Canada Legalizes Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter jdnation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Promotor Fidei:
If Canada had freedom of religion OR speech, the case would already have been thrown out.
I knew that Canada didn’t have freedom of speech (people jailed for denying the Holocaust) but I wasn’t aware of how “freedom of religion” was interpreted: “Worship whomever or whatever you want and believe whatever you want, but don’t tell anyone what those beliefs are and don’t act on them.”
“absent unique circumstances with respect to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials …”
A wonderful clause one could drive a triple-trailer through.
 
Promotor Fidei:
Here’s a related article. This talks about the investigation against Bishop Henry and similar attempts to stifle speech:

christianclarion.com/news/archive.05.05.04.26.html
Oh, thanks much. You can find Bishop Henry’s full pastoral letter here:

ccrl.ca/index.php?id=208

I’m not sure how some people have construed hate from in this letter, but this is the cause of his meeting the Human Rights Tribunal. The only intolerance and bigotry I see is that which is directed to those accused of intolerance and bigotry.
 
40.png
Aureole:
The only intolerance and bigotry I see is that which is directed to those accused of intolerance and bigotry.
True.

Those of you in Canada, you may not have had time to think this through… keep in mind that anyone who takes offense at what you say can file a civil-rights complaint against you. You will then face fines for damages AND up to a 2-year jail sentence. Unless you can afford a decent lawyer, you might bear this in mind.

On the other hand, following the faith can mean martyrdom. That’s true in China, the Middle East, and now… in Canada.
 
Promotor Fidei:
True.

Those of you in Canada, you may not have had time to think this through… keep in mind that anyone who takes offense at what you say can file a civil-rights complaint against you. You will then face fines for damages AND up to a 2-year jail sentence. Unless you can afford a decent lawyer, you might bear this in mind.

On the other hand, following the faith can mean martyrdom. That’s true in China, the Middle East, and now… in Canada.
I direct you to St. Thomas More, a wonderful saint who should be an example for all people, everywhere.

thomasmorestudies.org/
 
Uh-oh! This doesn’t look good:

Passage of C-38 Spurs Gay Activists Efforts to Criminalize Opposition

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05063007.html

EDMONTON, June 30, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The first indication that principled opposition to the homosexual political agenda will be fodder for the hate crime laws is already manifesting in Alberta two days after the passage of Bill C-38 changed the federal definition of marriage to include same-sex partners.

Alberta legislators are attempting to find legal means of stopping the legalization of homosexual ‘marriage’ in the province. Homosexual activists have seized the opportunity to move the agenda along to the next phase by claiming that public opposition by politicians is the direct cause of criminal assaults against homosexuals.

Alberta’s Conservative caucus met in Edmonton Wednesday to determine if anything could be done to block same sex marriages from becoming law. Alberta Justice Minister, Ron Stevens, said that the province is considering going to court to challenge Bill C-38, though he admitted that the effort has little chance of succeeding.

At the same time, Edmonton police are investigating possible charges of hate crimes in two separate cases of assault on gay men. Robert Smith told the CBC that he and his partner, Guy Cohoon, were assaulted by eight youths. “We were holding hands, they reacted to us holding hands by calling us fags, and it escalated from there,” Smith said.

Family advocates have long warned that the gay ‘marriage’ debate has been a means to create a legal framework to force acceptance of homosexual behavior and to criminalize any public expressions of opposition that behavior. Few mainstream Canadian religious groups still seriously oppose homosexual activity as a matter of doctrine, but the few who still do, the Catholic Church, some Protestant Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs and Muslims, have repeatedly expressed their doubt that the new federal legislation will do anything to protect them. These groups fear being targeted by homosexual activists not only in civil suits but under the new hate crime statute.

In Edmonton, Murray Billet, a leader in homosexual advocacy, said that the opposition by MP’s has ‘filtered down’ to the public and is directly responsible for the assaults. “When we have a provincial government that behaves the way it does, in such a homophobic manner, the verbal kind of gay-bashing, it almost endorses and validates some of the narrow-minded activity of some of the young people in our community,” he said.

The push for criminal charges against principled Canadians opposed to the homosexual movement has, in fact, already begun. Bill Whatcott of Regina distributed 2000 leaflets describing the dangers of homosexual activity and is being investigated for hate crimes. The CBC reported that Constable Steve Camp of the Edmonton police hate crimes unit said, “The material is offensive and it’s an affront on the basic tenets of our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence.”

Billet told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, “When we have a provincial government that behaves the way it does, in such a homophobic manner, the verbal kind of gay bashing, it almost endorses and validates some of the narrow-minded activity of some of the young people in our community.”
 
Toronto Cardinal Says C-38 Passage Marks “dangerous deterioration” of Canadian “communal values”

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05063005.html

TORONTO, June 30, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In his official response to the passage of Canada’s same-sex ‘marriage’ bill C-38 in the House of Commons yesterday, Toronto’s Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic warned of “dangerous”, “ominous” and “troubling” aspects to the passage of the bill.

In his June 29 statement the cardinal writes, “With Bill C-38 now proceeding to the Senate of Canada, and in view of ongoing developments in the health-care crisis, Canadians continue to witness a dangerous deterioration in their communal values”. “This worrisome decline” he adds, “in shared concern and care for the common good is also evident in the continuing high rates of marriage breakdown, the annual number of abortions, and the declining number of births”.

The “continued refusal by certain political parties and their leaders to recognize and respect freedom of conscience and religion” says the cardinal “is particularly troubling”. He refers to the fact that the “Members of Parliament were forced to follow a political deadline and to vote along party lines” as an “an ominous sign of what can be expected in future debates on the application of Bill C-38” regarding “human rights legislation”, “solemnization of marriage” and “school policies on moral and social questions”.

The Toronto Cardinal also expresses his view that the several amendments to the bill do “not diminish significant concerns about protecting freedom of conscience and religion”.

The statement concludes that “The Archdiocese of Toronto will continue to offer and to insist upon, the Sacraments in accord with the Catholic belief of two millennia” and that on pastoral work, “our Catholic schools and our Catholic social services are committed to upholding Catholic teaching on marriage”.
 
Evangelical Churches Lament Passage of Gay ‘Marriage’ Bill

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05063001.html

OTTAWA, June 30, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bruce Clemenger, president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) lamented the passage of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act saying, “Parliament is embarking on a social experiment that removes the language of husband and wife from the law and eclipses its ability to champion the rights of children to know and be raised by a mother and a father.”

The EFC says it has been working to preserve the historic definition of marriage for over a decade. “Evangelical Christians have engaged on this issue because it’s part of our deeply held religious beliefs that marriage as ordained by God is a union of one man and one woman,” says Clemenger. “Rather than our concerns being taken seriously, we have been made to feel that our beliefs about marriage are unCanadian and contrary to the Charter.”

The EFC’s director of law and public policy, Janet Epp Buckingham, says, “We believe that religious freedom will be compromised by this change in the definition of marriage. The Supreme Court of Canada noted in the marriage reference that the right to same-sex marriage may conflict with the right to religious freedom. Marriage is both a religious and a civil institution and it’s inevitable that such conflicts will arise.”

Buckingham says, “While amendments to Bill C-38 provide a measure of protection for religious freedom, most of the areas of conflict are within provincial responsibility.”

Clemenger says, "The EFC cannot by reason of faith, conscience, practice and teaching accept this new definition of marriage and we will continue to promote and uphold marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman.

“Our pastors and churches will promote marriage as a covenant before God,” says Clemenger, “and will provide pre-marital and marital counseling. We are committed to supporting marriage and family, and caring for lone-parent families and children without parents.”

Christian legal experts agree that the new law will threaten religious and civil freedoms. In a press release, the Christian Legal Fellowship said it remained very concerned that “Bill C-38 will induce the inevitable hampering or chilling of free speech and the marginalization of religion in the public sphere.” The organization recommitted itself to “the protection of freedom of religion, conscience and speech and will continue to work to ensure these protections are upheld in Canada.”
 
Presbyterian Pastor Outraged with Prime Minister but Energized to Keep Fighting

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05063002.html

OTTAWA, June 30, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Presbyterian pastor Tristan Emmanuel is a very busy man of late. The founder of Equipping Christians for the Public Square (the ECP Centre) debated homosexual activist Rev. Brent Hawkes on CTV News with Mike Duffy at 8:15 p.m. on the day of the gay ‘marriage’ vote. Later that Tuesday night, after the vote, he was a guest panellist on CH 11 News at 11:30 p.m. Wednesday morning he was on two radio morning news shows on CBC. All these programs focussed on the gay ‘marriage’ legislation.

His popularity is due in part to the fact that he is a outspoken pastor in his mid thrities willing to talk straight and loud with the media.

Speaking with LifeSiteNews.com on his reaction to the gay ‘marriage’ bill’s passage, Rev. Emmanuel said he felt “Outrage at the audacity of this Prime Minister to stand there on the podium after the vote and preach to us about human rights. The great fraud in all of this is that it had nothing to do with human rights, it has to do with the normalization of homosexuality and the destruction of the institution of marriage.” That kind of straight talk from a religious leader is a welcome change in Canada where political correctness seems the cat that has got the tongues of most spiritual leaders.

“Certainly there is disappointment in the fact that we lost this battle,” said Emmanuel. “However, I’m more convinced than ever that this isn’t over. Paul Martin and the federal Liberal government may feel that now that this battle over we’ll go back to being quiet. But we have demonstrated successfully in the course of this year . . . We’re beginning to see more aggressive, more intelligent, more savvy and more politically engaged activity on the part of Christians. Christians now realize we can’t sit back and do nothing. We have lost this round but by no means is this the time to pack it in and go away.”

The pastor who organized the marriage rally in Toronto which drew thousands says emphatically, “If people call me a one-issue person, I don’t care.” He clarifies, “I’m not a one-issue person but when you think about it the issue of marriage is worth defending and focussing energy on. Just like the issue of life, they are all linked anyway, you can’t split them up, they are a package deal.”

In a parting thought he adds, “Cynicism is not a Christian virtue. Too many Christians today, justify cynicism and thus justify indifference. We believe God is in control. We need to have a positive outlook. We have example after example of saints who have had to endure hardship but still have a positive attitude and keep working for Him.”
 
Chronology of Legislative and Judicial Activist Path Same-Sex “Marriage” in Canada

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05063004.html


OTTAWA, June 29, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The following chronology traces Canada’s legislative and judicial activist path to Tuesday’s landmark passage of Bill C-38, the Liberal government’s same-sex “marriage” legislation.

In 1969, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, claiming, “The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation,” declares sodomy legal.
[http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/oct/001003a.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/oct/001003a.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/oct/001003a.html)

In 1999, the Canadian House of Commons votes 216-55 in favour of enshrining the traditional definition of marriage as “one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” See [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/jun/99060801.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/jun/99060801.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/jun/99060801.html)

In 2000, the federal government passes the homosexual omnibus legislation Bill C-23, affording homosexual unions near legal equality with marriage by a vote of 174-72. See [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/apr/00041201.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/apr/00041201.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/apr/00041201.html)

In May, 2003, B.C. Court of Appeal Justice Kenneth J. Smith rules that laws outlawing homosexual marriage are discriminatory, ordering Ottawa to rewrite federal law to say: “The lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others,” eliminating any reference to “man” and “woman.” See [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/may/03050101.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/may/03050101.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/may/03050101.html)

June 10, 2003 – The Ontario Court of Appeal rewrites Ontario’s marriage law to allow same-sex “marriage,” reformulating the definition of marriage as “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others.” See: [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jun/03061002.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jun/03061002.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jun/03061002.html) Ontario Court of Appeal Chief Justice Roy McMurtry issued the ruling along with Justice Eileen Gillese and Justice James MacPherson. See [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jun/03061101.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jun/03061101.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jun/03061101.html)

continued…
 
July 2003 – Then-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien unveils unprecedented legislation stating, “Marriage for civil purposes is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others,” but rather than introduce the legislation for a vote in parliament, refers the same-sex “marriage” question to the Supreme Court of Canada. See [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071701.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071701.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071701.html) See also: Outgoing Prime Minister Chretien Finds His Own Betrayal of Catholic Faith Unbelievable, [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03111402.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03111402.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03111402.html) and Prime Minister’s “Eternal Salvation is in Jeopardy” Says Canadian Bishop, [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03073101.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03073101.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03073101.html)

December 9, 2004 – The Supreme Court of Canada hands down a unanimous 9-0 opinion on the reference questions on same-sex “marriage,” giving the legal green light for the government’s stated intention to introduce same-sex marriage legislation. See [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/dec/04120901.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/dec/04120901.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/dec/04120901.html)

February 2, 2005 – Liberals under Paul Martin introduce Bill C-38 to legalize same-sex “marriage” for Canada. See http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05020106.html

continued…
 
February 24, 2005 – The Ontario Legislature passes, by voice vote, Bill 171, which further enshrines same-sex marriage in Ontario law. Premier Dalton McGuinty proposes the move to change 73 provincial statutes, to introduce gender-neutral language that otherwise refers to wives and husbands. See [lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05022408.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05022408.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05022408.html)

May 4, 2005 – Canadian House passes second reading of Bill C-38, 164-137. See [lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05050414.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05050414.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05050414.html)

June 28, 2005 – Canadian parliament gives final approval to same-sex “marriage” Bill C-38. See [lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062811.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062811.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062811.html) The only remaining technicality is formal approval from the Liberal-held Senate, expected by mid-late July.

See how every MP voted on C-38
[campaignlifecoalition.com/fedvotes/C-38…](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/fedvotes/C-38.htm>http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/fedvotes/C-38…)

See LifeSiteNews.com Defence of Marriage page
[lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/>http://www.lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/)
 
This is what I sent to the BBC:

“This is a bad turn of events. Marriage and sex, as the religious side has always seen it, is PRIMARILY for the procreation of children. And the purpose of heterosexual parents is so the child can grow in an environment with both a male and female influence over them. Homosexuals cannot have children, and same sex parenting doesn’t provide the nuturing nor environment where a child can grow up to recieve and respect both male and females. This call for ‘equality’ makes marriage completely unequal. Equality doesn’t mean we are identical. Gays had ALL the same rights as heterosexuals, and the religious didn’t have much concern over civil unions. All this is about, is some desperate attempt by homosexuals and their advocates to force people to accept them and falsely feel they are legitimized by changing the definition. It is a laughable delusion. Religious people and organizations are already being persecuted due to these ‘hate laws’ which are without foundation. If the trend turns out like in Scandanavia and other north European countries who’d legalized same sex marriage awhile ago, then this entails that more people will not marry, prefering to co-habitate or not marry at all, and more children will be born out of wedlock and many be in single parent homes. Already this trend is starting in Quebec. It spells the end of marriage altogether. Indeed now that procreation is fully removed from sex, and premarital sex is rampant, what legitamacy does traditional marriage hold to this current world? Might as well abolish it altogether. Marriage has died. It is a sad day.”
 
Ani Ibi, looks like we get the same news reports! Do you get them in email also, or do you go to the site?
40.png
jdnation:
This is what I sent to the BBC:

“This is a bad turn of events. Marriage and sex, as the religious side has always seen it, is PRIMARILY for the procreation of children. And the purpose of heterosexual parents is so the child can grow in an environment with both a male and female influence over them. Homosexuals cannot have children, and same sex parenting doesn’t provide the nuturing nor environment where a child can grow up to recieve and respect both male and females. This call for ‘equality’ makes marriage completely unequal. Equality doesn’t mean we are identical. Gays had ALL the same rights as heterosexuals, and the religious didn’t have much concern over civil unions. All this is about, is some desperate attempt by homosexuals and their advocates to force people to accept them and falsely feel they are legitimized by changing the definition. It is a laughable delusion. Religious people and organizations are already being persecuted due to these ‘hate laws’ which are without foundation. If the trend turns out like in Scandanavia and other north European countries who’d legalized same sex marriage awhile ago, then this entails that more people will not marry, prefering to co-habitate or not marry at all, and more children will be born out of wedlock and many be in single parent homes. Already this trend is starting in Quebec. It spells the end of marriage altogether. Indeed now that procreation is fully removed from sex, and premarital sex is rampant, what legitamacy does traditional marriage hold to this current world? Might as well abolish it altogether. Marriage has died. It is a sad day.”
Bravo for sending in to the BBC! Hopefully they start paying attention to us!
 
I’m sorry if I’m off topic but I would like to comment on the thread Name, ”Gay Marriage”…Let’s see if I can keep all this straight…

The word “gay” was stolen without a fight. One day we just asked “Huh?? I thought that happy word was already taken…but we can’t sound ignorant right?- so step aside gay, as in “all were merry and gay!”

The word “sex” was altered, to include every imaginable perversion; including “sodomy”.

For “marriage”, Hollywood really helped cheapen that. But the leap from “husband and wife” to “temporary man and temporary woman” seems minor compared to “temporary man and temporary man”.

The Church has no problem with two people of the same gender living as brothers or sisters. It’s just that sex is reserved for the married - not for homosexual or heterosexual singles.

So keeping the traditional definitions, I get this:

“Honored societal institution of homosexual temporary partners who sodomize” – yuck!, I guess they can still ride on the coat tails of the words “gay marriage”.
 
Lost&Found:
I’m sorry if I’m off topic but I would like to comment on the thread Name, ”Gay Marriage”…Let’s see if I can keep all this straight…

The word “gay” was stolen without a fight. One day we just asked “Huh?? I thought that happy word was already taken…but we can’t sound ignorant right?- so step aside gay, as in “all were merry and gay!”

The word “sex” was altered, to include every imaginable perversion; including “sodomy”.

For “marriage”, Hollywood really helped cheapen that. But the leap from “husband and wife” to “temporary man and temporary woman” seems minor compared to “temporary man and temporary man”.

The Church has no problem with two people of the same gender living as brothers or sisters. It’s just that sex is reserved for the married - not for homosexual or heterosexual singles.

So keeping the traditional definitions, I get this:

“Honored societal institution of homosexual temporary partners who sodomize” – yuck!, I guess they can still ride on the coat tails of the words “gay marriage”.
I don’t like using the word gay in its present context. To me it will always mean happy, merriment, and cheerfulness. Whenever I see the word gay used in the homosexual context I think “active homosexual” or the like. But I am somewhat pleased with dictionary.com’s definition of the word, despite the present context being included:
  1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
  2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
  3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
  4. Given to social pleasures.
  5. **Dissolute; licentious.
    **
 
40.png
Aureole:
Ani Ibi, looks like we get the same news reports! Do you get them in email also, or do you go to the site?

Bravo for sending in to the BBC! Hopefully they start paying attention to us!
BBC is the home of anti-Catholics. The news coverage is so unashamedly biassed and their message boards so overflowing with illiteracy and religious bigotry that it is hardly worth the time to click a link.
 
Ani Ibi:
BBC is the home of anti-Catholics. The news coverage is so unashamedly biassed and their message boards so overflowing with illiteracy and religious bigotry that it is hardly worth the time to click a link.
I wouldn’t doubt that for a second, but some must invade the base of the enemy to capture a few soldiers.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Which doesn’t explain why decorated homosexuals who want to remain in the Service are usually forced out anyway.
Your comment has nothing to do with the fact that there is a homosexual agenda movement that also happens to be anti-military action.

Not to get too graphic or way off topic but do you think it is appropriate for homosexual men to live closely with other men in positions of dress and undress? Should men be allowed in the women’s locker rooms and vice versa?
40.png
Richardols:
Just like those with the pro-lifers’ agenda aren’t interested in patriotism either, right?
Nope. Vast majority of pro-lifers are extremely patriotic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top