|
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Unless heterosexuals or religious organizations can demonstrate that gay marriage explicitly infringes upon or detracts from their own rights...I don't see a legal case for pushing for "civil unions" over marriage.
|
oh but it does...
When the GG signs the bill, not only will the husband-wife relationship be destroyed, so will the PARENT-CHILD relationship.
Husbands and wives, and parents and children will no longer be related by natural or common law. Instead, there will only be civil "legal" relationships. In other words, your son is only your son because the state says he is, NOT because he is your blood relative. Your wife is only your wife because the state says she is, NOT because you were joined in a matrimonial union. Traditional marriage AND traditional parentage are DEAD.
More here:
http://www.enshrinemarriage.ca/english/comment6.aspx
Adscam no swindle next to C-38
By DOUGLAS FARROW
June 16, 2005
Procreation is not among the definitive goods of the institution of marriage, right? It once was, but we’ve abandoned all that. If same-sex marriage is to be an equality right, procreation can’t be one of marriage’s basic, indispensable goods. Marriage isn’t about children anymore. As the Bloc MP, Réal Ménard, put it in the recent parliamentary hearings, it’s “stone-age” thinking to connect marriage to children.
Okay, so what’s with the “consequential amendments” in Bill C-38? (These should not be confused with the largely inconsequential amendments to C-38 that are presently before Parliament.) Why are there several sections of the bill inserting into Canadian laws the concept of “legal parent” and “legal parent-child relationship,” where once these laws referred to “natural parent” and “natural parent-child relationship”?
The answer is this. In order to make gays equal to straights (so the argument goes) same-sex unions have to be made equal to heterosexual unions. That’s what same-sex marriage is all about. But how can they be equal when heterosexual unions produce children? Easy! For civil purposes, strip heterosexual couples of their natural relationship to their children (even their “blood relationship,” another term C-38 removes) and give them back instead a legal relationship, something assigned not by nature but by the state. A legal relationship can just as easily be given to homosexual couples who happen to want children around, presuming of course that they can procure children by one means or another.
There, everybody’s equal now! What’s more, natural parents will not be able to challenge legal parents as to the ownership of a child or demand right of access. Indeed, in some jurisdictions (Quebec, for example) even a child’s birth certificate may be made to show only the legal parents and not the natural parents. Little Pierre has two moms – look, his birth certificate says so.
Funny thing, though. It seems that marriage is somehow about children after all. First we say it’s not, because it can’t be if we want homosexual unions to be strictly on a par with heterosexual unions. Then we say that it is, by demanding for same-sex couples the exact same “parental” status and rights as heterosexual couples. I shouldn’t doubt that the next thing that will happen is that some enterprising homosexual couple will insist that Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which links “the right to marry and to found a family,” implies that they are entitled to the state’s help to procure a child by whatever means necessary. And while we’re paying the bills for the new little clone, or whatever the unfortunate child is, no one will even notice that we took procreation out of marriage in order to permit same-sex marriage, only to bring it back in again as soon as we had same-sex marriage.
Well, some might notice it. But they would not yet have noticed the really important thing. I mean the real price Canadians are paying for same-sex marriage: the handing over of our natural rights to our own children, and of our children’s natural rights to us.
C-38 implies that the state is no longer obligated to recognize these rights. From now on parent-child relationships will be at the state’s discretion. For, in redefining marriage, the state has also found it necessary to redefine “parent” and “family” and “parent-child relationship.” Under C-38, all of these become legal constructs. Marriage and family become creatures of the state. Not something prior to the state that the state is obliged to recognize and respect – the whole purpose and intent of Article 16 – but something at the disposal of the state.
Why are Canadians willing to pay this price? Could it be because they don’t know that they are paying it? Because they haven’t bothered to read the fine print? One thing is clear. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister haven’t bothered to point it out to them. Nor have the lawyers at the Justice Department or the judges in our highest courts. Nor yet the “equal marriage” advocates, inside or outside the House of Commons. All have insisted that C-38 has no price attached to it worth speaking of.
But C-38 is arguably the greatest swindle in Canadian history. A thousand Adscams could never add up to anything like it. What’s a few millions.against our very birthright? What’s a few billions against the foundations of our freedom? From here on we are our children’s parents, and our parents’ children, only at the good pleasure of the state.
Think I’m kidding? Just watch what happens to those who insist on teaching their children that the state has no such authority as it pretends to exercise in C-38, and that same sex-marriage is not marriage at all, just a legal fiction. That is what I intend to teach my children, and anyone else who will listen, as I said to the Legislative Committee on C-38 when I addressed it last week. I’ll let you know how it goes.
___________________
 Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.
|
Unless heterosexuals or religious organizations can demonstrate that gay marriage explicitly infringes upon or detracts from their own rights...I don't see a legal case for pushing for "civil unions" over marriage.
