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

1. The government has no authority
2. 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".
3. 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.
4. 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".
5. To change the definition of marriage is
6. 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
7. 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
8. " 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
9. where homosexuals and lesbians have powers over the religious. The Prime Minister has betrayed his colleagues
10. 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
11. . 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
12. 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
13. . 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
14. . 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
15. . 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
16. . 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
17. . 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
18. . The place for pro-creation and development of children. Same sex couples cannot pro-create. Marriage is the foundation of government
19. where members are governed. Marriage is the first level of implementation of the law
20. where members are encouraged to keep the law. Marriage is the first level of education
21. where members are taught civilized behaviour, morals and ethics. Marriage is the first level of healthcare
22. where the sick are cared for. Marriage is the first level caring for the poor
23. . Radical social-engineering cannot be enacted
24. 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
25. 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.
26. The majority of Canadians do not want marriage to be redefined
27. . 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.
28. There is an electoral consequence to violating the will of the constituents
29. . Numerous Members of Parliament lost their seat subsequent to voting against marriage. Betraying the trust of the people
30. 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.
31. 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.

Some of those are really good, bring really great points. If anyone even attempts to argue all of these reasons, they are just gonna make a fool out of themself...

yeah...

some are more religious than others.... but, there is nothing wrong with that.... I have religious freedoms, just like everyone else...

and, I really like the point about marriage should be left alone as it is a religious term and not a secular one

Some of those I really didn't quite understand, but there are some REALLY good ones on that list, there are a few really good ones that dont relaly have much to do with religion aswell.

which ones didn't you understand?

I'm glad someone posted good solid NON-religious reasons. I'm no good at that, but it's nice too know. Tanks for taking the time.

Here is something I thought was really weird in one of your posts Geeogree. People go about crying about separation of Church and State. How in the world can somebody sue a church because they won't marry them? Doesn't that violate separation of Church and State. I know you were against a person doing that but I am still curious as to how that could actually be a case.

Also, really if you think about it. The US's Founding Fathers were more or less ALL Christians. When they said Separation of Church and State, it was more so that the President wouldn't try to make a State Church, like United Kingdom had for so long. It was not saying that God wasn't in the picture at all. Every President we have had (except Thomas Jefferson who was Agnostic) was Christian (that I know of).

Bill of Rights: First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Separation of Church and State is not just prohibiting a government sponsored church, it strictly prohibits ANY law regarding ANY religion, particularly those that would enfringe on the practice of a different religion - a.k.a. making federal law out out millenia-old Christian taboos.

Our goverment (weather you like it or not) has a lot of ties christianity.....

Our GOVERNMENT has (or at least Constitutionally should have) NO ties to Christianity. The majority of the founding fathers WERE Christian, but they made the point time and time again that the country should and must forever be religiously free.

But the constitution and declaration of independance both have chiristian referances in them...

And as I have said, the intent of that was not to take God or Christianity out of America. That is what I think anyways.

So, Nasus do you think someone should be able to sue a church because they wouldn't marry you?

I don't think religion was ever meant to not be a part of politics....

the true seperation of church and state was to ensure that someone like the pope didn't have more influence than the politicians running the country....

I disagree

'One nation.. under god'

Originally posted by John

---

I disagree

'One nation.. under god'

---

Which is why I don't say the pledge, but instead stand in respect.

Hey John, news flash, all organized religion have a God. The pledge, nor constitution, nor declaration of independence EVER says Christian God. It says God. Allah. Buddha. The founding fathers didn't care. The point was they were all-accepting.

Hey nasus! Why must you be so anti-john? I wasn't even saying i agreed with it. All i was saying is that it is there and obvious.

Originally posted by geeogree

---

I don't think religion was ever meant to not be a part of politics....

the true seperation of church and state was to ensure that someone like the pope didn't have more influence than the politicians running the country....

---

Yeah that is what I am saying more or less.

The three religions you mentioned do have a god(at least I think Buddhism does). God (capitalized) is used to refer to the Christian and maybe Jewish God, I am not sure about the Jewish part though. And I am guessing almost all of the Founding Fathers were Christian, I don't really think that they meant Allah or Buddha when they said God. Why would you think they would mean that? Show me some proof.

I'm tired of the non-religious trying to rid this country of everything religious.... (well North or South of the border)....

and really, I'm tired of the will of the minority winning ovre the majority.... but that's what liberals do.... they make a big fuss over a minority eventhough a large portion of that minority doesn't care and.... blah blah, it's annoying!

Dude Geeo, pardon my language but what the flying f*** are you talking about? I'm really getting tired of the far-right conservatives playing the "disenfranchised majority" card. You guys control all three branches of government, the media, and the economy. Please, the least you can do is stop b****ing and moaning about liberals pushing their agenda. If you would stop to think for a second you'd realize that liberals arent pushing things farther to the left, its that Bush isn't doing all that much to bush the country farther to the right. Maybe he's realizing how full of bulls*** all the neo-cons are.