Compilation 2: Marriage, Parenting & Same Sex Relationships

Nearly half of Canadians believe homosexuality is abnormal, survey finds -- "poll, conducted May 3 to May 11 by Leger Marketing" Anne Sutherland, Jun. 2, 05, CanWest



Gay bill fast-tracked -- Same-sex nuptials law by summer, Liberals say Tim Naumetz; with files from Scott Stinson, CanWest News Service, with files from National Post, Jun. 2, 05

One MP said Liberal senators have agreed to extra sittings in July to hasten the legislation through its final stages before royal assent.

OTTAWA - The federal government told Liberal MPs yesterday it will push same-sex marriage legislation through Parliament before a summer recess, prompting critics to charge the Liberals are ignoring public complaints about the controversial bill.

[. . . . ] Liberal MPs were informed in their weekly caucus meeting that the bill will likely become law this summer.

One MP said Liberal senators have agreed to extra sittings in July to hasten the legislation through its final stages before royal assent.

[. . . . ] Pat O'Brien, one of 35 Liberal MPs who voted against the bill for its second reading, warned the government can expect stiff opposition in the limited time that remains before the Commons recesses this month.

"It became obvious today that there is an agenda to fast-track this," Mr. O'Brien said. "My clear indication from caucus was they want this bill done, they want it done before the end of June. They want it out of the House and over to the Senate, which is prepared to do the damn thing. I don't support that, there's a whole lot of us that don't support fast-tracking it." [. . . . ]

Search: A leading Roman Catholic opponent


And the MSM claim the conservatives have a hidden agenda? In the democratic deficit department, have the Liberals ever considered allowing a free vote on this or any other legislation they demand MP's support . . . They are vote buying to gain another identifiable voting bloc? And the Liberals try to paint the CPC as having a hidden agenda when the Conservatives are the only party that would allow MP's to vote as they so choose?




Our government has done everything possible to glorify anything but traditional marriage for raising children . . . and with predictable results. This is worth reading.

Baby mamas find a champion Anne Kingston, National Post, May 31, 05

. . . . glorifying single motherhood. [. . . . ]

For those who don't live in the 'hood or haven't been reading aggrieved pundits, "baby mama" is slang for a young mother of children born out of wedlock. One line has summoned most of the outrage: "Nowadays," Barrino sings, "it's like a badge of honor/to be a baby mama." This paper's editorial board, whose admiration of Barrino's singing talents is well-documented, joined the irate chorus last week, noting that while "single mothers should be supported by society," single motherhood "is certainly not something that should be encouraged by celebrities as 'a badge of honour.' "

. . . single female celebrities have been brandishing their tots as self-actualization remedies. . . . Angelina Jolie . . . cavorting with her three-year-old son in a bedroom in Paris's Ritz Hotel and quoted gushing: "He's made me a woman! He's the best thing that ever happened to me."

Nor is fury still directed at affluent single women in their 30s -- the fastest growing segment of unmarried mothers . . . . because they can afford help, are often surrounded by stable support networks and aren't viewed as a drain on the system.

Poor black teenage girls are in another category, as is made clear in Baby Mama. The 20-year-old Barrino, who dropped out of school at 16 to have her daughter, sings of the pressure of paying bills, working, doing schoolwork and waiting for support checks: "I see you get that support check in the mail. Ya open it and you're like, 'What the hell!' You say, 'This ain't even half the daycare.' Saying to yourself, 'This s--t ain't fair.' " [. . . . ]

I disagree with the assumption that while "single mothers should be supported by society," single motherhood "is certainly not something that should be encouraged by celebrities as 'a badge of honour.' " If society rewards--nay encourages--an activity with support $$$ (think of the reserves), what makes anyone think the behaviour will change?

Everyone talks about fear of the religious right -- who tend to favour marriage, for goodness' sake, but it is traditional marriage which offers the best situation, ideally, for children.

I note someone wrote yesterday that the big negative for the conservatives is the fear of their "social attitudes" It was in something I read by a Mr. Chen who thought he was offering Stephen Harper good advice -- and it was probably well meant; perhaps it was in one of the Toronto papers. Nevertheless, I take issue with his view. It is only when people add a bit of living time to let their views stew that they begin to realize how fine the line is in raising a healthy child, as opposed to one with unhealthy pathologies.

It is the fine line that delineates fierce parental protection of the child and for there are two to protect their young offspring from the dangers out there,while the child is learning about the world. I believe that no amount of income, no material goods are as important as having one parent who brings home the bacon and another who (ideally -- death of one may intervene) takes care of the other stuff. That way, when the one who earns the bucks arrives home, the little annoyances and duties are out of the way and the family may concentrate on that which makes a healthy environment for parenting and marriage.

When I was callow enough to think that what other people did--their 'lifestyle' if you will--meant nothing to others, I lacked the wisdom to understand that, for a child, having two opposite sex parents in a stable home is crucial. The child learns to trust, to know what it means to be a man or a woman and all the rest, while being protected by both parents. Real family life involves much more than getting and spending. That is something Stephen Harper must push.

Then, we must, as a society, decide; do we continue to support a practice that we do NOT want, given the resulting pathologies, or are we too gutless to do something about it? Why should any individual be able to claim other people's money because she's stupid? Forget him; he doesn't have to raise the product and his interest lasts about as long as it takes to bed her.

Today, is there any excuse for babies being born to a woman whose "partner", "hook-up", "one night stand", or "live-in-until-she's-pregnant-excuse-for-a-real-man" takes off? I don't think so. There is a societal price that we see being paid for this approach. I don't think society should be encouraging it. Not today.

And don't talk to about parental self-actualization, pursuing your own destiny and all the rest. It's selfish hogwash, once you accept the responsibility of bringing a child into the world and you'd better make it work, somehow. That is why traditionally societies have made marriage a public ceremony with promises and all the rest of the panoply . . . to emphasize its importance to the society as well as to the individuals, and to emphasize its permance, not for the parents, but for the children. If you want to develop your own precious self, despite having a child who would interfere, undoubtedly with the pursuit of your happiness, stay single.

---