Engendering Confusion

by Rod Taylor

Thomas Barker (Interior News, Oct 18, A5) has asked some good questions and I thank him for acknowledging, in a democracy, the importance of freedom of speech and conscience. However, faulty logic has resulted in a misrepresentation of pro-family advocates. He insinuates that people like me, who believe marriage is only possible between a man and a woman, must therefore be questioning the “personhood” of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All men and women, regardless of their sexual behaviours deserve the protection of the law from violence and slander. All are persons and deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect. This is not a “rights” issue like the denial of voting rights or access to education. We are talking about marriage, the foundation of family life. A homosexual relationship cannot produce children and no amount of fanfare can give it the kind of generational impact exercised by the traditional family.

A man might similarly claim a “right” to bear children. Claiming that right would not make it possible. He is not designed that way.

Thomas is absolutely right to remind his readers that legislatures and courts have in the past wrongly denied the personhood of women, of First Nations people, of blacks in the US and Jews in Germany. This analogy fits the plight of the unborn child in Canada since the Supreme Court today claims the child is not a “person” until the head emerges from the birth canal---a preposterous assertion which results in the deaths of over 100,000 little people in Canada each year. But it is totally irrelevant to same-sex marriage since no groups are denying the personhood of homosexuals.

The goal of family values advocates is not to attack or demean people who are struggling with their sexual identities but to protect our children from the forced approbation of behaviours harmful to their health and well being.

Thomas quotes Nathan Cullen (Oct 18 page A9) as saying no further protection of freedom of conscience is needed since freedom of religion is mentioned in the Charter. Why then was Chris Kempling suspended for three months for writing a letter to the paper about same-sex marriage? Why was Scott Brockie fined $5,000 and ordered to pay $40,000 of costs for refusing, as a matter of conscience, to print materials promoting the homosexual movement? Mr. Cullen has shown no interest in defending their freedom of speech or conscience.

Mr Cullen also lamented the “weird mixing of church and state.” These words ignore that secular humanism is itself a religion and political correctness its creed. The “separation of church and state” is meant to protect the free exercise of religion from government control. Our Constitution begins with these words: “…Canada is founded upon principles which recognise the supremacy of God and the rule of law…” The so-called defenders of the Constitution seem willing to ignore its foundational premise, God’s supreme authority in all matters. To separate morality from public policy is to ignore our responsibility to future generations.