In the Dec 11 Hamilton Spectator, we find REAL Women Canada's Gwendolyn Landolt bleating away on a list of talking points that are, well, mostly bad fiction.
She dives into her tirade almost immediately:
Others are opposed to homosexuality for practical, medical, moral and/or religious reasons.
Wow, what a list of implied issues.
Practical - oh yes...the "it's all about the children" line. My does that render the marriage of anyone who doesn't have children suddenly invalid?
Medical - I'm sure any gay readers out there are rolling their eyes at this one. Once again, it's the old canard about gay male sex and the "medical consequences". (Shall we really open the whole can of worms about how women used to die in childbirth all the time - and in some parts of the world, still do?)
Moral and/or Religious reasons - Yes Ms. Landolt, be honest - it's religious reasons. I haven't met a person yet who objects to SGM that isn't quite passionate in their religion. Most non-religious people kind of shrug their shoulders and carry on.
On to the next collection of horsepuckey:
Even within the parliamentary process, the decision on same-sex marriage has been made by a very few individuals. ...
In debate last week, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties again excluded the public from the same-sex marriage debate by requiring its MPs vote along party lines.
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was not much better. He begrudgingly allowed a free vote, although making the claim that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental" right under the Charter of Rights.
Oh, I see, because the two votes that Parliament has had were not "fully free votes", it's somehow "undemocratic". I have a little newsflash for Ms. Landolt - that's how our democracy WORKS! We elect our representatives (who, just happen to be members of various political parties) to do the tough job of running the country and authoring laws.
The second point, and I've raised it before, is that civil rights are not a subject of "popular vote". Our constitution talks about non-discrimination and equality before the law in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those are rights.
He was wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision on same-sex marriage, which assumed the leadership role among the provincial courts on this issue, is now under a cloud, due to a complaint laid against Chief Justice Roy McMurtry before the Canadian Judicial Council for serious judicial impropriety and the apprehension of bias for his part in that case.
Ummm, really? Well, the Supreme Court did not specifically rule on that topic, but rather issued an opinion that the law as amended by bill C-38 was constitutional. That much is correct.
Of course, Landolt is referring to her own organizations filing against McMurtry on the subject, because he allegedly has a lesbian daughter. Whether that creates a circumstance under which he should have recused himself from the ruling is perhaps an interesting matter of debate. I don't know if it should have or not.
However, Ms. Landolt is ignoring the fact that rulings in other provinces (B.C., Quebec and others) came up on the same "legal page" as the Ontario ruling.
By complaining about one of the Justices sitting on the case REAL Women clearly cannot find fault with the legality of the ruling itself, so they are attacking the persons who made the ruling. Apparently, however, REAL Women failed to read the ruling itself which doesn't even name McMurtry as one of the presiding justices.
This new definition of marriage has a profound impact on the welfare of children. A large body of social scientific research indicates that children thrive best with a mother and father who teach them gender identity and sex role expectations. This was the conclusion of a committee of the French National Assembly, which recommended, in January 2006, that France not accept same-sex marriage due to its detrimental effect on children.
The French committee criticized studies on same-sex parenting that claimed it had no ill effects on children, on the basis that these studies lacked scientific rigour, included inadequate sampling, and showed a lack of objectivity.
"A large body" ... which mysteriously, outside of a committee from the Government of France, she never cites.
I will agree that one can criticize the studies about gay parenting on the basis of sample size. Gays and Lesbians make up a small percentage of the population to begin with, finding an "adequate" sample that is willing to participate in such studies is difficult. I think most mental health professionals would agree with that.
However, while the criticism of sample sizes and perhaps a reliance on "anecdotal" evidence as a result has a degree of validity, The criticism does not show the alleged "harm" that Ms. Landolt is inferring. The evidence available to date says otherwise - and I for one will put far more weight in the opinions of the The APA than I would in a political lobby group like "REAL Women".
The duration of same-sex marriages is shorter than that of opposite-sex relationships: on average, the former last only two to three years. These factors are detrimental to children who require stability in their lives.
Again, this is argument by assertion. Ms. Landolt does not cite a source for this claim, but merely makes the claim as if it were "common knowledge".
A trend resulting from same-sex marriage is evident in the Netherlands, which has allowed homosexual couples to register their partnerships since 1997 and which legalized same-sex marriages in 2000. Statistics show that the out-of-wedlock birthrate there has increased by an average of 2 per cent a year -- more than in any other country in western Europe. This indicates a marked decrease in a desire for legal marriage and an increase in cohabitation.
What? Hang on a second here - speaking of problems with logic. Temporal correlation does not equate to causality. Ms. Landolt is once again falling into the logical fallacy of assuming that because two population trends are coincident with each other that somehow they are related. Even more brain damaging is the logical leap that says that gay marriages have anything at all to do with the behaviour of the heterosexual population.
The legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has put law and religion on a collision course. The Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus, in Port Coquitlam, B.C., was required to pay a fine for causing "hurt feelings" when it denied the use of the organization's hall to a lesbian couple to celebrate their wedding.
Religion-based social services, such as counselling and adoption services, are now required to conform to the same-sex marriage law.
Now we find Landolt's arguments devolving into the usual bunch of garbage nonsense talking points. What is it with these people that make them believe that their religion gives them the right to treat others as second class citizens?
Counselling and adoption are generally services "to the public", and at best are "affiliated" with a church. (I'd have more than a few choice words for any counsellor that decided to start foisting their religion upon me if the agency wasn't clearly and obviously connected to a church!)
A teacher and school counsellor in British Columbia, Chris Kempling, submitted a letter to his local newspaper objecting to homosexuality. This resulted in his suspension for one month without pay by the B.C. College of Teachers, which alleged that Kempling's letters "poisoned the school environment."
Subsequently, Kempling was a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party and, in that capacity, had a letter to the editor published in his local newspaper opposing same-sex marriage. He received a further suspension of three months without pay.
I've debunked these talking points already elsewhere, and I'm getting sick of hearing them. They are distortions and lies with only the tiniest grain of reality in them.
Kempling wasn't oppressed. He violated the terms of his employment, repeatedly, and created an atmosphere of intimidation for GLBT students in his school. Kempling was a staff member of a SECULAR (non-religious) school board which caters to ALL citizens of the country. Ms. Landolt needs a not-so-gentle reminder that GLBT people are citizens too.
School boards in Quebec and Ontario, especially in Toronto, Hamilton and London, now require homosexual "education" in their school systems. Such programs do not provide balanced instruction on the issue, and the medical, psychological and legal impact of homosexuality are not mentioned.
As these examples show, these are monumental consequences to same-sex marriage. Are these the changes that Canadians want? Who knows? We've never been given the opportunity to express our views. A referendum on the issue is clearly required.
Ah yes, we return to the ominous, and unstated "consequences" argument, with a clear cry that a crisis is brewing in our fair land because we are according rights to those evil queers - goodness knows that treating contributing members of society as equals has to be dangerous if they are gay.
As I speculated here, the religious reich wing of our nation will now turn to fomenting a crisis in the land in an effort to "force" Stephen Harper to crack down on gay rights.
2 comments:
Lots and lots of things to think about from this post. Well done.
"As I speculated here, the religious reich wing of our nation will now turn to fomenting a crisis in the land in an effort to "force" Stephen Harper to crack down on gay rights."
This is a scary thought. Before he has to go to the polls again, Haper MUST find something for his 'religious reich (nice!) wing. He can't do this little minority term without something on their anti-gay agenda.
Re: judge's lesbian daughter.
Using the logic presented, in any a case regarding the rights of children judges who have children or grandchildren must recuse themselves; a case involving women's rights can only be heard by male judges who have no close female relatives, and — get this — in a case about relious rights every judge who isn't an athiest must recuse themselves!
Of course all of these things are really about human rights, so I guess they should only be heard by judges who are space aliens to remove any possibility of bias.
Post a Comment