The following is an excerpt of my letter to the 'letters to the editor column' at
the Toronto Star, with a few minor deletions and
additions, for the purpose of this communication. The
"Re" refers to the front page headline of the Star - Sat. June 28 /03.
Re Law to be clear: It's Marriage. "Defining it as the lawful union of two persons of the same sex, as well as the union of a man and a woman."
To the Toronto Star:
This cannot stand. It will not stand.
The Liberal Party is vulnerable on many counts, but no where more so than on this issue. It will be the defining issue in the next federal election. The P.M. states that he will allow a free vote on the matter. A free vote is a free vote, is a free vote - etc. He will be held to it. He will not be allowed to get away with requiring the cabinet to vote as he tells them. No self respecting members of cabinet will allow themselves to be bullied into not being true to themselves. In matters of conscience, you cannot serve both God and the dictates of Jean Chretien. The vast majority of Liberal M.P.s voted in favour of the traditional definition of marriage in 99. Why is what was a vote of conscience then, not a vote of conscience now?
We've had a decade of intense gay activism - promoting their agenda; now it's time for some family values activism. In a democracy that's fair game is it not? To some of us "holy matrimony" is an honourable estate, instituted of God and symbolizing the mystical union between Christ and His Church - to paraphrase the Anglican Book of Common Prayer - not the recently revised (adulterated) version. This does not exactly fit the definition of gay marriage. I'm all in favour of according them all the rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexual marrieds, including additional legislation as it pertains to divorce, as that seems to be lacking. But not the designation of marriage, that is the sole preserve of an estate as between a man and a woman.
This is such a basic and honoured institution - from time immemorial - that what's at stake here is of such momentous import, that all else fades by comparison to it. I urge all people of social/religious conscience to "take up arms against (this ) sea of trouble and by opposing , end it" - to paraphrase the Bard. We must preserve the sanctity and definition of marriage at all costs despite the slings and arrows that are bound to come our way. Stand tall, you are right. Be pro-active, get a commitment from every M.P. in every riding, as to how they are going to vote on this bill. .Inform them in no uncertain terms, that unless they vote against gay marriage, they will in no wise get your vote in the next election.
It is interesting to note here, that Stephen Harper, the Leader of the Official Opposition has come out strongly in favour of preserving the traditional definition of marriage:
"That it's about moral views, about social values and not, as some have been saying, a matter of human rights or equality. Since 1998, all couples have enjoyed "spousal right" under family law in this country. Recent court cases in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec have asked for something quite different - the redefinition of marriage itself. Let me be clear on this matter. The Canadian Alliance is a conservative party, and as a conservative party we stand for traditional institutions like marriage."
The adage about choices having consequences has never been as potent as it is here. This is one of those epochal times in history when an heroic stand is called for - like unto Martin Luther posting his 95 theses to the Castle Church door.
A Mighty Fortress Is Our God - A Bulwark Never Failing!
Earl Baerg
A one time subscriber to the Lutheran persuasion