Chair,   MP Andy Scott  - .......“I would ask panellists and members of the committee to be as temperate in tone as possible, this is a very emotional issue, let’s be conscious of everybody’s sensibilities as we engage in this.” 

Voicer:   This is a parliamentary hearing trying to determine if eons of tradition and belief should be changed to make room for homosexuality.

Bruce Clemenger EFC

“Religious institutions appearing before you today did not invent marriage.  We are recognizing marriage.  What we are saying is that marriage is really something that is beyond religious traditions.  Something in a sense that’s beyond societies and cultures.” 

Alison Huntley  - United Church of Canada

“The UC does support the option of marriage being changed to include same sex couples.” 

Bishop Monseigneur Andre Gaumond

(French translation) 

‘We are here today to support the continued recognition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” 

MP Svend Robinson

“...You say that gay people should never be allowed to marry and so I assume that you are saying to all gay and lesbian people in Canada that according to the doctrines of the church, you should never have sex ? 

Bishop:  “Yes, according to the doctrine of the church, yes.”

Bruce Clemenger

“Marriage is the union of one man and one woman and must remain a distinctive institution socially, culturally, and legally.  That is the most reliable, stable and preferred basis for heterosexual bonding and the procreation and nurturing of children.” 

Voicer:  The committee’s work is really a soul searching time for Canada. 

Supreme Court stand up with Lorna:

“This is the story about marriage that began with legal challenges.  The three largest provinces in Canada were asked to approve same sex marriage.  B.C. said no, Ontario and Quebec said yes.  And that debate is soon to be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada unless parliament does it’s job and decides the issue, rather than judges.” 

Voicer:  An Ontario court that ruled the dilemma of same sex marriages had to be legislated within two years.  Now  politicians on all sides are starting to having their say: 

MP Debra Grey  “It’s not just a moral or religious issue, it’s sociological and cultural things that come into play.  And I think I take some encouragement that this doesn’t turn into gay bashing.  Because nobody wants that.  And it doesn’t turn into a bunch of religious zealots saying this is the way it has to be, as Catherine Young from McGill in this area of anthropology says, there are cultural basis for this.  It’s fundamental.  And Daniel Cere said it’s primal.  Male - female bonding.” 

MP John Mckay  "I think this is a pretty fundamental question for Canada.  Will they ask themselves how foundational marriage is to the functioning of the society.  One of the witnesses I thought put it very well this morning was that marriage is a parent of society, rather than the child of society.” 

MP Svend Robinson

“I had to go to the house to table a private members bill that would extend marriage to same sex couples / but in tabling that bill, I made the point that in my view far from weakening the institution of marriage that affirming the right of gay and lesbian people to marry will strengthen that institution by making it more inclusive.” 

To MP Pat O’Brien

"To me it’s pretty cut and dry, as I said and as I said to so many of my constituents who have asked me, same sex marriage for me is an oxymoron, it is a contradiction in terms, it’s simply something that is illogical and I would be shocked and I could certainly never support any government who would seek to redefine marriage.” 

To MP/ Justice Critic: Vic Toews: 

“On what basis then do you deny other groups, multiple partners, from applying to be married as well ?” 

Lorna’s Stand up in committee room: “The politicians here have to make a clear recommendation.  Preserve marriage or redfine it.” 

 Dr. Franklin Pyles

“This is a potentially devastating issue for our churches.  Our churches have perhaps naively operated on certain assumptions that God gave them marriage, we bless marriages, couples come in starting new lives.  We have the joy of launching them out and suddenly all of our teaching on that is being called into question by the government.” 

Voicer:  And called into question by homosexual activists.  The largest gay lobby group in the country says it won’t take churches to court over this issue, but experience shows there’s no guarantee: 

Bruce Clemenger: “EGALE doesn’t speak for the whole gay and lesbian community in Canada.  We know that in a variety of cases, whether it’s Trinity Western for example or in PEI, a couple were offering a bed and breakfast and they refused to allow unmarried couples to stay in their rooms.  It wasn’t common law couples who challenged this, it was a gay and lesbian couple.  At some point, some couple is going to approach the church and ask the pastor, will you marry me ?”  If government agencies are going to try and assert themselves and tell Christians what is an appropriate application of their faith and what is not, than we can expect at some point someone to challenge the ability of a pastor who refuses to marry a couple on theological grounds.

Stand up in committee room: 

‘What the debate seems to boil down to is rights versus reality.  Same sex couples want the right to marriage, but history says the reality is that it is between a man and woman.” 

Voicer:   Legally, same sex couples have all the civil rights of marriage.  Adoption, alimony, pension benefits, protection from discrimination.  What they want now is the societal blessing of the word marriage and all the approval it holds.

Gilles Marchildon/ Executive Director / EGALE

“I mean if it was just a matter of terminology, I don’t think it would provoke the discussion that it has provoked.  I think it’s recognized that marriage, which is the terminology in question here, is an institution that is well established in people’s minds and recognized in laws as having a significance.  It recognizes and values relationship.  And that’s why we would like to have access to that institution as well.” 

Voicer:   One option before the government could be keep marriage between men and women and create a second registry for same sex couples.  That’s doesn’t go far enough for all: 

Choice Okura, Human Rights Officer, United Church of Canada 

ANY ALTERNATIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK WE WOULD SAY IS NOT FROM THE UNITED CHURCH. WE’RE LOOKING FOR EQUALITY.

Alison Huntley  - United Church -  THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN THE STATES IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU CREATE WATER FOUNTAINS FOR SEPARATE PEOPLE. YOU DON’T END UP WITH EQUALITY, YOU END UP WITH INCREASED HATRED AND DISCRIMINATION. AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE OPPOSED TO. I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY THAT’S WHERE IT COMES TO PROTECTING CHILDREN AND ADULTS FROM THE ABUSES OF HOMOPHOBIA.

Voicer:  Civil rights, homophobia, discrimination?   Strong words being lobbied at the federal government from homosexuals, their families and supporters: 

Gwen Landolt - REAL WOMEN
IT WAS HIGHLY EMOTIONAL. IT’S OFTEN MORE EMOTIONAL THAN INTELLECTUAL. IT’S SO IMPORTANT, SO SERIOUS THAT YOU CANNOT BE SWEPT AWAY IN A MATTER OF UTMOST PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE OF FEELINGS. YOU COULD NOT AND SHOULD NOT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT PEOPLE WANT. MY CONCERN IS THAT THE DECISION WILL BE MADE ON EMOTION. NOT INTELLIGENT INTROSPECTIONS.

Bruce Clemenger / EFC
WE DON’T ADDRESS EQUALITY THROUGH REDEFINITION. WE FIND THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE BEING TREATED INEQUALLY BECAUSE OF COLOUR AND RACE YOU DON’T REDEFINE WHITE TO INCLUDE BLACKS. YOU TREAT BLACKS EQUALLY TO WHITE. NOW TO AGREE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME SIMILARITIES IN SOME DOMESTIC RELATION SHIPS TO MARRIAGE OR TO AGREE MORE LIKELY THAT IT’S GOOD TO PROVIDE LEGAL PROTECTION FOR CLOSE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS BECAUSE THERE ARE ISSUES OF ECONOMIC AND EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY, WHETHER OR NOT THAT’S SEXUALLY INTIMATE, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION THAT WE’RE GOING TO EXTEND A CERTAIN PACKAGE FO RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, WE’RE GOING TO DEFINE THAT RELATIONSHIP IN LAW. BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE TO DO THAT.

Vic Toews: 

“I don’t think we need to destroy the institution of marriage in order to accomplish what may be other valid legal or policy goals.” 

Voicer:   A constitutional lawyer by background, this justice critic warns it’s time to be on guard for marriage. 

Vic Toews:  “This issue is far too complex for a court to determine.  I think that there are significant anthropological, sociological, religious and other value laden issues that parliamentarians need to discuss and hear before any changes are made to our law.  I think it will be a very difficult fight./ Canada may in fact be the first country in the world where the courts declare that same sex marriages may be valid marriages. 

Voicer:  These hearings on marriage are open to submissions from the public, and the committee  is to present it’s report to Parliament by April 1. 

MP Andy Scott:  “I personally received a large number of letters and briefs and comments and phone calls and emails as a member of parliament and certainly anything that comes of my office would in fact be given over to the committee and would be part of the information gathered around this subject.” 

Lorna:    Mr. McKay, tell us what you are hearing from your constituents about this issue ? 

McKay: (Scarborough/ Liberal)  “Not much really.  No, on marriage, on that issue, I don’t think the Canadian public is engaged.”

Debra Gray: “I think it will be hard fought  they can write their member of parliament, and I would just give some encouragement on that, that it should not be three pages of single spaced rant, we as legislators need to be open to the mail that comes in/ it needs to be short, kind, loving, make your point that you are praying for us, because Lord knows, we need lots of that.” 

When we return:   Why academics argue the social experiment to redefine marriage is a dangerous one. 

Appeal The Marriage Decision

Submit your views to:

The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Block
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
Phone: 613-992-4211 
Email: pm@pm.gc.ca

The Honourable Martin Cauchon
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Justice Building,
Kent and Wellington Streets
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H8 
Phone: 613-957-4222
Email: Cauchon.M@parl.gc.ca