A rchive Date
[ 20-05-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/leishman.html
Same-sex marriage versus democracy
RORY LEISHMAN, London Free Press
2003-05-18
On June 8, 1999, the Commons voted by the emphatic margin of 216 to 55 in favour of a resolution declaring: "It is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada."
The then-justice minister, Anne McLellan, led off debate for the government on the resolution. "Let me state again for the record," she said, "that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages."
In response to gay rights activists who contend that homosexuals have an equal right to marry on the same basis as heterosexuals, McLellan affirmed: "I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same-sex partners, which now face us as Canadians."
She added, "Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long-term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."
For a Liberal, that's clear, right? The government of Canada, backed by the great majority of the elected representatives of the people of Canada in Parliament, emphatically rejected any change to the traditional definition of a legal marriage.
In a genuine democracy, that would settle the matter. But this is Canada. Real democracy no longer exists in this country. We have been subjected, instead, to a nomiocracy -- rule by judges. Under the pretence of upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our unelected and unaccountable rulers on the Supreme Court of Canada have usurped the legislative authority of Parliament to decide key issues of public policy.
Now, the courts are set to amend even the legal definition of marriage. In brazen defiance of Parliament, the British Columbia Court of Appeal decreed on May 1 that our elected legislators must recognize same-sex unions as legal marriages. Courts in Ontario and Quebec have made similar rulings. Sometime next year, the Supreme Court of Canada is all but certain to do the same -- order Parliament to amend the law to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Gwen Landolt is thoroughly fed up with the arrogance of our judicial rulers. She is a distinguished constitutional lawyer and national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada. In a paper entitled Project Justice: Changing Canada's Flawed Political and Judicial Systems, she warns that our judge-politicians are out of control: "There are absolutely no checks and balances on our courts, which rightly reason that they can do whatever they please, no matter how spurious their reasoning."
Changing the legal definition of marriage is the latest in a long succession of judicial excesses. To curb this attack on democracy, Landolt insists: "We must launch immediately a two-pronged attack on the deeply flawed judicial and legal systems in Canada."
First, she calls on democratically minded Canadians to bombard both the courts and the press with denunciations of judges who usurp the authority of Parliament to determine public policy.
Second, she maintains: "Citizens must insist that parliamentary democracy be restored to Canada by requiring Parliament to act pre-emptively on the marriage issue."
To this end, she asks Canadians to summon their MPs to follow up the 1999 resolution on marriage with a legislative enactment reaffirming that marriage is exclusively a union between a man and a woman.
Landolt is proposing, and rightly so, "a revolutionary approach" to combating judicial arrogance. "The matter is so grave, the ramification to society so overwhelming," she warns, "that we are obliged to undertake this new approach. The time is now to begin this unique journey to restore democracy to our country. We cannot delay. There is too much at stake."
Write Rory at The London Free Press, P.O. Box 2280, London, Ont. N6A 4G1 or fax 519-667-4528 or E-mail. Copyright © The London Free Press 2001,2002,2003
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|