31 Reasons to Vote "No" to Changing the Definition of Marriage

by Dr. Charles McVety, President, Canada Christian College and Canada Family Action Coalition

February 4, 2005

The government has no authority to change the definition of a religious term such as marriage. They have no right to change the definition of "baptism", "communion", "bar mitzvah", "marriage" or any other religious term.

Same sex marriage is not a "human right". The United Nations' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms make no mention, directly or indirectly of such a right.
When women gained equal rights in Canada, they were not renamed "men". Laws were passed to give them rights. Same sex couples do not have to be called "married" to receive rights.
If marriage is redefined, it is redefined for everyone. Are your married? If so, to a man or a woman? To properly identify oneself every married couple in Canada will then have to define their marriage as a "same sex marriage" or an "opposite sex marriage".

To change the definition of marriage is a violation of Article 16 of the United Nations' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". This article demands government protection of "family" and "marriage".

To change the definition of marriage is a violation of Canada's "Charter of Rights". The first line of the Charter reads "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" It is a violation of "The principle of the supremacy of God" to re-define a sacred institution.

Re-definition of marriage violates the first "fundamental freedom" listed by the "Charter of Rights" that states "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion". By dictating religion the state infringes upon the freedom of religion.

Re-definition sets up a "two tiered" Charter of Rights where homosexuals and lesbians have powers over the religious.

The Prime Minister has betrayed his colleagues attempting to force cabinet members to go against their religious convictions and vote to redefine marriage. If he will not protect religious freedom for his friends he will certainly not protect ordinary Canadians.

Two-tiered rights regimes suppress the underclass. Religious institutions are being forced to host same sex nuptials such as the Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. Religious schools such as the Catholic School in Whitby, Ontario are being forced to accept same sex relationships. Religious individuals such as Scott Brockie are forced to print material against his conscience. You and your Church, Synagogue or place of worship may be next.

Two-tiered rights are currently violating freedom for those who conduct marriage ceremonies. Religious commissioners of marriages in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already been threatened with loss of livelihood if they do not succumb to the dictates of the state and agree to marry same sex couples.

Religious freedom for Clergy will not be upheld. On December 9, 2004 the Supreme Court clearly articulated that the federal government has no ability to protect Clergy from marrying same sex couples. The Court says this is a Provincial responsibility however no province in Canada has legislation in place to protect Clergy. In fact at least three provinces have already attacked Clergy freedoms.

Religious freedom in education is being debased. Religious students are forced to study same sex values, relationships, activities and homosexual and lesbian way of life. There is no protection or conscientious objection caveat to alleviate students from being exposed to objectionable material.

Same sex education is commonly used as a proselytizing tool. Much of the material leads the student to question their sexuality by their dreams and level of stimulation when exposed to explicit material.

Re-definition of marriage undermines the foundation of society. Our civilization is based on the traditional definition of marriage. Social engineers are now attempting to demolish society as we know it and build their own "Brave New World".

Family is our foundation. The United Nations' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights",Article 16.(3) states "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

Marriage is the foundation of family. The place for pro-creation and development of children. Same sex couples cannot pro-create.

Marriage is the first level of implementation of the law where members are encouraged to keep the law.

Marriage is the first level of education where members are taught civilized behaviour, morals and ethics.

Radical social-engineering cannot be enacted without full debate, discussion, involvement and participation of vast majority of the citizens in a free country. Dictatorships have attempted to radically change society in other ways and the result is catastrophic. Not even the most corrupt Communist or fascist dictatorships have attempted to redefine marriage.

Re-engineering society is not a priority of the people however it has become the number one priority for the Prime Minister. Instead of focusing on Canada's vital issues such as healthcare, education, security and taxes, Mr. Martin is fixated on same sex marriage.
If same sex marriage was a "human right" then most same sex couples would exercise this so-called right. In fact same sex marriage has been legal in parts of Canada for almost two years and only a couple thousand have become married. Over 99 percent have not entered into so-called "same sex marriage". Now the social engineers want to re-define marriage for the .006 percent of the population of Canada.

The majority of Canadians do not want marriage to be redefined. Virtually every poll has indicated this fact with as much as 69% of the nation in objection.
Statistics Canada released its findings that only one percent of Canadians are homosexual or lesbian. Another .7 percent of Canadians are bi-sexual. Even this community does not wholly support redefining marriage.

There is an electoral consequence to violating the will of the constituents. Numerous Members of Parliament lost their seat subsequent to voting against marriage.

Betraying the trust of the people creates an electoral consequence. Many Members of Parliament voted for marriage before voting against it. Mr. Martin and 215 other Members of Parliament voted for marriage in 1999. Over 130 Members voted for marriage in 2002. Now some are changing their vote. Their word yesterday appears to have no bearing on their actions of today. Who knows what they will do tomorrow? Such subterfuge will not tolerated by the electorate.

Radically changing the Liberal Party will bring demise. Throughout its history the Liberal Party was moderate and centrist. Now the Prime Minister is bringing in an extremist agenda of redefining marriage, talk of polygamy, decriminalizing marijuana and discussions on euthanasia. In addition they grant 582 work visas to Romanian strippers and pay $250 million dollars to Liberal friends. These are not Liberal Values they are Extremist Values.

For the sake of our children and their children, the cornerstone of civilization must be protected.

Dr. Charles Mcvety is president of Canada Christian College.
For Information go to: www.Defendmarriage.ca