---

     

Canadian Alliance MP Stockwell Day Addresses Same-Sex 'Marriage' Issue In Letter

Also says Bill C-250 is "insidious, draconian and not worthy of support in a free nation"

June 23, 2003

Dear…

My position (and the position of the Canadian Alliance along with some fifty percent of Canadians) is that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman.

Briefly, allow me to list a number of points I have publicly made on this question:

1. Defining marriage as the union between one man and woman does not remove anybody's rights;

2. Adult Canadians can already enter into relationships of their choosing without facing any loss of rights or individual freedoms;

3. Adult Canadians can draw up partnership contracts between themselves dealing with virtually any items they choose, even considerations for ending the relationship. Many heterosexual couples do that now, without embracing the term "marriage";

4. Many people in the homosexual and lesbian community do not want the term marriage applied to their relationships. They follow Pierre Trudeau's line that "the government does not belong in the bedroom";

5. Given these above realities, there is no sufficiently compelling reason to radically alter the dictionary itself and the centuries old definition of marriage. Canadian society respects the rights of adults to choose their own relationships. Canadians have not voted to change the meaning of a word as important as marriage;

6, The courts do not have the right to order legislatures to rewrite a definition as central to society itself as the definition of marriage;

7. Our Canadian Parliamentary model is built on the finely balanced and different roles of legislatures and courts. Legislators have the duty of representing "the people" and must be accountable to the people when it comes to the writing of laws. Judges have the responsibility of "finding the law" as it exists; they should not demand the writing of new law, especially on a subject as profound as marriage. As one appeal judge recently said, "judges should not privateer on the sea lanes of democracy".

8. If the present marriage definition is opened up, where would the line be drawn on what would constitute a marriage? I have personally been asked to advocate changing the marriage definition to include one man being married to two women. The person making this request is an immigrant to Canada from a country which allows for this. He loves his wives and they love him. His sexual orientation leads him to wanting to be married to more than one woman at a time. In my view, none of his heartfelt reasons would legitimate a change to our laws. If we do change the law, we would have no right to refuse his or any other alternative arrangement.

9. There are authors who have published that the traditional family is an unhealthy and dysfunctional arrangement. Though I disagree with that view I support their democratic right to state it. By the same token, others should be free to state their concerns with the concept of homosexual unions.

In a free and democratic society nobody has the right to stifle another person's freedom of speech just because they don't like what they hear. We already have "hate" legislation in place in our country.

The present legislative attempt (Svend Robinson's Bill C-250) to smother discussion on concerns related to homosexual unions is insidious, draconian and not worthy of support in a free nation. Though this Bill was not supported by the Canadian Alliance, all other parties including Peter MacKay and the Progressive Conservatives, supported this Bill. Our efforts prevented it from being passed this Session, however, it may come back in the fall.

Many are asking what can be done.

Call your Member of Parliament, respectfully explain to him/her that your vote and support in the election will depend on them voting to maintain the current definition of marriage. Will they vote to have this matter debated in the House of Commons and will they vote to maintain the definition. If you receive anything less than a clear "yes" you will know what their intentions are. You must then decide how important the issue is to you.

Thank you for taking the time with this very important question.

Yours sincerely,

Stockwell Day, M.P.
Okanagan-Coquihalla
Official Opposition Foreign Affairs Critic

 Back to Top

---

SHARE THIS STORY: E-mail  Print  Newsvine  Digg  Reddit  Del.icio.us  Facebook

---

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.