The Rebutt!

For those who have been following the debate between myself and my blogging buddy Mandora, we have now reached the final stage. I will now give a final response, to her response, to my opening arguement of the debate (that took long to say) In keeping within the context as what some may percieve as a battle of the sexes, in true female form, she will get in the last word! Without further adue...

I certainly admire my respective opponent's passion for "family". But to suggest that pro-family advocates need to embrace same sex marriage as this somehow, in her words,

" serves to strengthen the primacy of the nuclear family model, and acts as a way of glorifying marriage and the monogamous way of life."

...comes across as a contradiction of terms.Nuclear families, in most cases, are the direct result of one or more partners in the relationship NOT practising monogamy in the first place. How does this glorify marriage and the monogamous way of life? I, personally, felt that was a self defeating statement.

Those types of sentiments sound all fuzzy and warm on the surface but in reality fuzzy is all you are left with. Although the nuclear family is a reality for some(I know, I grew up in one myself) is this the highest standard of a model we feel we should set the bar for in achieving stability within the functioning family? I feel we do ourselves and children a great disservice. I am confused at how this could "glorify" marriage. The definition is no longer understood, because by redefining it, it is no longer consistent. If we were to start calling cars-trucks because car owners felt inferior, then everytime somebody mentioned that they owned a truck you would be confused as to whether or not they really just owned a little 3 cylinder hatchback or a an 8 bangin' SUV! I would like to go after this more but that is for a different debate. The key issue of my opening arguement was focused on whether or not the introduction of same sex marriage will affect religious rights and freedoms as well as one's right to freedom of conscience. Mandora had alot of valid things to say in her arguement( not that I agreed with alot of it), nonetheless, they were areas I could respond too quite easily. However there will be areas in my rebuttal that I will not address at this point, not because I am avoiding them but because in my understanding of Mandoras response I felt, in some areas of her response, that it went off in some directions that neglected the foundation of my opening statement.

If you recall, all Canadians were told back in the 1990's that introducing benefits for same sex couples by recognizing them as a common law relationship would not lead to redefining marriage. We now know that to be untrue. 2 year's ago we were told that redefining marriage will not hurt or remove anyone's religious rights/freedoms. Also untrue as that is now becoming self evident. Mandora makes mention of Section 15(1) of the Charter and she is correct when she says that the reference in the Charter regarding sex "... does NOT include sexual orientation." It was meant for gender, HOWEVER, judges in this land, who already wield far too much power regarding social policy, "CHOSE" to interpet that term to mean sexual orientation. Had it been worded as gender we would not have the room to "muddy the waters" as we have today. Instead though we are now setting the platform for a flood of human rights abuse's, civic lawsuits, and heading back to the court's for more "interpetations" and "definitions". All for the sake of redefining a word that signified the committed and monogamous bond between a man and a woman. A word that is sacred to many and even for those of a non faith, still representative of solid family structure.

I am sure proponents from both sides of the spectrum can solidly agree that the Charter was designed to protect the freedoms of Canadians, not just as a whole, but as individuals as well. They are also "meant" to protect every citizen from coast to coast. Not just those in Ontario or Britsh Columbia. Not just homosexuals or Christians, Muslims or atheists. Everybody is included regardless of color, race, gender, both religious and non religious beliefs. It was also intended to place everyone on an equal and fair playing field. So are we still equal now that the current Canadian Government has forced redefinition upon and against the will of the majority? (keep in mind that the 5 months of polling leading up to C-38 consistently showed that 68% of Canadians did not want marriage redefined. The majority only shifted when a civil union was suggested) I would strongly suggest that equality, fairness, and protection under the Charter is now fast eroding due to this very legislation. Allow me to demonstrate with a parallel.

Under the Charter, Canadians are guaranteed the right to freedom of moral conscience. This helped aid physcians who had a moral dilema with regards to abortion. Not all physcians hold a "higher" faith or belief in God, yet many struggled with what they felt was a violation of the hippocratic oath to preserve life by all means. Others accepted science that supported that life begins at conception, and then of course there were those who had religious reasons. Physcians were allowed to refuse patients this procedure and yet continue their practice of medicine, without threat of losing their license, on grounds of "freedom of moral conscience". They do not have too have religious reasons.

In contrast, we have Justices of the peace and marriage commissioners, who are having the same moral struggles regarding marrying a same sex couple. Instead of accomodations being made for them, governments are blatantly discriminating against them by revoking their licenses! The Charter seems to have gone out the window on this one. According to the powers that be, marriage is a Provincial jurisdiction. I pointed this out to the C-38 committee when I presented to them back in June/05. They were offering to ammend the bill to cover marriage commissioners and JP's. My response to them was that unless they were willing to fulfill their "Obligatory" duty as Federal MP's and invoke the Charter where Provincial Governments were violating and oppressing the "rights" and will of the people, one hundred amendents were as useless as the paper it is written on.

To date we have seen first hand Governments who are willing to openly violate and discriminate against religious freedoms in this country by going out of their way to not defend these people by punishing them for exercising their fundamental freedom to moral conscience they are supposedly guaranteed under the Charter. This is not equal and fair treatment. This is not respectful of Charter freedoms or basic human rights.

In conclusion, Mandora stated in her response the traditional definition of marriage(by the way it goes alot further back then the 19th century) that in it's original content somehow was "...forcing gay couples to take on a hetro lifestyle." I don't know of any gay people who were forced to go straight over this but on the other end of the spectrum I know of an entire nation that has been forced to accept gay marriage, whether they like it or not. The other message that has been sent is we can all kiss our religious freedoms goodbye at the same time. There is no longer an equal balancing of rights over this matter. Governments have been unable to make same sex marriage work in this country "without" removing rights and freedoms away from others.

One more step closer to a social communistic state. Over to you Mandora...