Straight thoughts 104

May 2nd, 2003

The process of dismantling traditional institutions has begun many years ago, but has never been so apparent as today.

Only about four years ago the Supreme Court "ordered" Ontario to change 68 pieces of legislation to reform its family laws to assign spousal benefits to homosexual couples. Our "progressive" "conservative" government quickly and tacitly complied.

Now the courts in three Provinces (and soon possibly the Supreme Court) are "telling" us to change the definition of marriage to give same-sex people the privilege to marry each other. In fact, the BC Court of Appeal went even further: Mr. Justice Ken Smith proposes the following definition definition of marriage: "The lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
It is not clear why he would exclude all others, since his definition would include anyone, including incestuous relationships, and marriage between any adult and any child. Has this guy even thought two seconds about it? Or is he just repeating the homosexual mantra?

Would these unions, such as the "marriage" between a man and his grand-daughter, have any benefit to society?

Why would taxpayers have to support such "marriages"?

The parliament of Canada has defined marriage in the Canadian Constitution (1867), at the time of the Charter (1982), when a proposal to include "sexual orientation" in the Charter was soundly defeated, and again (June 8, 1999) when the current definition of marriage was supported by almost every MP in the House of Commons.

Notwithstanding the will of the people, the courts have repeatedly "read" sexual orientation in the Charter and have been "telling" governments what they must do to give extra benefits to, and introduce discrimination in favour of same-sex people engaging in the homosexual lifestyle.

Now they realize that such a discrimination cannot be done without completely "opening" the definition of marriage and reducing it to meaninglessness: "Anyone can marry anyone else."

Even while a Parliamentary Commission is holding its hearings around the country on the subject, the Courts now smell complete victory: Chaos.

If chaos reigns, and traditional institutions such as the family and parliament disappear or become ineffective, who stands to gain?

Children will be produced by surrogate parents and assigned to suitable couples by the courts. This will not be new, as already thousands of children every year are taken from their parents and assigned to more suitable parents by court order.

The courts will have the power of defining the requirements for marriage and divorce or any other contract between people.

The courts will judge who should support whom in society.

Courts will decide benefits arrangements, inheritance procedures, tax requirements and so on...

The Courts would have ultimate power.

In reality, there cannot be any "rule of law" when the legislative branch of government is "told" what to do by the judiciary branch.

When the law becomes "what the court says it is", independently of the will of the people, we have no democracy!

I am afraid we have already switched from a benign dictatorship under a Prime Minister, to a not so benign oligarchy of the courts.

No wonder Roy Bayer, president of the Canadian Family Action Coalition says: "This process of court imposed law is such a sham and so ridiculous one wonders why we even bother having elections in this country".

So, where do we start?

Let's start with reforms in Ontario. In addition to proposing a more proportional system of representation where every vote counts to elect a representative (which is already a policy of the Family Coalition Party), let's propose the following:

1. The premier of Ontario should use the "Notwithstanding Clause" of the Charter (Section 33) every time the courts ask Ontario to change any of its laws. The courts should only have the power of judging each case based on existing law. Legislative changes in Ontario should continue to be initiated by the elected government or by individual MPPs.

2. Judges should not be politically appointed, but elected by their peers. The roster of candidates should only include those individuals with a minimum required qualification and experience.