| The By Rory Leishman |
||
|
Following
the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal to overturn the historic definition
of a legal marriage, Liberal MP John McKay pointed to the obvious conclusion:
"We apparently have judge-made law in this country, and we're just
here for decoration." McKay
is right. Why, then, do most Canadians still think Nothing
better illustrates this judicial subversion of democracy than the gay-marriage
dispute. In 1999 and again in 2000, an overwhelming majority of the Commons
affirmed that, "marriage is and should remain the union of one man
and one woman to the exclusion of all others." Among the backers
of these motions were Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Justice Minister Martin
Cauchon and the Liberal leadership candidates Paul Martin and John Manley. In
brazen defiance of these parliamentary declarations, a three-judge panel
of the Instead
of denouncing this judicial attack on the authority of Parliament, Cauchon
asked McKay and his colleagues on the Justice Committee to revisit the
issue of gay marriage. To this end, the Committee has criss-crossed the
country for the past three months, holding public hearings. Hundreds of
Canadians showed up to express their feelings about marriage for gay and
lesbian couples. All
these efforts were a complete waste. On Tuesday, just as the Committee
was preparing its report for the Commons, a three-judge panel of the Ontario
Court of Appeal flouted the democratic process, by unilaterally reformulating
the legal definition of marriage as, "the voluntary union for life
of two persons to the exclusion of all others," and ordering the
Registrar General for Ontario to issue marriage licences to gay and lesbian
couples. If
Canada were still a genuine parliamentary democracy, our MPs would have
responded to such a scandalous affront to their rights, by instructing
the speaker of the Commons to bring the judicial culprits before the Bar
of the House on charges of contempt. As it is, Parliament should at least
promptly rewrite the traditional definition of marriage into law and invoke
section 33 of the Charter to declare that this law shall operate notwithstanding
the court-imposed equality rights for homosexuals in section 15. Appealing
to the Supreme Court of Canada for a definitive ruling on gay marriage
will accomplish nothing. Like their counterparts on the Ontario Court
of Appeal, the judge-politicians on Nonetheless,
the Commons Justice Committee is planning to hold hearings on Bill C-250,
legislation introduced by New Democratic Party MP Svend Robinson that
would stifle even reasonable debate on homosexual issues, by including
sexual orientation in the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code.
Why is the Committee wasting its time on this bill? Why do the honourable
members persist in a charade of law-making when it's clear that no matter
what our elected representatives in Parliament might prefer, the Supreme
Court of Canada is bound sooner or later to read sexual orientation into
the hate-propaganda law on its own? Meanwhile,
the Ontario Court of Appeal insists its ruling,
"is not about the religious validity or invalidity of various forms
of marriage." Coming from our ideologically driven courts, such assurances
are worthless. McKay has good reason to warn: "As sure as God made
little green apples, gay activists will take clergy to court if they refuse
to marry gay couples." Clergy
who refuse to conform their thinking to the corrupt pattern of the world
should take heed: If they do not soon bow down to the courts and embrace
the judge-imposed orthodoxy of gay rights, they could end up in jail as
prisoners of conscience. Rory Leishman |
||