By Stephen Gray
One does not need to have a suspicious mind to realise the way so-called "same-sex marriage" has been imposed, shows that there is something rotten in our supposed democracy.
For instance, "Most Liberal MPs voted in June of 1999 in favour of a Reform Party motion, which passed 216-55 in the Commons, affirming the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman." ( National Post June 19,2003.) Yet today this madness called same-sex marriage is being imposed on the country by unelected judges despite the vote by our elected representatives opposing it. The question has to be asked: Why? Who are these lawyers now judges that are usurping the powers of our elected representatives and why are the politicians allowing it to happen?
There has to be a reason why 216 elected politicians who voted NO to this insanity in 1999 are not raising their voices in protest. Their silence is deafening. The National Post of June 19, 2003 said: "Liberal John McKay...vice-chairman of the justice committee...expressed doubt that there is enough opposition to defeat the legislation" that will be introduced on same-sex marriage. What has happened to the 216 No votes? Have they lost the courage of their convictions? Or is the homosexual lobby so powerful in the corridors of power that they have capitulated to them? Or do some politicians have a gay agenda? The National Post of June 13, 2003, said this about the Justice Minister, "Mr. Cauchon said he wants to consult with the federal Cabinet many of whom support gay and lesbian matrimony."
An editorial in the National Post of March 1, 2000, headlined "An open conspiracy" had a sub - headline saying "Justice Minister too close with gay lobby on same-sex marriages." The Justice Minister at that time was Anne McLellan. The editorial went on to say: "Yesterday, a committee of Parliament met to discuss Bill C-23, the Liberal proposal to give marriage-like benefits to homosexual couples. This is not a radical proposal for same-sex marriages - that has already happened, on April 23, 1998, to be precise, when Rosalie Abella an appeals court judge from Ontario decided to change the legal definition of ‘spouse’ so that it might describe one of two homosexuals living together. Judge Abella ruled that the government must start ‘acknowledging conjugal diversity.’" This is the same judge who lowered the age of consent to 14 years of age for sodomy. The editorial further stated: "This open conspiracy involving the courts, the Justice Department and the gay lobby is no figment of conservative paranoia..."
Equality for Gay And Lesbians Everywhere(EGALE) is mentioned in this editorial. And it is stated that the Justice Minister had ‘already agreed with EGALE to consult them before deciding whether or not to seek leave[to appeal].’ The editorial goes on to say: " EGALE simply told the minister what to do, and she did it." The Justice Minister at that time was Anne McLellan. The editorial concludes by saying about Ms. McLellan: "Her secretive collusion with EGALE - with whom she pretends to have an adversarial relationship in court - raises more than just political questions; it raises questions of ministerial ethics as well."
"The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is ‘the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.’ That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition."
Ann McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Hansard, June 8, 1999,
Ms. McLellan is also on the record as saying on June 8, 1999: "Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages."( Hansard June 8, 1999) Which raises the question, if the "government" had no intention of "changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages" why are they going to do it now? Were they lying to the people, but intending to legislate "same-sex marriage" at a later date? And now this date has arrived courtesy of the Courts. The Courts as usual are ruling the country: "Rulings favouring gay marriage in B.C. and Quebec have given Ottawa until July 2004, to change federal marriage law. This week, the Ontario Court of Appeal went further. Its judges not only declared Canada’s law unconstitutionally heterosexist, they redefined it in their own image - ‘the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of others’- effective immediately."( National Post, June 12, 2003.)
Homosexual marriage was now a fait accompli and the politicians sat back and agreed to obey the judicial dictators. In fact, according to the National Post of June 13, 2003: "A all-party parliamentary committee says Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister, should not appeal a landmark court decision this week legalizing same-sex marriage - a move that effectively would make gay matrimony the law of the land." Once again elected politicians pay homage to the unelected judges. And Chairman of the parliamentary justice committee, Andy Scott, had this to say on the subject: ‘I have been informed by a number of judgements from the courts.’ (National Post, June 13, 2003.) So all the people out there who made submissions to this committee on this insanity called "same-sex marriage," you could be forgiven for thinking this committee was really just a sham, for the Justice Committee was ‘informed by the courts.’ For as M.P. John McKay said in a letter to the editor of the National Post of June 14, 2003, "This week marriage was unilaterilly redefined instantly." And Paul Martin who is expected to be the next leader of the Liberal Party had this to say: "If it’s a question of rights, it’s settled." (National Post, June 12,2003.) And Prime Minister Chretien described all this as: ‘evolution in society.’( National Post, June 18, 2003.) Darwin meet Mr. Chretien!!!
One has to ask: has the justice system been corrupted? Does a special interest group have some control over our politicians and judges? No other group can get fast track decisions in their favour or have them handed down with ultimatums from the courts to the politicians. The government is obviously grovelling to the judiciary when it acquiesces to non-elected judges. Why do we bother having elections? Somebody once said: "Oh to be rid of those accursed lawyers." What they really meant to say was: Oh to be rid of those accursed judges who used to be lawyers, and the politicians who appoint them.
One is inclined to say we need a public inquiry into the justice system and parliament. But who would conduct it? The same people who are the problem? Or some of their political patronage appointees? What is happening to democracy, decency, justice and politics in this country? It has become a national scandal. Or is it just coincidence that the judges, politicians and a certain special interest group seem to be sharing the same agenda? Sexual orientation was never in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this lunacy called "same-sex marriage" is a corruption of words. Are there only a few politicians with principles left who will oppose this judicial dictatorship? Answers are needed to see if what is happening is a coincidence, a conspiracy or corruption.
Stephen Gray
June 22, 2003.
email graysinfo@telus.net website http://www.oocities.org/graysinfo
Some info on the Author: Stephen Gray is a writer and researcher on various topics. He published a newsletter for 11 years exposing the misuse of trade union time and money.