The rape of marriage

www.freedominstitute.ca ^ | Alex Peters

[Capt. Canuck]

There are a couple of common misconceptions about the ruling of the Ontario Appeals Court. First is that the ruling is about the rights of homosexual couples to form an economic unit as a common law couple. The fact is that homosexuals had those rights before this ruling, and they enjoy the same inheritance, insurance, tax and other benefits that common-law couples do. This ruling was about the legal definition of marriage and nothing else.

The other misconception is that changing the legal definition of marriage is no big deal. You will often hear people say that it doesn’t affect them so there is no problem with changing it.

No government created the institution of marriage. It has it’s own history and culture that spans the globe in spite of differences in local customs. It is the right of those people who are part of that institution to define it, not government.

Homosexuality has it’s own history and culture as well, and they are fundamentally different than the history and culture of marriage. Cultures can evolve over time according to the choices of their members, but to force these two cultures to merge is the forced assimilation and destruction of the culture of marriage. Marriage itself is being raped.

The arguments presented for allowing ‘gay marriage’ boil down to claiming that since the emotional bond in both hetero- and homosexual relationships is the same, then both groups must be allowed access to the institution of marriage for the sake of dignity. Those who want to practice polygamy, incest and pedophilia can also lay claim to emotional bonds and the denial of dignity by the law that forbids their desires, and don’t be too quick to assume that they are not at least thinking about using this ruling to advance their cause.

I’ll take at face value the claim that the two relationships are emotionally equal, but using that claim as the basis for radically altering the definition of marriage is not justified. There are still large fundamental difference between a homosexual relationship and a marriage.

Go and ask anyone who their friends are, you will find that most of their friends are of their own gender. There is no question that men and women are equal, yet there are real difference between men and women and it’s perfectly natural for a person to gravitate towards those of their own gender when seeking friendship. Part of the magic and romance of marriage is the incredible feat of finding someone of the opposite gender that you can love so deeply in spite of all the natural differences that tend to get in the way.

Homosexuals do not have to overcome those natural differences. They do have their own obstacles to face, but clearly they do not face that obstacle and that constitutes a fundamental difference between the two relationships.

Another fundamental difference exists in the fact that a homosexual couple cannot reproduce. When a man and woman choose to marry, they are not just choosing to be life long lovers; they are also selecting who will be the mother or father of their children. It may turn out that medical problems prevent them from having a family, or that the couple has no desire to ever have children, but those are things that can change, and when the decision to marry is made, a decision on the parentage of any children is made, too.

Obviously, homosexual couples are not choosing a parent for their children when they choose their partner. It is unchangeable and known from the start that a third party must be bought in later on if there are to be any children, and this is a huge difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

When such fundamental differences exist between two groups, there is justification to make a distinction between them that is based on those differences. For example: gender specific washrooms are not an assault on anyone’s dignity or rights. Distinct groups have the same rights, but they can often have their needs served best by recognizing and accommodating the groups separately.

The courts, and especially our elected officials, should have recognized the differences between homosexual unions and marriage, and then acted in the best interests of both groups. Creating a new institution for homosexual unions would have given that community the chance to create their own customs based on their own culture and history without attacking the foundations of marriage.

Homosexuals may feel they have won everything they want with this ruling, but soon they will come to realize that their brute force penetration into marriage by the back door of the courts has fostered resentment. They will find that the majority of Canadians will still consider their union to be a different type of union than their own, no matter what the law says.

Rather than reduce court fights over discrimination, a whole new front has been opened up, and those who hold to the uniqueness of traditional marriage will be the targets. The Civil Rights Act in the USA was passed in 1964, but there are still well funded activists looking for some new ‘outrage’ to take to court, justified or not. It seems unlikely that anything will stop the homosexual rights movement from evolving in the same way, and when the traditional family is demonized, how can society stay intact?

Society pays a high price for the weakening of the traditional family as it is now, but the effect is only felt decades after the cause. Such radical social re-engineering with no thought to the consequences is rash to say the least, and it is short sighted to assume that there will be no serious consequences later on just because none are felt right now.

[Capt. Canuck]

"their brute force penetration into marriage by the back door"

Ouch.

[goldstategop]

Yup. Don't remind us how gays make love. Anyway, when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau gave Canada an enforceable Charter Of Rights and Freedoms he upended the Fathers Of The Confederation who for good reason refused to provide for judicial review. They believed Parliament should be supreme in making the law and that if it trangressed the rights of the people, they could hold it accountable in the voting booth. In the old days of parliamentary supremacy, no court in Canada would have dared to read an ideological notion into the law contrary to the intentions of the elected representatives of the people.

[netmilsmom]

This will affect our lives more than we know...

[cre8ivenotes]

It is my belief that marriage was created and instituted by God. Just read the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. It was designed for a union between a man and a woman. Any variation of this union by government or any other organization is absolutely ridiculous and is a complete corruption of something so sacred. Then again, so isn't everything else that has it roots in God. I myself...LOVE MY WIFE!

[goldstategop]

Its the old joke: God would have a partner exactly like Adam if He hadn't screwed up with that side he took out of the poor fellow.

[cre8ivenotes]

To clarify my previous post. When I said the following line:

"Then again, so isn't everything else that has it roots in God" I mean that government and other organizations change and distort things so out of context that they become corrupted from the original.

[Grig]

The part of the charter that forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is also a court-created amendment to the constitution. It was SPECIFICLY left out of the charter of rights but the courts ruled it to be in there in violation the constitution's amendment formula.

I wish Ontario defied the ruling and created a constitutional crisis. We need one, perhaps Alberta can help with that.

[goldstategop]

Push for a complete repeal of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms and a restoration of parliamentary supremacy. The original design of the Fathers worked well and its time to take Canada back to it.

[only1percent]

Divorce, feminism and pre-marital cohabitation among heterosexual people have done ten times more to change the institution of marriage in the West than gay marriage can or possibly will.

Fifty years ago, when asked to define the key provisions marriage, a reasonable person could have answered "a lifelong union in which a man assumes from a woman's father the obligation to support the woman and the right to be obeyed by the woman, and pursuant to which a woman grants sexual access she would otherwise withhold and agrees to bear and raise the children of the union of the union with the man's support and subject to his oversight."

There is literally not one word of that equation which is presently accurate.

[jimt]

By the "logic" of the Ontario Court, there is no logical reason to have ANY restrictions on arrangements that constitute a marriage. The most obvious is multiple-partner arrangements, next, incestuous relationships, but using their "logic" one can easily make a case for human-animal "marriages".

They're out in looney land. The belief that by the stroke of a pen they can overturn natural law, common law and thousands of years of history is farcical. The Ontario Court should be impeached forthwith.

[Between the Lines]

"Divorce, feminism and pre-marital cohabitation among heterosexual people have done ten times more to change the institution of marriage in the West than gay marriage can or possibly will."

Divorce, feminism, pre-marital cohabitation and homosexual marriage are all just symptoms of the same disease, Liberalism. Liberalism is what has been attacking the family for decades and will not cease until everything God intended as normal is considered abnormal and everything abnormal is considered normal.

[goldstategop]

Of course. But then they were all appointed by the Liberal government in Ottawa. In Canada, ALL judges are named by the federal government.

[tbpiper]

Its the old joke....

Not much of a joke.

[jlogajan]

It is my belief that marriage was created and instituted by God. Just read the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. It was designed for a union between a man and a woman. Any variation of this union by government or any other organization is absolutely ridiculous and is a complete corruption of something so sacred.

Since you are referring to the Old Testament, didn't those characters often have more than one wife? It was also okay in the Old Testament to sell your daughtes into slavery.

Apparently God had a changing view on marriage and women.

[laotzu]

Any marriage older than four years is better than average these days. I've been married twenty-one easy, enjoyment filled, very educational years. By the time I reach up into real numbers, 'marriage' won't have any meaning.

[JonathansMommie]

These people need to keep their lifestyle inside the bedroom and stop forcing it upon everyone else,raising flags,and marching in freak parades.

[Windsong]

"It was also okay in the Old Testament to sell your daughtes into slavery.

Book, and Chapter please.

[jlogajan]

Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

[Grig]

"Divorce, feminism and pre-marital cohabitation among heterosexual people have done ten times more to change the institution of marriage"

Those things exist OUTSIDE the institution of marriage. Gay marriage is a hostile infiltration of the institution.

[Grig]

"Fifty years ago, when asked to define the key provisions marriage..."

The traditional definition of marriage in Canadian law came from the 1800's and wasn't anything like what you say it would have been (and was) just 50 years ago.

"There is literally not one word of that equation which is presently accurate. "

My wife and I have a very happy and traditional marriage, I guess we run in different social circles than you do for we know many others with such marriages. It is still the ideal that nearly everyone aspires to and people hold in respect those who manage to pull it off. The fact that many fall short of it is not relevant as that is a reflection of problems in society, not problems with the institution of marriage itself.