We are for traditional marriage and against same sex marriage, but what about "civil unions"?
Moral decline is assisted by flawed laws. Civil unions were introduced to normalize the conjugal relationships of unmarried couples, more than to help them assume the responsibilities and the benefits of marriage. While few of us thought the concept of civil unions would change our concept of marriage, it eventually did.
In 1999 the federal government introduced the next step, homosexual civil unions, with the promise that they would maintain marriage as the union of one man and one woman.Now they want to go a step further(1). The federal Liberals, with the help of the NDP and the BQ, want to introduce same sex "marriage", while opposition leader Steven Harper still supports civil unions, including homosexual civil unions.
Provincially, the government of Ontario has now abolished the concept of civil unions, just a few years after its introduction, to substitute it with a more comprehensive social reform: the abolition of our "homophobic" family vocabulary and the redefinition of marriage. The law in Ontario has abolished words such as wife, husband, father, mother, widow and widower, and defines the word "spouse" as any person who lives in a "conjugal relationship" with any one else for a certain period of time, independently of their sex.
Civil unions can be challenged on the basis of equality.
Why should two people receive benefits (taxpayers dollars) based on whether or not they perform intercourse? Why two brothers, or a father and son, or any other loving couple helping each other in life should not receive the same benefits?
Either we support all such interdependent relationships (including relationships among multiple people and extended families) or we support none(2).
Many support groups, churches and associations exist to help the handicapped, the poor and the needy, which normally do a better job than government bureaucrats without intrusion and imposition.
However, I could understand a proposed legislation which would recognize and support all interdependent relationships in some way.
If a government wants to establish policies supporting all people in interdependent relationships, there is absolutely no need to redefine words such as marriage, or invent concepts such as civil unions, or abolish words from our language.
The same-sex policies being forced on us by the current Liberal governments are driven by the agenda of normalization of homosexuality, not by the genuine intention of helping people in interdependent relationships.
(1) On homosexual unions, in 2004, Pope John Paul II said: "Legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, cannot be applied to unions between persons of the same sex without creating a false understanding of the nature of marriage."
(2) Couples who understand that marriage is more than intercourse and who pass the four requirements for the privilege of getting married (they are not under age, they are of opposite sex, they are not closely related by blood and they are not already married) can receive benefits by applying for a marriage license.