The struggle for "gay marriage" is over in Canada. It was over before it started.

The decision to allow persons other than "a man and a woman" to marry was supported by the usual prolix, amateur-hour riff of a judgment on "equality rights," in this case from the Court of Appeal for Ontario -- unworthy of rebuttal, for it simply ignored opposing arguments, and any inconvenient
implications in law. It did not even bother to distinguish corporate from individual persons, in rewriting the common law. Yet for all its huge consequences to our lives and morals, it was made in the way all important decisions are now made in Canada.

A provincial court makes a ruling on a test case, that has been organized by the left-liberal legal establishment to perfectly suit its needs. This court then takes the bait, overturning centuries of organic judicial and legislative development, in a single stroke. The federal government -- which is to say, the Liberal Party of Canada -- pretends it will appeal this, while looking at the polls. If the coast is clear, they drop the idea and announce a surrender immediately. If it isn't, they proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada with an appeal that is bound to lose -- given a high bench stacked with left-liberal law-school mediocrities -- thus taking the rest of the wind out of the sails of any conservative opposition. Meanwhile, they themselves, and the progressive media, beat a continuous drum roll over dissident voices, declaring the latest stunt to be an "inevitable" part of the "evolution of society," and slandering all opponents as scary dark.

 We now have poll results to show that Canadians back "gay marriage" by a fair margin in most regions. (There was a radical shift over the past few years, from massive opposition everywhere.) Look back over the polls, and you find a series of dubiously phrased poll questions. The usual trick is to ask the key, headline-getting question right after an invisible, no-headline one. In this case: "Do you think homosexuals should have equal rights with heterosexuals in Canada?" The respondent is hard-pressed to answer "no" to that, and then feels he will be contradicting himself if he says "no" to homosexual marriage a second later. In this jury-rigging way, an illusion is created of democracy at work. Whereas no one ever spent more than a moment thinking about the issue, as he would feel bound to do if there were a
proper election or referendum.

This is the "glib" in my portmanteau word, "gliberalism": Results are obtained by keeping public debate on the airhead level. Laws and the public morals they help sustain, built over centuries of painful trial and error, can be subverted and inverted in a trice of public inattention.

The whole idea of a responsible government is that it must answer to the public will -- something deeper than the latest poll results. The courts in such a system do not make law, but apply it. For even a court creating a precedent must found that precedent in principles previously established. Parliament alone is the legitimate source of legal innovations, for that is where a governing party will stand or fall on what it does, and where future governing parties may correct a disastrous mistake.

Quite terrible corruption follows from the loss of that clear principle --when governments decide they haven't the guts to make hard decisions, and leave them all to be made by the courts. Still, life goes on, for very few single, irreversible decisions have the power to demolish the political order. They only do incidental cumulative damage. Eventually, however, weakened by one hit after another, the
political order does come down.

Let me explain how this must happen in Canada, a country with an unrevolutionary people but with a Constitution that now engulfs it in perpetual revolution.

This was the genius of Trudeau's "patriation" of the British North America Act in 1982. He got his Charter of Rights and Freedoms embedded in it -- by the British Parliament, since it couldn't be done here. He also embedded an amendment formula that requires the complete support of the federal and all
provincial governments for the duration of three years to make any change, no matter how inconsequential. The "three years" was the ingenious part -- at least one of those governments must itself change in that time.

Therefore -- as Meech Lake proved -- the Canadian Constitution became unamendable, but with Trudeau's Charter now on-board. In order to change any part of it, one must now overturn the whole thing. In the case of Meech Lake, the specific measures could be killed by just one member, talking out
the clock in the Manitoba legislature -- even after all 10 premiers and the prime minister had agreed and held their agreement for the required three years: a stupendous and unrepeatable achievement of pure negotiation, no matter what you thought of the Meech Lake agreement itself.

The Reform/Alliance opposition has never fully got this: that any constitutional proposal will go the way of Meech Lake. Its talk, about e.g. Senate reform, is thus completely airy-fairy. It can't be done, so long as
Prince Edward Island is willing to stand, even for a moment, in the way (and P.E.I. is not the only province that ever had a vested interest in a status quo).

It is thanks to this unamendable 1982 Constitution, that the courts now rule Canada. It took them more than a decade to discover how much power Trudeau's Charter had given them, and taken away from Parliament; but they did finally figure it out, and are now driving an endless revolutionary agenda, from
Canada's madrasas -- our radical law schools. Some of us warned this would happen back in 1982. The cart of history rolled over us.

Yes, Canada is going to hell in a handcart. But not just any handcart. It is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, pulled by the ghost of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

 © Copyright  2003 National Post