Canada's 9-11

Envoy Encore ^ | June 21, 2003 | Pete Vere

[Theosis]

I was two-hundred miles from New York City when the terrorists struck the World Trade Center. I never thought I would live throught another event that would so affect the psyche of a nation. And yet, for our American readership, this is exactly what has happened this week as Canada legalizes homosexual marriages.

I spent a good part of the evening talking to various friends from back home – friends from among the Church hierarchy as well as those within the Catholic apologetics and pro-life community. The legalization of so-called homosexual marriages is the only topic on our mind right now. For those who keep tabs on such things, you have probably noticed the personality change among all the Canadians who hang around Envoy Encore. As the shock sets in, we've transformed from our usual laid-back and fun-loving selves into a group of angry and bitter people.

Thus calling this Canada’s Moral September 11th is not melodramatic on my part. I cannot begin to explain the effect this is having on our national psyche. Unlike America which is still fighting the culture war, Canada has now crossed the Tiber back into pagan lands.

[ultima ratio]

The idea that what two people do privately is nobody's business is fine with me. What you want to do is make such private actions publicly acceptable--and that is not fine with me. First of all, it sends a dangerous message to the young. Secondly, it is a slippery slope. Why shouldn't incest be accepted then--or polygamy--or bestiality? When does a society doing this become too decadent to assure its own survival?

[gcruse]

In other words, it doesn't interfere with your life at all.
And married homos are no more likely to scare the horses in public than married heteros. As for slippery slopes, UR, life is a slippery slope. That's why we have judgement. It's about freedom, or it used to be.

[ultima ratio]

How does this interfere with my life? I am forced to give up my freedom to decide for myself what kind of moral context I wished to live my life in and bring up my children in. I would be forced to live in one determined instead by a few elitists with judicial influence rather than in one determined by the majority. I would have no input that really mattered, even when I shared a view with the majority of my fellow citizens. That is the essence of tyranny. It is what they have in the Mideast where the few rule over the many and decide what's morally acceptable and what isn't.

[gcruse]

It is what they have in the Mideast where the few
rule over the many and decide what's morally acceptable and what isn't.

That's too rich.  You are deciding that it is morally unacceptable
for homosexuals to have recognized marriage.  

[ultima ratio]

Gays want the moral sanction of the state. That is what this is all about. They already have the freedom to live together. They might even have the right of a legal partnership as in Vermont. But they want more in Canada: they want moral sanction of their lifestyle, they want everybody else to accept their vision of what's moral. By imposing this, they are violating everybody else's freedom.

[gcruse]

Gays want the moral sanction of the state. That is what this is all about.

     Which is what everybody else has.  I have no problem with it.
     The same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.

 They already have the freedom to live together.
They might even have the right of a legal partnership
as in Vermont. But they want more in Canada:
 they want moral sanction of their lifestyle,

           I really don't know why this upsets you so.  Who really cares?
           Government doesn't bestow moralness, it can only dispense rights
           and privileges.  Whether it is meet for one group to look down its
           nose at another gets into a pettiness not worth discussing, but
           denying one group the rights and privileges of citizenship is another
           matter.

 they want everybody else to accept their vision of what's moral. By imposing this, they are violating everybody else's freedom.

         And social conservatives want everybody to accept their vision of what is moral.
         What counts is what gets enacted into law.  And making the benefits of citizenship
         available to all law abiding citizens would seem beyond discussion.  And certainly
         not a catastrophe.

[ultima ratio]

Let me add this: because they want moral sanction, not mere legal rights, they want the word "marriage" used, with all that this term connotates. They wished the state itself to grant its moral approval. But they did not dare to put such a loaded moral issue before the people directly; rather they used the judiciary for an end-run around democracy, so that a few might determine this enormous moral issue for the many. This was bound to create profound bitterness. As such the gays have achieved sanction by rending the civic order. There will be hell to pay eventually.

[ultima ratio]

Look at the subtext. If they are right, the Judeo-Christian foundation for western civilization is wrong. It is this that is being challenged by gays, not the right for them to have legal standing. So the issue is huge. It's about what's healthy for society in the long run, not in the short term. Modernists instinctively opt for what is new and recent, discounting centuries of past experience; traditionalists understand that ancient societies learned the hard way what worked and what didn't work and designed a moral code accordingly. They know that moral codes ultimately have been constructed for the proper function of healthy societies and can't be played-around with.

We've been here before with other issues. For example, divorce was once a great taboo. The inherited wisdom was that divorce would damage society and injure the young. This was dismissed by the liberal community and sanctions against divorce were weakened, and finally put aside altogether. The result has been a catastrophic rise in troubled kids, kids who did less well in school, kids who got in trouble more with drugs and sex and serious crime, kids who committed suicide at a far greater rate than ever before. But the damage has already been done. Too late to go back to the liberals and say, "We told you so."

[yankeedame]

My advice to the American people? This has taken place not in the distant future, but just across your northern border by a group of people who for the most part look and sound like Americans. So begin lobbying your elected officials now for a constitutional ammendment to protect the common definition of marriage.

I wonder. Over and over we (the American people) have seen the consequences of "gun control" e.g. England, Australia, NYC, DC, et. al., as well as "universal health care" e.g. Canada, England, etc. and yet politicans get considerable mileage by championing these causes.

I guess it's a case of "You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool enough of them enough of the time to run a country."

[yankeedame]

If your life is so disrupted by how other adults choose to live theirs, that you equate the shock you feel to the deaths of thousands, your need to control others is a pathology. You have my sympathies.

This isn't about how others live their lives, but rather about a tiny minority circumventing the democratic process and forcing an entire nation to redefine what is probably the oldest and most universally recognized social convention in human history. I believe we call this pathology narcissism.
================================

Testify, brother,testify!

[maxwellp]

Here in the U.S.A. Californians are in the process of kicking their lunatic Governor, Gray Davis, out of office. Can Canadians do the same thing with Chetrien? California is doing it with petitions and it looks like they might succeed.

[B Knotts]

Now all the Muslims will go back home.

Well, except for these Muslims:

Canada's Gay Muslims Unite

Heck, gay Muslims may be about the only people left in Canada in 50 years, at the rate things are going.

[planter]

It is "selfish and rude" for the gay community to push for same-sex marriage legislation and "redefine society's traditions and conventions simply for our self-indulgence," says a national homosexual group.

[Theosis]

Ultima Ratio wrote: "Gays want the moral sanction of the state. That is what this is all about. They already have the freedom to live together. They might even have the right of a legal partnership as in Vermont. But they want more in Canada: they want moral sanction of their lifestyle, they want everybody else to accept their vision of what's moral. By imposing this, they are violating everybody else's freedom.

Exactly! And in so doing, they have circumvented the electoral process and subverted thousands of years of cross-cultural tradition to the ivory basement judiciary that now effectively runs this nation. Which is why you folks south of the border need to begin organizing a constitutional ammendment to protect marriage ASAP.

[ezo4]

This is stupid - from a American

[Theosis]

Here in the U.S.A. Californians are in the process of kicking their lunatic Governor, Gray Davis, out of office. Can Canadians do the same thing with Chretien?

Unfortunately, no. Although there has been a revolt brewing in his caucus for years from the Paul Martin supporters, there basically would have to be a non-confidence motion in parliament to take down the Chretien government. The second problem, even if this could be done, is that the decision came about from the courts, which are basically appointed for life. The judicial review is not as firm north of the border as it is in the United States. So please keep Canada in prayer.

[longtermmemmory]

There are no medical consequences to the homosexual lifesytle. In Canada the medical services are the best in the world AND they are FREE!!!!!(/s)

[longtermmemmory]

When you do this, how are you not interfering with other people's lives?

How does this interfere with your life?
Will you be forced into a gay marriage?
*** ** * ***

the 98% of the population which must now pay for the increase in medical insurance due to spousal coverage. Whether the coverage is a real couple or mere paper fiction.

The familyless homosexual estates which will no longer inure to the state.

Having to explain to children.

Having to pay for MORE judges and staff in divorce court from increasing the volume of cases. (given the lack of stability in the homosexual lifestyle, perhaps we will have to create a whole seperate "gay" court. Will the Judges be required to be "gay"?)

[gcruse]

The familyless homosexual estates which will no longer inure to the state.

Wow.  Money the state has been stealing will no longer be stolen.
And this is somehow a bad thing.

As with the above, the other 'impacts' on your life are laughable.
And certainly do not rise to the level of catastrophic even if they weren't.

[longtermmemmory]

tell that to the mother who has to wait an additional month or two because bruce and bruce need to decide who gets the capacino machine.