.
I plan on printing out this post and giving it to them.
Always willing to stir the pot.
WE DEMAND A REFERENDUM!! I hope Martin is filling his drawers. We all need to email Stephen Harper and ask him to go for the jugular. Demand a referendum. This is important. Make no mistake, THIS legislation is the reason that Martin appointed those two THINGS to the Supreme Court recently. Their litmus test? Why gay marriage supporters of course!! I've sent my email.
EVERYTHING the Liberals do misses the point!!
You are very correct. Trudeau was the beginning of death to this Country!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.