The Shotgun Blog
« Oh, you mean the Conservative Party of Canada, Marxist-Leninist | Main | Climate issue settled -- or not »
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Same-sex marriage
From a report on the debate in Canada in today's New York Times:
But an odd thing is happening - or not happening. Only an estimated 4,500 couples - up to a quarter of them from the United States and other countries - have tied the knot in Canada since the first decision, by an Ontario appeals court in June 2003, opened the door. About twice as many gay and lesbian couples married in San Francisco and Massachusetts over a much shorter period last year.
In fact, the gay and lesbian marriage rate has been falling in Canada over the last year, after an initial burst of weddings, and it is not for lack of candidates. In the 2001 census, 34,200 same-sex couples registered as permanent partners.
What the availability of marriage has produced instead, it seems, is second thoughts among gays themselves about the value of marriage.
Some activists say it will take time for gays and lesbians to get used to the idea that they can marry, and they note that childless couples have no incentive to rush. But others contend that marriage just isn't that appealing.
"Do we want to be like everyone else, behind a white picket fence?" asked Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Toronto. The answer for Mr. Walcott is a defiant no; he warns that marriage could water down gay culture and even provoke tensions between those willing to assimilate into the broader community and those who will not.
"Marriage is not a priority," he said, quickly adding that on human rights grounds he was not opposed to legislation that would expand the choices open to gays and lesbians.
Posted by Norman Spector on February 6, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834704ad469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Same-sex marriage:
Comments
Norman, I have no problem with two people getting together as life partners, or whatever you want to call it. Speaking of which, as it stands now gay and transgender individuals have all the same rights as I do, even more considering hate laws govern them too.
The whole debate boils down to that word, marriage.
Why, given everything else, do they still covet that word? Why that particular word, to the detriment of all others who have faith in it? Why damage everything they have gained by trying to steal that word from those of us who have taken a moral stance with respect to the present definition of that word and what it actually means in relation to a man and a woman who partake in it out of love and respect?
I have asked this question to many, many gays and lesbians I know as friends, and not one could look me in the eye when I asked them, "Why do you covet the word marriage so much, given the equality that Canadians already share respecting everything else afforded to her citizens?"
Try it out on the next pro gay marriage activist you meet Mr. Spector, and you will see what I mean. That question gets to the heart of their anti-establishment agenda, the hidden one they don't want to discuss.
The destruction of the institution of marriage.
Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle | 2005-02-06 9:49:34 PM
Mark-Alan
You've put your finger on it. The dispute has come down to the use of a word marriage, and it's not as if gays and lesbians are rushing to exercise it.
I've written about this in the Globe and the column is on my site (
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-06 11:28:47 PM
Mark-Alan
You've put your finger on it. The dispute has come down to the use of a word marriage, and it's not as if gays and lesbians are rushing to exercise it.
I've written about this in the Globe; you'll find the column at http://members.shaw.ca./nspector4/globe93.htm
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-06 11:30:02 PM
Mark-Alan: What are you on about? No, Norman, he hasn't put his finger on anything.
(Cue the ominous music) "The destruction of the institution of marriage." (Voiced by: Charleton Heston).
Come on, Mark-Alan, are you kidding me? That's their hidden goal? Give me a break. You're sounding like a Liberal trying to smear the Conservatives with a hidden agenda story.
Here: Let's assume you tried your nifty question that immediately exposes the hidden gay agenda of a) destroying marriage, then b)the family, and, finally, c) puppies ("gasp," you say, "not puppies!" Yes, the puppies too) on me.
Marriage is an institution with a history. A pedigree (and you thought the puppy reference was a pure non sequitor). Having this particular history is what makes it so attractive. Presumably, what regular gay people want is to make vows of fidelity, commitment, and responsibility in the same way that heterosexual couples get to do now.
The power of a word is in its psychological connections to traditions and customs that each of us tend to take seriously. To say that you are in a civil union is to say, in part, that you are not married. To be married is a community affair, to be civil unioned is a bureaucratic one that establishes formal legal requirements and expectations. It's this difference that makes a difference. In order to tie in to that tradition, and attempt to increase the significance and staying power of that union, the word is required.
The word comes with immediate associations. It's those associations that gay people want. Those associations that engender a greater amount of respect for that relationship, and that union.
Posted by: P. M. Jaworski | 2005-02-07 5:05:36 AM
Mark-Alan: What are you on about? No, Norman, he hasn't put his finger on anything.
(Cue the ominous music) "The destruction of the institution of marriage." (Voiced by: Charleton Heston).
Come on, Mark-Alan, are you kidding me? That's their hidden goal? Give me a break. You're sounding like a Liberal trying to smear the Conservatives with a hidden agenda story.
Here: Let's assume you tried your nifty question that immediately exposes the hidden gay agenda of a) destroying marriage, then b)the family, and, finally, c) puppies ("gasp," you say, "not puppies!" Yes, the puppies too) on me.
Marriage is an institution with a history. A pedigree (and you thought the puppy reference was a pure non sequitor). Having this particular history is what makes it so attractive. Presumably, what regular gay people want is to make vows of fidelity, commitment, and responsibility in the same way that heterosexual couples get to do now.
The power of a word is in its psychological connections to traditions and customs that each of us tend to take seriously. To say that you are in a civil union is to say, in part, that you are not married. To be married is a community affair, to be civil unioned is a bureaucratic one that establishes formal legal requirements and expectations. It's this difference that makes a difference. In order to tie in to that tradition, and attempt to increase the significance and staying power of that union, the word is required.
The word comes with immediate associations. It's those associations that gay people want. Those associations that engender a greater amount of respect for that relationship, and that union.
Posted by: P. M. Jaworski | 2005-02-07 5:05:36 AM
Peter,
Respect for the institution of marriage, my arse.
The agenda is about affirming that the difference between straights and gays is akin to whether you say tomato and I say tomahto.
As the New York Times reported yesterday in reagard to Canada's debate about marriage:
"In fact, the gay and lesbian marriage rate has been falling in Canada over the last year, after an initial burst of weddings, and it is not for lack of candidates. In the 2001 census, 34,200 same-sex couples registered as permanent partners.
What the availability of marriage has produced instead, it seems, is second thoughts among gays themselves about the value of marriage.
Some activists say it will take time for gays and lesbians to get used to the idea that they can marry, and they note that childless couples have no incentive to rush. But others contend that marriage just isn't that appealing.
"Do we want to be like everyone else, behind a white picket fence?" asked Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Toronto. The answer for Mr. Walcott is a defiant no; he warns that marriage could water down gay culture and even provoke tensions between those willing to assimilate into the broader community and those who will not.
"Marriage is not a priority," he said, quickly adding that on human rights grounds he was not opposed to legislation that would expand the choices open to gays and lesbians.
Such ambivalence, about whether marriage could change gay and lesbian life or the other way around, is reflected in a rich assortment of recent essays in Canadian gay magazines and Web sites.
For some writers, marriage is an institution that has not served the heterosexual population very well. In fact, common-law marriage is rising among heterosexuals in much of Canada.
In addition, marriage, some have written, would threaten the sexual liberties many gay and lesbian couples enjoy.
For some activists who say the gay population has already established its own culture, marriage and its conventions might as well come from a different planet. Infidelity, for instance, is a word that Mitchel Raphael, the editor in chief of one gay magazine, Fab, writes in quotation marks. The words "marriage" and "family," he writes, are "straight jargon."
"As the gay community adopts mainstream terms," he wrote in a Fab editorial, "it will be a challenge to see whether they will twist their traditional definitions or simply fall victim to their traditional meanings."
In the case of "infidelity," he continued, "What happens when one half of a married gay couple in the midst of a bitter divorce tells the judge that they had an arrangement that both could go to bathhouses, but not coffee dates?"
Such musings take place well outside the House of Commons, where in recent days the lines of debate were drawn in more predictable terms. Liberals said it was a matter of equal rights for minorities, while conservatives warned against altering an institution that they say is the bedrock of social order and morality.
Most politicians predict that the legislation will pass, and then gradually more gay and lesbian Canadians will marry. But the cultural consequences may not be understood for years.
"Lesbian and gay culture has been defined in many ways by oppression, so when that legalized oppression disappears that will surely have an impact on how our communities evolve," said Alex Munter, national coordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage. "The fact that there is now a choice on the table makes me feel very lucky."
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-07 5:16:11 AM
"I have no problem with two people getting together as life partners, or whatever you want to call it. Speaking of which, as it stands now gay and transgender individuals have all the same rights as I do..."
I've never understood this position. To support civil unions is to support equal treatment under the law. But equal treatment under the law is precisely what is being proposed now. Government offers nothing to married people except material benefits. If government has the capacity to weaken the institution of marriage, then won't it do so by giving gay and straight unions the same benefits, regardless of whether they call it marriage or not?
Posted by: CSelley | 2005-02-07 8:21:29 AM
PMJ wrote:
"The word comes with immediate associations. It's those associations that gay people want. Those associations that engender a greater amount of respect for that relationship, and that union."
Oh, so that's how one gets respect - one sues for it! What an epiphany for we marginalized conservatives - we needn't bother painstakingly trying to engage in a democratic public discourse to convince others of the merits of our positions, we need only determine those positions to constitute "analogous grounds", haul on off to court, and respect will soon fall like manna from heaven! I can only speak personally, of course, but I can testify that my respect for SSM pretty much triples every time our robed illuminati release their latest edict on the issue.
One small question for PMJ, though. What do you propose we do with those who remain insufficiently respectful once we've achieved our slick language trick?
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-02-07 9:18:43 AM
"I've never understood this position. To support civil unions is to support equal treatment under the law. But equal treatment under the law is precisely what is being proposed now."
Well maybe. But then, I've never understood why some SSM proponents tar civil unions with over-the-top analogies to the Jim Crow South. IMO, gay marriage has nothing to do with liberty or rights; it has everything to do with gay identity politics.
Posted by: Laurent | 2005-02-07 9:36:20 AM
Even the UN recognizes the union of one man and one woman as marriage......nothing about same-sex marriages here at the UN so why doesn't Canada follow suit as they usually do??????? We sat front row center through Rwanda and did nothing so why not just drop this homo marriage stuff now and follow the lead of the UN????? Just sit and wait!!!!!!
Posted by: themaj | 2005-02-07 9:38:09 AM
Norman hit on a historical point. In the 1970s and 1980s queer theorists widely rejected marriage as inherently heterosexist. It was thought to be an institution ill-suited to the free-loving lifestyles of gays and lesbians, who would feel hemmed in by the constraints of marriage like conjugality and monogamy. This about face by the queer academy and lobby over the last ten years leaves many of us feeling suspicious.
Peter, in the last thread you pretty much set out what divides conservatives and liberatarians on the matter of tradition (which, in my view, is much more fragile than you regard it as) and I have no disagreement on this point. In your last paragraph, however, you wrote this:
"Indeed, when individual liberty becomes personal licence, we are in a heap of trouble. But it is so unlikely to come to pass as to be not worth much time to take seriously."
Year by year, the social milleu of this country is becoming like that of Holland. Some of us indeed take it seriously.
Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-02-07 10:39:25 AM
Norman hit on a historical point. In the 1970s and 1980s queer theorists widely rejected marriage as inherently heterosexist. It was thought to be an institution ill-suited to the free-loving lifestyles of gays and lesbians, who would feel hemmed in by the constraints of marriage like conjugality and monogamy. This about face by the queer academy and lobby over the last ten years leaves many of us feeling suspicious.
Peter, in the last thread you pretty much set out what divides conservatives and liberatarians on the matter of tradition (which, in my view, is much more fragile than you regard it as) and I have no disagreement on this point. In your last paragraph, however, you wrote this:
"Indeed, when individual liberty becomes personal licence, we are in a heap of trouble. But it is so unlikely to come to pass as to be not worth much time to take seriously."
Year by year, the social milleu of this country is becoming like that of Holland. Some of us indeed take it seriously.
Posted by: Clement Ng | 2005-02-07 10:41:43 AM
"The whole debate boils down to that word, marriage. Why, given everything else, do they still covet that word?"
A very good question. But a similar question needs to be asked of the other side: "Why, given that they are willing to confer all the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, do they still withold that word?"
The fundamental answer on both sides is that they believe the government has the power to confer MORAL legitimacy. I think both sides are wrong on that basic point. Each wants the government to give its blessing to their vision of what kinds of unions are moral. But the government should not be in the business of giving moral blessings. That's the role of the church and of each individual.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-02-07 11:14:39 AM
"In fact, the gay and lesbian marriage rate has been falling in Canada over the last year,"
You know, I'll bet the heterosexual marriage rate
has been falling recently too. Most people, whether they're gay or straight, prefer to get married in the spring or summer - winter weddings just aren't popular. If May rolls around without an uptick in the number of same-sex marriages, *then* I'll be convinced that it's a real downturn.
Posted by: Alex | 2005-02-07 11:27:49 AM
MW wrote:
"The fundamental answer on both sides is that they believe the government has the power to confer MORAL legitimacy."
Speak for your own "side", MW. I don't presume to speak authoritatively for my "side", but the LAST source I would ever consider to confer any moral legitimacy to any particular position is the present Canadian government. Put another way, my position as an opponent to SS"M" has nothing to do with seeking some sort of government seal of approval to my personal concept of what is moral. I hold my position because I believe "something" OTHER than government informs morality and, on the issue of marriage, that "something" has, over the course of two millenia, compelled the favouring of long-term hetero couplings over other types of relationships. Since "government" didn't have a role in this for the first, oh, 1995 years or so of these two millenia, I can only conclude something other than government was informing the "morality" of the whole thing.
On a related note, I've seen lots of dismissal of the fact the SCC refused to rule on the "is hetero marriage constitutional" issue by SS"M" advocates as irrelevant - any attempt by the CPC to try to legislate this would ultimately require the "notwithstanding" clause, sayeth the 134 -ooooo!- law professors. Isn't there just the slightest possibility even the Supremes felt just a tiny bit queasy proclaiming that the form of relationship privileged for centuries in dozens of free democratic western nations, became illegal in Canada in 1983?
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-02-07 11:58:19 AM
There are two sacraments or ordinances most Churches hold in common: Holy Matrimony (marriage) and Baptism. Religions will continue to perform the ordinance of marriage according to their own set of standards, no matter how society at large defines it. What we are witnessing is part of the process of a secularization that has been going on for several centuries.
As society cuts itself loose from the moorings of faith, has anyone considered where the ship will drift?
A point that is totally given away in the debate concerns the cause of homosexuality. Without any solid evidence we declare that people are born that way. It's not politically correct to even go there. There is a lot to learn about the nature and cause of sexual preference. It seems a very plastic thing in our nature (not in our hard wiring at all).
Posted by: Jack | 2005-02-07 1:13:56 PM
Ready the wood! Bring oil! Bring the torch! Burn the Jack! Buuuuuuurrrrrn him!!!!!
Posted by: Occam's Carbuncle | 2005-02-07 1:33:05 PM
"As society cuts itself loose from the moorings of faith, has anyone considered where the ship will drift?"
An altogether valid question, but government policy has been diverging from church(es) policy for decades. Thus, the timing strikes many (myself included) as suspicious. George Jonas' column today makes this case extremely well (if overly pessimistically, I think).
"Without any solid evidence we declare that people are born that way... It seems a very plastic thing in our nature (not in our hard wiring at all)."
Huh. It doesn't "seem" that way to me at all. Do you have any "solid evidence" that people *aren't* born that way? Whose burden of proof is it, and why?
Posted by: Cselley | 2005-02-07 1:35:09 PM
Firewalls: My point was about anti-SSM advocates who are willing to allow civil unions with all the same legal protections, benefits, etc. as are given to heterosexual marriages, but without the word "marriage." The point being that if only the word is being witheld, what reason could there be aside from one of moral judgment?
But your response seems to indicate that you'd be opposed to giving same-sex unions, by any name, the same protections married people get. If so, my point doesn't apply to you.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2005-02-07 2:42:08 PM
To Cselley And Occam's Carbuncle: You prove my point. You reject the mere questioning of what is popularly believed regarding sexual preference. There's no room for debate just burn the heretic! A generation ago it was "don't judge me, let me do what I want sexually". Then it turned to "don't judge me, I can't help it, I was born this way". There are those who would say, "it's not about how I was born, it's about what I prefer. If I want to be "bi" I'll be "bi". If I want to be "asexual", let me be, leave me alone. If I prefer children, that's my thing." And so on. I am not saying I have any definitive answers. I am merely questioning the premise that has been foisted on us without good evidence and saying we have a lot to learn about how sexual preference takes root in an individual. What prompted me was a recent radio interview with a psychologist regarding pedophilia.
Posted by: Jack | 2005-02-07 3:14:13 PM
MW wrote:
"But your response seems to indicate that you'd be opposed to giving same-sex unions, by any name, the same protections married people get. If so, my point doesn't apply to you."
Fair enough and, for the record, I am so opposed, although the battle over whether "common-laws" should enjoy the same benefits as marrieds was lost 25 or so years ago (wow - pre-Charter judicial law-making!). I echo Cselley's comments that Jonas' column in today's NP effectively points out the decline of marriage as an institution started well before the current SS"M" debate.
However, I think a case can still be made by the "yes to union, no to marriage" crowd like Harper. The fact that marriage is still such a hot-button issue in SPITE of the legislative deconstruction described by Jonas suggests that it has survived this deconstruction and remains a vital, if markedly less robust institution. In other words, marriage may no longer be an institution supported by writ and fiat, but it remains an institution nonetheless. Sort of like our continued allegiance to the Queen, despite being self-governing and all that.
SS"M" advocates appear to realize this, hence PWJ's comments that, despite currently having all of the substantive rights and entitlements of marriage, SS"M" advocates want to commandeer the "associations" the word "marriage" still connotes.
Since the codification of hetero "civil unions" has proved insufficient to kill off the institution, the Harper types presumably feel SS civil unions won't either. I'm not sure I'd disagree, since IMO even with the enactment of SS"M" legislation, an overwhelming majority of Canadians won't change their personal concept of "marriage". After all, has anybody really changed their mind about abortion even decades after Roe v. Wade/R. v. Morgentaler?
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-02-07 3:24:33 PM
Oh,Jack. You must be more nimble. You must be more quick. There may have been just a wee touch of irony in my earlier comment. Just a snippet.
Posted by: Occam's Carbuncle | 2005-02-07 6:46:45 PM
"To Cselley...: You prove my point. You reject the mere questioning of what is popularly believed regarding sexual preference. There's no room for debate just burn the heretic!"
Jack, I think what "causes" homosexuality is a fascinating and largely unanswered question. Unfortunately, given that nature vs. nurture isn't likely to be settled in our lifetimes, government is going to have to make policy dealing with gay people without knowing for sure one way or the other.
Posted by: CSelley | 2005-02-07 8:08:48 PM
firewalls 'r us, I'm not sure what most of your post even means. But I'll go ahead and answer the question you posed me:
"One small question for PMJ, though. What do you propose we do with those who remain insufficiently respectful once we've achieved our slick language trick?"
Nothing. The point is that they are *attempting* to gain greater legitimacy/respect via this process. Nothing follows if it fails. And I don't propose we do anything with people who don't like queers, or, if they do like queers, still don't want to see them married.
The question I was answering, by the way, was what would motivate homosexuals to want to participate in marriage (and not civil unions or whatever). I wasn't defending the idea that this process would actually work, just that they think it will, and that's why they're doing it.
Posted by: P. M. Jaworski | 2005-02-08 8:59:38 AM
Firewalls r’ us has twigged to the obvious here, adding much needed clarity to the crux of the matter of moral confusion respecting the law in this regard.
-- SS"M" advocates appear to realize this, hence PWJ's comments that, despite currently having all of the substantive rights and entitlements of marriage, SS"M" advocates want to commandeer the "associations" the word "marriage" still connotes. --
So there you have it.
Not a mere word causing most Canadians angst, but the evocations of the word, the purity of moral spirit it represents, the moral definition it creates among it’s adherents. The legitimacy it surrounds the relationship in.
That is what seems coveted the most, an unearned prize some feel is it is their right to evoke, no matter their life style choice or the level of commitment their personal relationships may hold.
I think society has slipped a little on the slope. Can our legislators regain their footing in time? A house divided is a house that may prove to be free, thanks to the opportunity for any member to resign and sit as a member of the “new” political party in town whose membership is actually growing, instead of withering on the vine amid the scandal and corruption of the present liberal regime of Paul Martin.
“The Independents”
A force to be reckoned with, says I.
Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle | 2005-06-07 9:00:33 AM
"Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the legislation on civil marriage. It goes to the very heart of our values as Canadians to end discrimination against each other, to treat individuals with equality and particularly to ensure that the law treats every person with equality. As I have considered this issue, I have been heavily influenced by an important lesson I learned many years ago from my daughter. Karen was only nine when she first heard about the terrible treatment suffered by Canadian citizens of Japanese origin: how homes had been seized, families separated and men and women interned. She was obviously disturbed by learning how these individuals and families had suffered and finally said, “Mom, what really bothers me is that maybe if I had been alive then I would have thought it was okay”. That moment has given me a principle which has been a guide for many of my life and political decisions. Will this decision stand the test of time? Will generations to come look back on what we do today with shame or with approval? There are many periods in our past which we can only look back on and wonder that our leaders of the time could have thought those things seemed okay. Usually they involved discrimination against a minority, often out of fear and often out of contempt for a group of fellow citizens, our fellow human beings, who were regarded as inferior and not quite worthy of the same treatment as the majority. We interned Canadians of Ukrainian origin during the first world war. We imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants and then excluded them entirely. We interned Canadians of Italian origin during World War II. These are times we can only look back on with dismay and wonder that they seemed okay at the time. When Canada closed its doors to Jews fleeing persecution and almost certain death in Nazi Germany, this was surely one of our darkest moments, yet it appears that these actions were considered okay at the time. We have discriminated based on race. We have discriminated based on ethnicity. We have discriminated based on religion. There was even a time when Roman Catholic marriages were not considered legal in Canada. Jewish marriages were not considered legal. It was considered okay that women were persons under the law in matters of pains and penalties, but not in matters of rights and privileges. What a debt of gratitude we owe to five brave and determined women who challenged the prevailing opinion and the law of the time to establish the full personhood of women. How much we owe to those who ignored dire predictions of social upheaval and fought for the right of women to vote. How much we owe to those who worked to change the accepted rules of the time that women had to quit their jobs when they got married or pregnant. In Quebec for much of its history it was considered okay that a francophone Quebecker, no matter how capable, had virtually no chance of becoming the manager, vice-president or president of the company he or she worked for. Because we looked back on our history and saw the injustices that were done, we adopted a Canadian Human Rights Act. We adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and enshrined it in our Constitution to protect minorities against arbitrary treatment, even from Parliament and the legislature. Throughout history homosexuals too have faced contempt and discrimination, forced to live secret lives lest they be ostracized, fired or evicted from their homes. There was a time in Canada when homosexual relations were subject to the death penalty, and until the 1970s they were a criminal offence. Until very recently, a man or woman could be denied compassionate leave or pension benefits because a partner of many years was not of the opposite sex. I understand that it is difficult for some to accept that a man can love another man or a woman another woman as most of us love someone of the opposite sex, yet the bond between two people of the same sex can be as profound, as committed and as life fulfilling as any heterosexual union. Many protest that marriage is for procreation. If that were the case, I should not be allowed to marry at my age nor should many who are unwilling or unable to have children. I reviewed my marriage vows. They did not say anything about procreation. What I promised was to love, honour and cherish my husband exclusively, through good times and bad, for the rest of our lives. For two people of the same sex who love each other enough to make such a profound public commitment to seek in each other fulfilment and completion, I say welcome to one of our most important social institutions: marriage. I believe this decision will stand the test of time, that generations to come will approve of our including our fellow human beings fully and equally in the life of our country and our society. Having carefully considered the views of my constituents on both sides of this issue, I intend to support the bill. It is consistent with my values as a Canadian and as a human being to treat every other human being with respect, with dignity and with love."
Posted by: Greg | 2005-06-07 9:12:23 AM
Ms. Marlene Catterall
Greg, please understand this is not a personal issue, even if Marlene has herself convinced it is. She has basically explained how the moral fabric of Canada has been slowly and methodically weakened by the Liberal malaise so apparent in Cattrall’s speech to the commons.
Unfortunately her inferences to this question only bolsters the need for legislators -- caught up in the confusing juxtapositions serving two masters provides -- to step back from the abyss this challenge precipitates, that is so divisive and polarizing.
Exactly the strategy necessary to remove the last vestiges of secular responsibility bestowed upon our elected officials, to uphold such society norms that give society a moral compass to judge themselves by.
To remove this responsibility, under the guise of politically correct “equality” will lead to anarchy, sure as sunshine. Look no further than nations more “Liberalized” than Canada, say Denmark for instance.
Pym Fortune lost the war on morality, didn’t he? A casualty of loose morals, none the less.
Same sex couples hijacking the word “marriage” may well be the death knell for the moral fortitude exemplified in the “nuclear family” and all that it represents to society, and to Canada.
Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle | 2005-06-07 6:54:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.