Essays: 2. How Changing the Definition of Marriage Threatens Our Youth
Thousands in Canada rallied in defence of marriage, sensing that we had come to some sort of crossroads over this issue. Canadians had reason to be concerned. The debate over the definition of marriage is more than academic. It is virtually certain that those who have lobbied for same-sex “marriage” will insist that schools be compelled to portray such homosexual unions as marriages, equal in every way to traditional marriages. Already, prior to Parliament's changing the legal definition of marriage, the Supreme Court of Canada had in effect, in the case of Chamberlain versus the Surrey School Board, ordered the favourable portrayal of families headed by same-sex couples.
If the highest court in the land could find a mandate for such a favourable portrayal when there was not a sentence in law giving them actual approval, how much easier it will be to justify ordering that teachers present those unions as actual marriage when by the authority of the state same-sex couples have been declared to be married.
When on May 1st of 2003 the Appeals Court of British Columbia ruled that same-sex couples could be married, the reactions of homosexual couples to that ruling revealed a good deal about the reason for the big push for same-sex “marriage.” 1 For example, one couple (according to The Globe and Mail*) said they were “. . . pleased that the court recognized the equality of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.” One of the partners said, “Hopefully, having equality will give the message to society that this is okay, that this is not something wrong, deviant, scary or evil. These are just loving relationships, with all their flaws and imperfections . . . that any other relationship has.” 2 In other words, this couple hailed the decision of the BC Appeals Court endorsing same-sex “marriage” because the law is a teacher, and they wanted it to teach approval of their particular type of relationship. That approval was given by courts in Ontario and British Columbia, and was given by the parliament of Canada when it passed a law stating that same-sex couples can be married.
Of course the Canadian public should realize that Canada is a country where there has been no bar to homosexual relationships. And those in such relationships who wanted to, had nothing to stop them from staging their own ceremonies and proclaiming that their unions were marriages without getting a certificate from the government. Anyone can say an apple is an orange or that a sow’s ear is a silk purse. But they should not be able to force others to applaud. What the pro-homosexuality activists wanted was to have the government on behalf of all of us put its stamp of approval on their unions. And that is something government should not have done.
There is a frightening spirit of totalitarianism evident in the pro-homosexuality movement. This spirit would lead them to force upon the children of objecting parents a program of propaganda that presents homosexual behaviour as just another alternative life-style—even an attractive alternative lifestyle. Parents whose morality forbids homosexuality and parents who are concerned about the medical consequences of homosexual behaviour, and citizens who care about parental rights have a responsibility to say “No” to this totalitarian movement before it is too late.
We should realize that a very predictable result of the recognition of same-sex marriage will be further pressure for the indoctrination of the young in the schools of our land. We have no right to stand idly by as this happens. One good reason for opposing the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage was the fact that we have a responsibility to the children and youth of this country. That is a good reason for continuing to oppose it and for taking steps to guard the youth of Canada against the consequences of that recognition now that it has come about.
1 This and the next paragraph are adapted from the essay entitled “Activists for Same-Sex Marriage Want Not Tolerance` But a Stamp of Approval.” The essay has been published on the BCPTL website “Marriage” page.
2 Quoted in The Globe and Mail, May 2, 2003, Section A, P. 4, "We know it does make a difference.”