Same-sex ‘marriage’
Without a doubt, the biggest news story of 2003 is the June 10 Ontario Superior Court decision granting marriage rights to homosexual couples. This decision, in which three judges ignored millennia of tradition and replaced the law with their personal wishes, has serious implications for the family, our society, national politics and the future of our democracy.
The first and most obvious is the assault on the traditional family, the foundational institution in any society. By redefining marriage to include homosexuals, society is no longer saying that marriage is primarily about procreation and the raising of children. From now on, we are told, society will view marriage primarily as being about self-fulfillment, altering what is a selfless and future-looking institution into a narcissistic pact that looks no farther than the two individuals involved.
The consequences for society are dire. What happens when the best institution for raising children comes under assault and its uniqueness is challenged? What message is sent to mother-and-father headed families when the laws of our country say that marriage is primarily about the affection partners have for one another, and not the responsibilities those partners have for their children? It was said during debates on the liberalization of divorce law in the 1960s that changing the “exit conditions” would have no effect on families. Such claims have proven to be egregiously wrong. The claim that altering the “entrance conditions” (to include homosexuals) will not affect the traditional family is clearly just as preposterous.
The June 10 decision has led to a national political debate. Whether it was an opposition motion attempting to have Parliament commit itself to the traditional definition of marriage, or the widespread and inspirational witness of traditionally minded, religious and other defenders of marriage in rallies, prayer groups and other demonstrations across this country, the same-sex “marriage” decision has convulsed this nation, forcing the public to think about what marriage is. The issue of same-sex “marriage” will surely haunt those who hope to hide from it in the upcoming federal election.
Lastly, the decision raises serious concerns about whether or not Canada is a democracy. The judiciary increasingly decides an ever-growing number of issues that are the prerogative of legislatures. The rights of democratically elected legislatures, religious organizations and the family itself are being trampled by the judocracy.
C-13
What has been called the worst piece of legislation since the federal government passed the omnibus bill legalizing abortion on demand in 1969 was passed by the House of Commons Oct. 28, 2003. C-13, the government’s reproductive and experimental technologies legislation, if passed by the Senate, will allow human cloning, the creation of human clones (despite the government’s insistence that it doesn’t), surrogate motherhood, the mixing of human and animal genes, the harvesting of sperm and ova from corpses and numerous other immoral practices. The government gave a draft to the Standing Health Committee in May 2001, but the legislation was not passed until 29 months later, in large part due to the efforts of pro-life MPs who tried to correct the legislation’s numerous flaws, and the pressure pro-life voters put on their elected officials. It was only after a deal with the NDP on the make-up of a new reprotech regulatory body, that C-13 was safely brought to a vote. It passed 149-109, with most of the opposition rooted in pro-life reasons. The Senate will probably consider the bill early this year. C-13, if it becomes law, would open a Pandora’s Box of assaults on the sanctity of human life, of which the destruction of hundreds of thousands of embryonic human beings is only the start.
Terri Schiavo
The case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, an incapacitated Florida woman whose husband had won the legal right to starve her to death, has caught the media’s attention. Videos of Terri clearly tracking another individual in a room while a video camera recorded her movements have demonstrated that Michael Schiavo’s claim his wife is in a “vegetative state” beyond remedy is patently untrue. That video became a “hit” on the internet. After a Florida court ruled that Terri could be starved to death, hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens took to their computers and urged the state legislature and Governor Jeb Bush to take action to save Terri’s life. A last minute reprieve from Bush had forced feeding tubes to be re-inserted, more than one week after the starvation began. The battle for Terri’s life continues, but this case proved that the internet is an effective tool for political activism.
Partial-birth abortion ban
On Nov. 5, President George W. Bush signed legislation that banned partial-birth abortion. The procedure involves almost completely delivering a baby except the very top of his head, having a scissor-like instrument thrust into the back of the skull and having the brain sucked out. This procedure is essentially infanticide and virtually all third-trimester babies killed this way are viable. Former president Bill Clinton had vetoed the bill twice. Bush made it a priority and Congress obliged. Before he was finished signing the law, courts in Nebraska, New York and California issued injunctions to prevent it from being enforced. Decisions on the ban’s constitutionality are expected in early 2004. Regardless, the debate has had positive effects. The Washington Times has editorialized that the partial-birth abortion debate has forced the public to consider the issue of abortion and the humanity of the child in the womb, leading just 23 per cent of Americans to think that abortion should be “legal under any circumstances.” If nothing else, this grisly practice of infanticide will end.
