Assessing Changes to the Definition of Marriage

Re-Defining The Family

Historically, Anglo-Canadian law has been grounded in biblical religious values. According to Sir William Blackstone, founder of the American legal system and a proponent of English Common Law, law could only be aided and derived from God's divine revelation in regard to truth and reason, as shown in the Bible. The Judeo-Christian understanding of the definition of marriage begins with the dominion mandate to procreate and replenish the earth, as set out by God the Creator in the book of Genesis. Genesis describes that God created man (male and female) in His own image, but He did so with specific Laws of Nature, so that man could properly exercise the image of God through a grant of authority. God gave this grant of authority, not to a mere individual, or to just any collection of human beings. No, that grant of authority was given to one male and one female - that is the family unit. This first human institution, which predated the state and religion, was uniquely created to exercise the societal purpose of continuing the species of humans and establishing a right ordered culture and society.

On June 10, 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the traditional Constitutional definition of marriage that is the exclusive union of one man and one woman. The court ruled that the present definition is too narrow under modern day Canadian Constitutional values. Non-traditional unions, such as same-sex partners, the court argued should also be afforded the legal right to "marry". Thus it overturned a centuries old view of the traditional, life-affirming institution called the family that cultivated man's sexual drive, lifting it from an animal plane, to a moral one. A moral plane that formed an exclusive, family unit, whose sole civil action was to transform mere sexual relationships from a contract, to that of a covenant whose end result was life affirming. Marriage was not just reduced to sex and love.

Life affirming in that, marriage created a societal purpose: it bridges the past and the future; it bridged the gender gap through the free consent of a man and a women in a monogamous and faithful relationship; provided for a conjugal union enabling the procreation of children; where children could enjoy the prima facie right to learn to relate to each of their biological parents; facilitating a child-centred environment where children could be cared for and supported by their natural mother and father; where the father, mother and their child(ren) would learn to abide with each other under life-long norms and codes; and for families as the primary economic unit of society to learn how to properly own and develop property.

Adding to this view of societal purpose, in a speech to the Canadian Senate on June 13, 2001, The Honorable Senator Anne C. Cools (Liberal), spoke in the defense of the traditional definition of marriage,

All the major religions of the world that form the basis
of our Canadian heritage have similarly upheld marriage
as between man and woman. Marriage is a solemn act
with a profound social purpose. Marriage was also a
sacrament that hallowed the unique ability of the sexual
union of man and woman to bring forth issue, to procreate,
that is, reproduction. The public interest in marriage is
reproduction, the continuation of the species, the offspring.
There is no public interest in sex or the gratification of sexual
impulses for their own sake. The law's interest is the public
interest in the continuation of the species and the children.

William D. Gairdner in his piece After Liberalism (1998), warns of a radical movement who has attempted to promote sexual freedom at the expense of the natural biological society. He goes on to argue that there are four pillars that protect a procreation society with rewards and distinctions. He writes,

... the predominate sexual order is grounded in four
traditional prohibitions based on Number, Gender, Age,
and Incest: You can only marry one person at a time,
only someone of the opposite sex, never someone
beneath a certain age, and not a close blood relation.

Laws of Nature And of Nature's God

If our Canadian federal parliament votes in favor of same-sex "marriages" and thereby affirms the Ontario Court ruling, our society will radically depart from a Judeo-Christian moral plane that no longer relies on the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, and where our understanding of objective individual rights are no longer absolute, fixed as to time, universal and uniform as to person or situation. As a result, Ontario's Court of Appeal reveals its ambivalence towards narrowly defining marriage, and thereby enabling each to choose freely their own lifestyle and legal definition of what it means to be married, solely from the perspective of the claimant. Same-sex partners, or for that matter any other non-traditional human relationship, diminish nature's original dominion mandate for the individual. Thus the court's ruling has replaced God's law with evolutionary Constitutional principles called subjective rights and has given rise to a New Moral Order in Canada.

With radical sympathy, and a positivistic legal view of the claimant, the Ontario Court of Appeal attempted to justify redefining marriage based on the supposition that the common law definition of marriage was discriminatory. That the courts had the obligation to take into account the experience of a same-sex partner's need for dignity, self-respect and self-worth through the act of proclaiming them to be legally "married". The court also argued that non-traditional close relationships that had a "rational connection" needed to be legally recognized, and thereby supposedly protect their human dignity. Yet the definition of marriage should not just be determined based on subjective individual rights and liberties, but what is truly in the best public interest. As William Gairdner has pointed out in his book The War Against The Family (1992),

Traditional marriage is not about interpersonal commitment.
It is about commitment to the future of human society and
its values. This, no homosexual couple can give, either in
theory or in practice.

The covenant of marriage as ordained by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God binds one man and one women by promise and law to procreate and ensure that both parents and their children learn to make demands on each other, and learn to love and support each other. It seems a man and a women are the only appropriate counterparts for each other. After all, can a homosexual union honestly produce all of the above? Or the natural bonds of a male and female that follow? Some biological differences, no matter how abhorrent to some radical egalitarians, can never be truly undone.

Judicial Activism

The Ontario Court of Appeals dealt another blow to our Judeo-Christian values that have been the underpinning of Canadian society since inception. Instead of laws being created by our elected representatives, we have allowed judicial activism to act as a license to challenge and replace the role of Members of Parliament. The courts shrewdly pre-empted any meaningful discussion by parliament when it struck down the traditional Constitutional definition of marriage. Our courts have increasingly found themselves to judge prevailing community conduct, based on fashionable sociological trends, limited science, and not based on enshrined Constitutional principles. No longer do we administer law based on the authority of what is written in it's original intent. Consequently, the court decided that it had the Constitutional mandate to change the legal definition of marriage. Judicial revisionism in Canada has often sought a power grab based on subverting original intent, by re-constructing law, where words are often defined at random, by the subjective understanding of the judge.

In sharp contrast, Canada's Judeo-Christian heritage found in the book of Exodus, admonishes a judge not to make law, or create it, but merely to interpret existing written law for civil society. All judges must adhere to a system of rules. Such a system of rules can only be established through a covenant between the people and their civil ruler. It is upon this heritage that Canada's legal, judicial and political basis rests.

However, the more fundamental issue here is whether the courts, or even federal parliament have the authority to amend the Canadian Constitution, and thereby redefine marriage, without following the amending formula that requires assent from all Canadian provinces.

The Threat To The Church

Why is this current Liberal federal government having to propose legislation that will prevent radical gay activists, working in conjunction with judicial activists, from forcing religious institutions to marry same-sex couples? Is current Constitutional legislation not clear enough on the distinction between individual liberties and that of religious ones? Do we not have a long standing tradition in the western world, never mind one in Canada, that protects religious institutions such as churches from carrying out their redemptive duties before their God? The meaning of Canada is at stake since laws are no longer certain, they can be overturned, or created out of thin air, based on the prevailing social whims of an activist court.

Does the state really want to tell the church that they cannot discriminate based on their religious teachings and moral conduct, and who they will, or will not legally marry, without forfeiting their right to perform marriages at all?

Does the state have any business controlling religion, or prohibit churches from carrying out their redemptive mandate. Especially if that control should one day include forcing religious enterprises to marry same-sex partners. If the church deems homosexuality to be sin, and that their redemptive mandate prevents them from marrying same-sex partners, what business is that of the state? Indeed why is this insulting question even before the Supreme Court of Canada?

A Civil War of Values

It is not the proper role of courts to push a federal parliament into action on the issue of same-sex "marriage", but rather for the people of Canada through their elected Members of Parliament to initiate such an issue. Nevertheless, now that there will be a parliamentary vote this fall on the definition of marriage, the public has a solemn duty to uphold and defend the integrity of their Judeo-Christian heritage, and the social fabric of Canada. Most especially since the majority of Canadians are still opposed to redefining marriage.

If the definition of the family is altered, the traditional role of the family will be diminished, ensuring a long-term negative impact on Canada's society, culture and it's economy.

The nature of citizenship requires full participation in this great civil war of values, where people of all faiths, including Christians, must awake to their mission to communicate God's word of authority to all issues of truth and conduct for civil society. This is not a question of motivation, but of duty.

Nature of Citizenship: Political Activism

Another Judeo-Christian tradition presently being lost in Canada is the nature of citizenship. In the second book of Samuel, we are given an example of a ruler being selected by the general population, for the purpose of entering into a political covenant (agreement) between the ruler and the general population, giving rise to a civil legal order. Yet how many Canadians, especially people of faith, would attempt to alter their own national, provincial or municipal civil legal order in Canada?

The nature of citizenship in Canada must involve political activism. And why you ask? Remember that in 1998, this present Prime Minister and his entire Cabinet and Caucus were publicly adamant about not changing the definition of marriage. So what has changed in five years? If those opposing the legalization of same-sex "marriage' are not seen as a threat to the political survival of the governing party, then the views of those opponents will be ignored. If a Member of Parliament, or candidate for M.P. supports extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, and thereby undermines Canada's social stability by his support of the same, why would anyone ever vote for (enter into a political covenant with) such a person?

If Canadians want their voices to influence their federal politicians in opposing any re-definition of the family, then they must come to grips with a few crude political realities. Their voices will never be effectively heard in Ottawa, or anywhere else, unless they threaten the present political establishment. You say you know of many people in your community who are opposed to same-sex "marriage", then how many votes can you and your community organize to deliver against this present government on election day? How many like-minded candidates will you field against the present party in power? How much money will you raise, how many signs, and pieces of literature will you deliver for your candidates of choice who support traditional moral and Judeo-Christian values in the public square?

Conclusion

The people of Canada, especially people of faith, must discover political activism for themselves. After all, both the meaning of Canada, and it's future is at stake. The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God have set before us right and wrong. All traditionally minded Canadians must discover their calling, role, and mission in addressing the wrongs in their society. Either they summon their collective efforts to fight, to win, or to face ultimate extinction as a people, where as the loser in this cultural war, they, and their vision for Canada will fade from memory.

Michael Jakubcak
Toronto, Ontario,
July, 2003