Sunday, 06 February 2005
How to Defend Traditional Wedded Bliss
by Lorrie Goldstein
The next few months are going to be dangerous ones for those of us who support the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Herewith then, a survival guide for avoiding the slings and arrows of Paul Martin, Jack Layton and the liberal commentariat.
(1) Beware of any journalist who claims that he or she knows what a future Supreme Court will do on any given issue such as: "The Supreme Court will never force religious institutions to marry same-sex couples against their will." Journalists pretending to be legal eagles are like pit bulls pretending to be brain surgeons. You don't want to be around to see the results.
(2) In any discussion of same-sex marriage in the liberal media, count on their side to be represented by 134 constitutional lawyers and 268 spokesmen for Egale Canada, and our side to be represented by Billy Bob Baggins of Backwater, Sask. and the Very Rev. Homer Phobia of the First Church of Hairy Muffins.
(3) Avoid, at all costs, the CBC. If they come at you with a microphone, run.
(4) Expect Liberals to say they know you're personally struggling with this difficult issue about 10 minutes before they call you a bigot.
(5) Expect NDPers to skip straight to the bigot part.
(6) Expect to be portrayed as part of a dwindling minority of Neanderthals who would have kept slaves in another life, even though, as a COMPAS poll this week confirmed yet again, Canadians favour retaining the traditional definition of marriage by a margin of almost two to one over those who want to change it.
(7) Expect the compromise which would satisfy the largest group of Canadians on this issue - retaining the traditional definition of marriage while providing equal rights to homosexuals through civil unions (see COMPAS) - to be dismissed by the liberal commentariat as a bigoted view actually held only by Stephen Harper and a handful of American militias.
(8) Expect those who support same-sex marriages to frequently stamp their feet and proclaim "a right is a right is a right!" as if this ends the debate. Smile back and say, "A marriage is a marriage is a marriage - boogah, boogah!"
(9) Expect those who support same-sex marriage to say stuff like "it's time we got back to serious issues like health care" and then go right on talking about same-sex marriage.
(10) Expect exhaustive media analysis of how Stephen Harper is playing politics with this issue, and no analysis of how Paul Martin is playing politics with this issue.
(11) Please be advised that any mention of the "notwithstanding clause" will be punishable by incarceration at a Liberal re-education camp until such time as a team of three government-approved psychiatrists unanimously agrees that you no longer pose an imminent danger to yourself or to others.
(12) Expect the liberal commentariat to always argue that "being treated equally doesn't necessarily mean being treated the same" when it comes to employment equity, and to never argue that "being treated equally doesn't necessarily mean being treated the same" when it comes to same-sex marriage.
(13) Never ask a member of the liberal commentariat why, if same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, only two countries on Earth have recognized it.
(14) Never ask them if they are seriously suggesting that countries like Denmark and Sweden, which recognize civil unions for homosexuals, are bastions of bigotry and repressed sexual attitudes. Since the liberal commentariat normally love talking about Denmark and Sweden, this will only confuse them.
(15) Never expect the liberal commentariat to ask Paul Martin, why, if he considers same-sex marriages to be a fundamental human right, he voted against recognizing them in the House of Commons in 1999.
(16) Do ask the liberal commentariat to point out, where, exactly, the words "sexual orientation" appear in Section 15 of the Charter. Remember, you want to see the words. Accept no substitutes, especially any answer containing the words "read in."