Bill 208
I've read a few editorials lately about the issue of same-sex marriage in Alberta. For those unfamiliar, Ted Morton, rookie MLA and PC leadership contender, had tabled a private members bill which was essentially designed to protect those civil servants and other public figures who objected to the principles of same-sex marriage. Due primarily to stalling techniques by the opposition parties, the bill was quietly killed.
In response to a column by Graham Thomson with the Edmonton Journal, Mr. Morton offers this response which appears in today's edition of the paper. Normally I try to avoid making lengthy posts, but I found the response intriguing to say the least.
=====
Same-sex marriage: a human right?
Thomson would have us believe that same-sex marriage is "a human right upheld by every court that has listened to arguments." That would be every Canadian court.
The English High Court refused to recognize the "made-in-Canada" marriage of two British women because to do so would violate "long-standing definition and acceptance . . . and fail to recognize physical reality." The High Court of New Zealand and courts in New York and Washington also ruled that this was not a human-rights issue.
These decisions reflect the common sense that informed Tony Blair's Labour government to grant civil unions, not marriage, to gay couples. It explains why Australia's Liberal government enacted a Defense of Marriage Act in 2004, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
If Thomson were to look outside of Canada, he would see that Bill 208 and the majority of Albertans who support it are not the "homophobic knuckle-draggers," but are in the mainstream of other English speaking democracies.
If same-sex marriage were a basic human right, might we not expect to find it mentioned in basic human rights documents? It's not in Canada's charter of rights, the U.S Bill of Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, nor the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
It's not in these documents because same-sex marriage is not a human right. It's a social experiment - one that only five countries have adopted. Surely Canadians have a right to discuss - and to disagree - about how far down the road of this social experiment we want to go. Bill 208 protects the freedom of speech, allowing that public debate.
Thomson claims Bill 208 is "unconstitutional." Indeed, the opposite is the case: a government's failure to accomodate religious conscience can be found to violate the religious freedom guarantee of the charter.
The Supreme Court has ruled that if a province chooses to have Sunday-closing laws, it must make an exception for non-Christians to accomodate their religious practices. Similarly, the RCMP has been told to change its dress codes to accomodate the religious beliefs of Sikhs and aboriginals with respect to beards, turbans and long hair. Surely Alberta marriage commisioners are entitled to a similar accomodation. Bill 208 would protect this right of conscience, while still ensuring that there are other commissioners who can and will perform same-sex marriages.
I don't give a damn about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. What I do object is having this conduct taught to our children. If some parents want their children taught that the marriage of one man to another man is the same as the marriage of one man and one woman, that's their choice and I repsect it.
But other parents don't want thier children taught this, and they have an equal right to have their wishes respected.
Thomson ends by urging us to "move on to more important things." I, too, would like to move on to dealing with the pressing issues facing Alberta.
But the gay-rights activists refuse to "move on." Each new issue is the staging ground for the next. First we were assured that this was just about discrimination. Then it was about equal benefits for gay couples, but not marriage. Next, it was marriage. And now it's public education and state-enforced punsihment of any criticism.
Albertans are tolerant. We agree to disagree on many issues. Alberta is a live-and-let-live society, and Bill 208 is intended to keep it that way.
Ted Morton, MLA, Foothills-Rocky View
In response to a column by Graham Thomson with the Edmonton Journal, Mr. Morton offers this response which appears in today's edition of the paper. Normally I try to avoid making lengthy posts, but I found the response intriguing to say the least.
=====
Same-sex marriage: a human right?
Thomson would have us believe that same-sex marriage is "a human right upheld by every court that has listened to arguments." That would be every Canadian court.
The English High Court refused to recognize the "made-in-Canada" marriage of two British women because to do so would violate "long-standing definition and acceptance . . . and fail to recognize physical reality." The High Court of New Zealand and courts in New York and Washington also ruled that this was not a human-rights issue.
These decisions reflect the common sense that informed Tony Blair's Labour government to grant civil unions, not marriage, to gay couples. It explains why Australia's Liberal government enacted a Defense of Marriage Act in 2004, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
If Thomson were to look outside of Canada, he would see that Bill 208 and the majority of Albertans who support it are not the "homophobic knuckle-draggers," but are in the mainstream of other English speaking democracies.
If same-sex marriage were a basic human right, might we not expect to find it mentioned in basic human rights documents? It's not in Canada's charter of rights, the U.S Bill of Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, nor the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
It's not in these documents because same-sex marriage is not a human right. It's a social experiment - one that only five countries have adopted. Surely Canadians have a right to discuss - and to disagree - about how far down the road of this social experiment we want to go. Bill 208 protects the freedom of speech, allowing that public debate.
Thomson claims Bill 208 is "unconstitutional." Indeed, the opposite is the case: a government's failure to accomodate religious conscience can be found to violate the religious freedom guarantee of the charter.
The Supreme Court has ruled that if a province chooses to have Sunday-closing laws, it must make an exception for non-Christians to accomodate their religious practices. Similarly, the RCMP has been told to change its dress codes to accomodate the religious beliefs of Sikhs and aboriginals with respect to beards, turbans and long hair. Surely Alberta marriage commisioners are entitled to a similar accomodation. Bill 208 would protect this right of conscience, while still ensuring that there are other commissioners who can and will perform same-sex marriages.
I don't give a damn about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. What I do object is having this conduct taught to our children. If some parents want their children taught that the marriage of one man to another man is the same as the marriage of one man and one woman, that's their choice and I repsect it.
But other parents don't want thier children taught this, and they have an equal right to have their wishes respected.
Thomson ends by urging us to "move on to more important things." I, too, would like to move on to dealing with the pressing issues facing Alberta.
But the gay-rights activists refuse to "move on." Each new issue is the staging ground for the next. First we were assured that this was just about discrimination. Then it was about equal benefits for gay couples, but not marriage. Next, it was marriage. And now it's public education and state-enforced punsihment of any criticism.
Albertans are tolerant. We agree to disagree on many issues. Alberta is a live-and-let-live society, and Bill 208 is intended to keep it that way.
Ted Morton, MLA, Foothills-Rocky View
posted by Jason at 5:22 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home