Choices

February 16, 2005

How do I best convey to you, the constituents of Prince George-Peace River, the position I have taken on one of the most controversial issues ever to be addressed by Canada’s Parliament?

Before I continue, please allow me to unequivocally state that I intend to vote NO to Bill C-38, the federal Liberal government’s legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage.

Why? I considered listing some of the legal arguments, articles and research I’ve read on the subject. I could discuss constitutional history and legal precedence … and at some point in this debate, which is expected to last several weeks, I may.

For now, however, I want to discuss choices. As I’ve told my children ever since they were knee-high to a grasshopper … “life is all about choices.” It is the choices we make in life that determine our destiny.”

So it is for governments as well. The Liberals chose not to appeal a court ruling that declared the current definition of marriage unconstitutional. The Liberals chose not to support a Canadian Alliance motion in 2004 calling upon Parliament to re-affirm a commitment it made to a 1999 Reform Party of Canada motion vowing to defend the traditional definition of marriage.

Now, disastrously, for the preservation of freedom of religious expression in our country, Paul Martin has chosen to relegate the historical, ages-old traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, to the scrap heap of history.

Every Prime Minister strives to leave a legacy … being forever known as the executioner of traditional marriage and freedom of religious expression may be Paul Martin’s.

Mr. Martin contends the Supreme Court dictated the need to legalize same-sex marriage. Yet the Court not only refused to answer the federal government’s reference on the constitutionality of traditional marriage, but made it clear that it was up to Parliament to decide – to make a choice – on this important social policy matter.

The Liberals promise they can protect religious freedoms. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled the provision in the government’s draft legislation regarding the right of religious officials to refuse to perform gay marriages, is outside the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament.

The same government that at one time had fervently promised to uphold the traditional definition of marriage is now asking us to trust its promise to protect religious freedoms.

Mr. Martin claims he cannot maintain the traditional definition of marriage and preserve in law the rights and privileges of same-sex partnerships. He can. He has chosen not to. And no, he would not have to use the notwithstanding clause.

Parliament has the legal and constitutional jurisdiction to determine the future of marriage in Canada. It also has the power to ensure that same-sex relationships, be they called civil unions or partnerships, possess equivalent rights and privileges.

Mr. Martin has made a conscious choice to legalize same-sex marriage. He chose to threaten his MPs and the country with an election if they do not support him in a supposedly ‘free vote’ on the legislation. He made his choices. I’ve made mine … and some day soon you’ll be asked to make yours.

-30-