The debate!

I have been invited by a "Blogger buddy" to participate in a blog style debate. So the following may not come across as my usual style of rant. For those who visit my site on a regular basis I would encourage you to visit Mandora's site

You will have a better understanding of the rules of engagement. You will also be encouraged to participate by reviewing the debates and casting your vote with the blogger of choice. However, your vote must be based on who you feel made the better arguement and not because you agree with the individuals particular view on the subject. Let the games begin...



"The stripping away of religious rights and freedoms in Canada... home of the tolerant!"

One of the hottest debates still going on in this country has been the issue of gay marriage. It has been a long time since such an area of contention has aroused the passion of the public. The "Yes" side versus the "No" has not been designated to anyone individual group. We had Liberals, Conservatives, NDP's, and Independents all take opposing views. We have seen homosexuals come out opposed to same sex marriage (although Liberal media bias try's to stifle them) and we have seen those on the more conservative platform come out in favour. To simply say that this is a neo conservative/evangelical Christian movement for those opposed would be misleading. To say that those in favour is soley driven by homosexual activists only, would also be misleading. There are so many different angles to approach this hot button issue on. There is marriage as a sole family unit, "rights and freedoms", and charter issues to religious reasons as well. I am going to delve into only one area of it though. That being the agruement of "rights".

One of the biggest arguements to come out of this debate is that this is a "rights" issue and that by not allowing gays and lesbians to marry there is a violation of freedoms protected under the Canadian Charter of human rights and freedoms. Let's look at the history of the Charter here. The Charter in it's original content does not include the term "sexual orientation". It never did. This terminology was "read" into the Charter by activist judges back in 1984. It was stated back then that this very "reading in" would eventually one day lead to redefining marriage. Of course the Liberals told us that was not true(we all know how much we can trust a Liberal) But let's also take a look at the role of a judge. A judge is NOT elected they are appointed by the governing party. Their role as judges is not to determine social policy or to write and/or re-write the laws of the land. That is the job of elected parlimentarians. Their job, quite simply, is to enforce the law of the land, not change it to suit their personal views.

The big question then: Were homosexuals being denied the "right" to marry? The answer is clear, NO they were not. There has never been a need to redefine marriage because homosexuals have always had the "right" to marry provided it was a member of the opposite sex. Nonetheless, the "right" has always existed under the definition of marriage being understood as one man and one woman. No "rights" were being violated and they were not being excluded, they simply did not fit the definition. A definiton, by the way, that has stood the test time over many different faiths/religions and non religious society's as well as the many different nations worldwide over the course of history. Was it necessary to redefine? Of course not! This may be a lame comparison but we know that their are men out there who claim to feel like a woman on the inside but have no desire to have a sex change operation. Do we now redefine the term woman to include the male anatomy to accomodate these individuals? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Marriage defined makes up the family unit of one man one woman, husband and wife, mom and dad. If "everybody" constitutes a marriage/family unit, then there is nothing left to define it because nobody would understand what exactly that would consist of.



The other aspect of the "rights" arguement is that redefining marriage will not have an effect on the "rights" or "religious rights" of other citizens. This arguement is absolutley false. Before the marriage bill C-38 was even rammed thru the House of Commons, we heard how Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary was "threatened" by government representatives that his church's tax charitable status would be removed if he continued to encourage his parishoners to contact their Federal MP's and voice their opposition to bill C-38.(talk about Stalinism). It does not stop there. In both Saskatchewan and Manitoba we have witnessed Justices of the peace and marriage commissioners being forced to resign or having their licence's stripped away from them for not wanting to perform same sex ceremonies due to religious conflicts. How tolerant. How respectful of one's religious rights. Marriage commissioners who had been performing service's for as long as 25 years and made this their livelyhood were now kicked to the curb. Was it not Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler who said:

"We cannot allow equality rights to trump religious rights"

In effect, that is precisley what has happened. By placing gay rights over top of religious rights there is now an established "heirarchy" of rights. This flies directly in the face of the Charter that declares everyone is "equal" and should be treated as such. This is clearly not fair and equal treatment of the Canadian people. This instead is giving preference to one group of people based on a sexual lifestyle by removing ones "right" of religious freedom. It also says that if you hold any religious beliefs that disagree with homosexuality you are no longer welcome to apply for a marriage commissiners license. It says to the public that"we will go out of our way to accomodate homosexuals but will not make any accomodations to those of religious beliefs". It says "In fact we will weed them out!"

I know this firsthand as I also held a license to marry people in the Province in Manitoba. I find it very contradictory of the Provincal Government that prior to same sex marriage being legalised here, again by one unelected judge, I was always allowed descretion. If at anytime I was uncomfortable with a couple I was not obligated.

For example (no this did not actually occur) if a couple came to me and wanted me to perform satanic vows, obviously, being a Christian I would not be comfortable with that and decline. They could then continue down the list of 600 other available commissioners who may be willing to perform their desired ceremony. In fact, you actually did not have to give a reason at all. Yet when it came to gay marriage it became an attitude of "to hell with your religious beliefs!" Either you violate your Christain faith or resign. Again, another clear display of tolerance. This was not only a direct violation of my religious rights and freedoms(supposedly gauranteed under the Charter) but it was also blatant discrimination. (I have taken action but that is not part of the debate).

Can we honestly say that redefining marriage was a good thing and that nobody was directly affected? I would strongly disagree. Same sex marriage has stripped away the "rights" of the majority and handed them over to a minority group that had NEVER lost their "rights" in the first place.

Word up Mandora...