Divorcing Marriage: “The Casualties”

What if changing the definition of marriage does harm, enormous harm, to everyone else?

This came from someone who cares about the family; you may write your own and/or use this to support maintaining the definition of marriage as it has been -- traditional marriage -- or do nothing at all.

An Open Letter to Jim Prentice, MP for Calgary Centre North, From His Constituents Urging Him to Reconsider His Support of the Government’s Bill to Legalize Same Sex Marriage, February 23, 2005

In your widely-publicized statement on same-sex marriage, you ask the question: “What right do we as a society have to refuse gay Canadians something that the rest of us are entitled to – namely, a civil marriage licence.” You continue, saying that we have no such right, “…provided that they do no harm to anyone else.” Thus far, we’re inclined to agree with you. But what if changing the definition of marriage does harm, enormous harm, to everyone else?

The potential for harm from this radical social experiment to redefine marriage is clearly set out in a collection of essays by Canadian academics with expertise in law, sociology and politics. We are advised that the published compilation of their warnings, the book Divorcing Marriage, has been sent to each Member of Parliament. Have you read it?

Evidently not, or you wouldn’t be making the no-harm argument. Why not read it? Surely you haven’t closed your mind. You, who have the courage to take a stand on principle that may well result in electoral defeat, surely you aren’t afraid to examine the wisdom of your position, to subject it to rational analysis.

The potential for harm from this radical social experiment to redefine marriage is clearly set out in a collection of essays by Canadian academics with expertise in law, sociology and politics. We are advised that the published compilation of their warnings, the book Divorcing Marriage, has been sent to each Member of Parliament. Have you read it?

[. . . . ] We hope you will find your copy of Divorcing Marriage and take a few minutes to read the section titled “The Casualties” beginning on page 41. As the evidence piles up, you may be tempted to take refuge behind the argument “but this is theoretical. It can’t be proven.” Then read this, by Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson (one of whom is gay):

“Given the importance of marriage in every society, the burden of proof... surely lies with those who want to make dramatic changes. In other words, it is their responsibility to show that these changes are likely to improve society or, at the very least, unlikely to damage it. So far, advocates of gay marriage have not done so. ...They want to indulge in a massive experiment... leaving future generations to pick up the pieces.”

As you read page after page of warnings about the impact of redefining marriage on society, and especially on the rights of children – our most vulnerable citizens – you might consider columnist Barbara Kay’s report of her conversation with a Canadian judge about homosexual adoption after C-38. In the judge’s opinion, “gay… rights should trump a biological mother’s right to have her child raised in a normative family.”

You thought this issue was about equal rights! The principle of equality tends to be trumpeted by parties who want to apply it unevenly.

Since same-sex unions (and heterosexual common-law relationships) already receive most of the financial benefits of marriage, and since the civil unions Mr. Harper proposes would fill in any gaps, we suspect that your support for same-sex marriage is driven by something other than a commitment to equal protection under the law. Do you see marriage as a vehicle for combating animosity toward gays? If so, your motives are laudable but your course is misguided. Your solution to one wrong is liable to create an even greater wrong for many, many more than the currently afflicted. Surely there’s a better way.

This issue needs to be honestly and openly examined, in the light of day. Instead, debate is stifled by name-calling on both sides. While some who want to preserve traditional marriage portray supporters of same-sex marriage as conspirators, bent on destroying the family, generally the media and our government ministers dismiss the opposition to C-38 as simple bigotry. You, who are fair-minded, could help to bridge the abyss between both sides and enable the principled discussion that must take place. But not if you permit yourself to be carried away by the rhetoric of one side, ignoring the evidence of resulting social upheaval.

It is unworthy of those trusted with government to remain so uninformed as they embark upon legislation that will affect all future generations of Canadians. Years of analysis and study are undertaken before building a pipeline or a powerline or redeveloping a former industrial site. We listen to the environmentalists. But most of our leaders refuse to examine the cause and effect analysis of the proposal to change the definition of marriage, betraying the trust conferred upon Members of Parliament by the Canadian people.

We trust that you will take the time now to examine that analysis that has been provided you in Divorcing Marriage. We look forward to hearing from you again when you have done so.

Sincerely your constituents,

(Signed by 194 constituents as of Feb. 23, with more names being added and forwarded periodically.)