Judges in three of Canada’s most populous provinces have decreed that it is discriminatory to bar same-sex couples from getting “married.” It is now legal in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario for homosexuals to marry. It is significant that the decision was largely reached on the basis of according the same rights to homosexual pairs as are presently enjoyed by heterosexuals. The mantra of the justices has been, “Discrimination must be abolished.”
But is discrimination really the issue, or is there something else at work behind the scenes? Ideally and logically, one would seek to resolve a debate on the basis of the precise meaning of words. But, I guarantee that no Canadian judge found any dictionary in the world that supports the contention that marriage includes same-sex pairs. Marriage since the dawn of recorded history has always, without exception, been defined as a male and female coming together in contractual union. Furthermore, natural law, cultural customs and morals going back literally thousands of years give no support whatsoever to the idea that traditional marriage discriminates against homosexuals. So, if words and cultural constructs mean anything, it is impossible to conceive that intelligent judges could conclude that the word “marriage” includes same-sex couples. Hmmm, it appears there is something else at work here.
Since there is no logical basis to suddenly discover discrimination in the ancient institution of marriage, we must conclude that the justices reached their decision on some other basis. And there is no doubt that they did. Does anyone really doubt that they were influenced beforehand by political correctness and the desire to socially re-construct Canadian society? Accordingly, with a stroke of the pen, they mounted a cultural coup d’etat by arbitrarily changing the meaning of the word “marriage.” To be sure, they dressed up their judgement in human rights language, but their a priori decision was to redefine marriage.
Ironically, while the decision of the judges to redefine marriage was based on fighting supposed discrimination against a minority, their judgment will prove profoundly discriminatory and offensive in a number of ways to a majority of Canadians.
From time immemorial, virtually all religions have considered homosexual behavior as immoral. But the judiciary has, in effect, turned virtue on its head by baptizing what millions of Canadians have always considered outside the pale. By granting immoral behaviour the sacred status of marriage, the courts offend millions of Canadians who believe otherwise. One could add here that this decision rages against God himself. After all, these court decisions implicitly teach that God was guilty of discrimination by not including an “Adam and Steve” in the original model for marriage.
Every heterosexual couple in Canada will be a victim of discrimination if the government continues in its plan. For homosexual “marriage” can only ever be a mirage compared to the real thing. Even as counterfeit money debases the value of real money in any economy, so too, homosexual marriage will debase the value of the real thing in Canadian society. Furthermore, the redefinition will not cease, but soon other forms of “marriage” will in turn have to be recognized, which will further devalue true marriage.
The court decision will legislate into being a systemic discrimination against every child brought into the custody of a homosexual union. For every such child will be denied the right to have a mom or a dad. To be sure, marriage breakdown among heterosexual couples as well leads to this type of tragedy. But, in the case of legitimized homosexual “marriage,” it will lead to inevitable discrimination against children planned in advance.
Furthermore, government-sanctioned same-sex “marriage” will economically discriminate against millions of Canadians who use the public school system. Does anyone doubt that teachers will be forced by law to instruct that traditional and homosexual “marriage” are equivalent? Many Christians, as well as adherents of other religious faiths, will no longer be able to send their children to schools whose teachings undermine the faith of both the children and parents. Parents will be forced to put their children in private schools, often at great economic hardship to themselves.
In a democracy, the government rules with the consent of the governed. But, who gave the Canadian judiciary the right to arbitrarily change the meaning of words that define our most sacred institutions? Indeed, who are the Canadians who consented to become victims of systemic discrimination in their own country?
