"One Vote Does Make a Difference!"

September 17, 2003

137 to 132.  The votes of just three MPs prevented Parliament from adopting the following motion this week:  “That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” 

Both sides of this controversial issue should take note of those 30 MPs who ducked the vote on the Canadian Alliance motion.  Each and every one of their votes would have made a difference in not only defining marriage, but making a statement about political integrity in this country. 

With the exception of 53 Liberal MPs who voted in favour of the motion, the federal Liberal government made it clear that it’s word, even if it’s backed by a parliamentary vote, means nothing!  Just four years ago, the Liberals overwhelmingly supported a Canadian Alliance motion that was virtually identical to the one debated this week.  The Liberal excuse for their parliamentary flip-flip is “society has evolved”.  In just four short years?!  

Why should Canadians believe Paul Martin and the rest of the Liberals who changed their minds and voted to support gay marriage, when they now promise to protect religious freedoms?  What will happen when the first legal challenge is launched against a religious group by a homosexual couple whose request to marry within a church or mosque has been refused?  Why should Canadians believe that Mr. Martin and his government won’t once again capitulate and choose homosexual rights over religious freedoms?

In reality, this debate has not been about “equal rights”, “human rights”, or any other kind of rights, for it is already against the law to discriminate against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. 

This debate was about the homosexual community breaking down the last bastion of the exclusive heterosexual community … that being the use of the term marriage to describe a union between a man and a woman.  It was, and is, about attempting to gain the ultimate societal recognition, acceptance and legitimacy. 

The homosexual community believes that if they can win the “right” to call their unions marriages, then society and future generations will accept their lifestyle as a true alternative.  Future generations will then grow up believing there is nothing immoral or unacceptable about the homosexual union … there can’t be, otherwise why would society recognize it as exactly the same as a heterosexual union by calling them both “marriages”! 

Although I did not have one of the few speaking slots available during the debate, I did rise during questions and comments to use an analogy to describe why I believe the two different types of relationships are not, and never will be, the same. 

I don’t personally care, and I don’t believe that government should care either, what goes on behind the closed door of the homes of two consenting adults.  So long as they are both consenting and both adults.  But I do care, and believe society cares and therefore our government must care to protect the age-old definition of marriage for future generations of Canadians.