---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

Canada's Supreme Court Gives Its Blessing to Homosexual 'Marriage' - Legislative Fight Next

OTTAWA, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Canada handed down its unanimous 9-0 opinion this morning on the reference questions on same-sex 'marriage' put forward by the Liberal Government of Canada. The decision gives the legal go-ahead for the government's stated intention to introduce same-sex marriage legislation. It does not, however, require the government to introduce such legislation, as many had expected might have been the result if the mostly activist judges answered the government's fourth reference question.

The Court judges rendered their opinion that the federal government has exclusive control over determining the legal capacity to marry and thus may allow persons of the same sex to wed. They also ruled that the proposed legislation to allow such marriages, which the Justice Minister has indicated will be introduced in Parliament early January, is constitutional. Finally, the court ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevented religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform homosexual 'marriages'.

The judges significantly declined to answer the fourth question on whether the current laws upholding traditional marriage were unconstitutional.

(See the exact wording of the reference questions and the proposed legislation here:
http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2004/doc_31110.html )

The Court compared the failure to recognize women as persons to the refusal to grant 'marriage' rights to same-sex persons. It quoted a lawyer in a Canadian women's rights case who claimed that "several centuries ago it would have been understood that persons should refer only to men." Launching from that quotation, in a revealing low blow at pro-family advocates, the justices opined, "Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples". The justices did not acknowledge that such an understanding is still dominant in almost all the world and that the aggressive challenges to traditional marriage were launched only very recently in some developed nations.

Continuing from their insinuation of a Middle Ages mentality held by traditional marriage defenders, the justices stated, "The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today." The Canadian "jurisdictions" or provinces to which the judges referred were all subject to decisions by activist judges who imposed legislative changes on the provinces.

While Prime Minister Paul Martin vowed a free vote would be permitted on the matter, it has been revealed that there will be no free vote for nearly 70 of the just over 300 members of Parliament since cabinet members and their parliamentary secretaries are to be forced to vote in favor of the homosexual 'marriage' legislation.

Life and Family groups in Canada are encouraging Canadians to contact their MPs in their constituency offices and urge them to vote against any government legislation which approves of homosexual 'marriage'.

See the full Supreme Court opinion:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc079.wpd.html

jhw

 Back to Top

---

Canadian Pro-Family Groups Respond To Supreme Court Reference Decision

OTTAWA, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Most Canadian pro-family groups have strongly criticized the Supreme Court today for its response to the Liberal government's reference to the Court on its not yet formally introduced nor voted upon legislation to allow homosexual 'marriage'.

Campaign Life Coalition President Jim Hughes said, "The Supreme Court has chosen to direct government legislation rather than telling Parliament that they should draft, debate and vote on such legislation before the Courts speak."

Hughes called the Prime Minister to task for trying to "stifle legitimate debate by having the Court rule before draft legislation has even been presented to Parliament". He continued "We are a free nation ruled by elected representatives and more and more we are being ruled by an un-elected judiciary and not by our own elected representatives. The cart is definitely before the horse."

CLC is urging Canadians to "contact their MPs in their constituency offices" and ask them "to vote against any government legislation which approves of 'same-sex' marriage".

REAL Women Canada notes that "To pass this controversial same-sex marriage bill, the Prime Minister requires, because of his split caucus, that all 39 Cabinet Ministers and possibly the 28 Parliamentary Secretaries, vote for the bill." Gwen Landolt of REAL Women charged that Canadians represented by these Parliamentarians "will be disenfranchised on this most crucial question of this generation."

Bishop Richard Smith, President of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops told LifeSiteNews.com, "We would hope that all lay Catholics would make their views known to the MPs that we do want any legislation that's going to alter substantially the nature of marriage defeated, and we would hope that Catholic politicians in particular would act accordingly."

Vancouver Archbishop Raymond Roussin gave the strongest Catholic response by reminding Catholic law-makers of the Church's teaching that they have a moral duty to clearly oppose the legislation and that voting in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is "gravely immoral."

The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) denounced the Supreme Court's decision "as an unprecedented pre-empting of parliamentary debate by the judiciary."

CCRL President Phil Horgan stated, "The court should have returned the reference questions to Parliament for the proper stages of the introduction and debate of a bill before they gave an opinion." Commenting on the precedent-setting nature of the decision, Horgan said, "As far as we know, this is the first time the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on proposed legislation before it was introduced in the House. Involving the court at this stage was an attempt to circumvent the democratic process in order to impose a fundamental social change that many Canadians do not want. This is a bad and dangerous precedent that could be invoked in future to stifle debate on other divisive social issues".

The CCRL head advocated an active response to the government's intent to pass legislation now given a go ahead by the Court. Horgan said, "Parliament still must introduce and debate this legislation before it becomes law. We will be working with all Canadians who value true marriage to defeat any legislation in favour of same sex marriage every step of the way. The decision must now be made by the public and their elected officials, not the courts. We want MPs to know that they will be held accountable."

The CCRL is demanding that the Prime Minister and his Party "call off their whips in caucus and cabinet" so that the Members of Parliament will be able "to vote their consciences on legislation going to the core of their beliefs". "The true test of religious and conscientious freedom in Canada" says the CCRL, "will not be limited to churches and their congregations."

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) organization statement, however, was considerably weaker than the other Catholic spokesmen and organizations. The CCCB was especially pleased with the Court's affirmation of protection for religious officials. The organization urged "Members of Parliament to have a full, informed and vigorous debate on this issue," and asked that "there be a free vote so that all members may vote according to their conscience."

The CCCB said it intends to be part of the debate and urged all Catholics, "especially those who have the experience of marriage, to play an active role" in the debate. In its statement the CCCB did not explicitly call for defeat of the upcoming legislation, did not urge Catholics to work for that defeat and did not note the responsibility of Catholic politicians to vote against the upcoming legislation.

REAL Women, Focus on the Family and Canada Family Action Coalition have also responded by calling for a national referendum on the issue.

Campaign Life Coalition Press Release
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/press/2004/041209responsetodecision.htm

Catholic Civil Rights League Release
http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=201

Canada Family Action Coalition release
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/family/marriage/referendum-call.htm

REAL Women release
http://www.realwomenca.com/press.htm#thecourts

CCCB Release
http://www.cccb.ca/PublicStatements.htm?CD=&ID=1602

Focus on the Family response
http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/news/120904.html

Centre for Cultural Renewal Response
http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/centreblog.htm

 Back to Top

---

Protection for Religious Freedom in Homosexual 'Marriage' Legislation "Very Weak"

OTTAWA, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Canadian Supreme Court opinion giving the proposed Liberal legislation on same-sex 'marriage' the green light has "very weak" protection for freedom of religion, according to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. Reacting to the Supreme Court decision today, Harper noted that the Court has made assurances for freedom of religion beyond what is covered in the legislation.

The draft legislation states only that "Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs." However, many questions regarding religious freedom and the proposed legislation remain unanswered. Even the Supreme Court opinion widened, albeit slightly, the draft legislation's religious freedom protection.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) organization welcomed the affirmation by the Court which indicates that "The protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad and jealously guarded in our Charter jurisprudence". The CCCB continued, "We are pleased that religious officials are protected 'from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs', and that this judgment confirms that freedom of religion also prevents 'the compulsory use of sacred places for the celebration of such marriages'.

Beyond protection for church ministers, and church buildings, however, questions remain about the fate and lack of protection for civil officials whose faiths or consciences prevent them from solemnizing such "marriages". Marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already been ordered to perform such 'marriages' or lose their jobs.

The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops anticipates that the Ontario government, with the support of the opposition parties, will now enact legislation to give form and substance to the protections indicated by the Supreme Court.

However, that anticipation may lead to disappointment given Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's well-known views on moral issues which are often diametrically opposed to the teachings of his Church. Responding to the ruling as an indication to go forward with homosexual 'marriage', McGuinty said, "I'm proud of the fact that we've moved forward . . . It's the right thing to do."

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
MPs Tells Provinces to Stop Forcing Marriage Commissioners to Solemnize Gay Marriages
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/nov/04112402.html

jhw

 Back to Top

---

President Bush Signs Federal Conscience Bill into Law

WASHINGTON, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Yesterday, President Bush signed an appropriations bill containing language that would protect hospitals, medical professionals and health insurance providers from being forced to participate in or pay for abortions.

The language insures that state and local governments that are recipients of federal dollars from the Health and Human Services Department cannot discriminate against hospitals, medical professionals and health insurance providers that do not perform abortions, pay for abortions, provide insurance coverage for abortions or make abortion referrals.

Wisconsin Right to Life was very pleased with the new legislation. "We deeply appreciate President Bush's efforts to protect members of the medical profession and health care providers from being forced to participate, either directly or indirectly, in the taking of human life through abortion," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director for Wisconsin Right to Life.

Pro-abortion organizations, such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, have become notorious for successful efforts to force hospitals and insurance companies to commit or pay for abortions. They are currently enraged over the appropriations bill amendment and characterise it as a denial of "choice" and "women's rights" to obtain abortions from those facilities or professionals who choose to decline, for conscience reasons, to participate in abortions. However, despite the law, abortions are likely to continue to be widely available from others.

jhw

 Back to Top

---

Report: Cord Blood Eliminates Need for Embryonic Stem Cells

"Everything that people now talk about regarding stem cells, I think that cord blood can do."

TORONTO, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Toronto scientist says the need for stem cells derived from embryonic babies is completely unnecessary, because stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood can do everything that other stem cells can do.

"We already have these cells making insulin in a dish," Dr. Bob Casper said, as reported by the London Free Press. "There are already animal models for spinal cord injuries and for diabetes. If all these things work out, the potential for the use of these cells is going to be hugely expanded."

Dr. Casper is a senior scientist at Mount Sinai Hospital's Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute and one founder of a private donor cord blood cell bank, Insception Biosciences.

"Everything that people now talk about regarding stem cells, I think that cord blood can do," he said "It could change the whole face of medicine."

Cord blood is accessible - it is simply the blood left behind in the umbilical cord after a baby is delivered, that is normally thrown away, Dr. Casper said -- "tissue that is essentially treated like garbage."

Doctors have been substituting bone marrow transplants for leukemia treatment in children with cord blood cell transplants - the blood from a single cord is enough to treat one child. Scientists also recently discovered that this method is effective in adults with leukemia as well. Not only are cord blood cells equally efficacious -- cord blood cells are less likely to be rejected than a bone marrow transplant, so donor selection is simplified.

Cord blood banks store the blood because it is a perfect genetic match for the child in the event the child needs stem cells or in place of a bone marrow transplant. The cells also have a one in four chance of being a perfect match for a sibling.

Scientists have reproduced all the same effects under laboratory conditions that have been done with adult stem cells world-wide, such as regenerate damaged spinal columns and re-grow insulin-producing pancreas cells.

Tv

 Back to Top

---

Parents Seek Justice for Accidental Death of 8-month Unborn Child

'Canadian law recognizes a child only after birth

VANCOUVER, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A woman recovering in hospital from a car accident that claimed the life of her 8-month old unborn child, is seeking justice for the wrongful death of the boy.

Canadian law -- not to mention news reporters -- refers to an unborn child as a "fetus" because, legally, a baby is not considered a human being until it "has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother."

"I don't want to see the person that hit me get away with it," said 25-year-old Langley resident Aimee Wilson, as reported by the Vancouver Province. "He killed my son."

While driving her Honda Civic in the Vancouver suburb of Richmond on November 28, Aimee was struck by a car driven by a 21-year-old Burnaby man. Aimee is recovering in a Vancouver hospital from a broken ankle.

After being told by hospital staff that the baby's heartbeat was no longer detectable, Aimee said, "I remember asking a couple times, 'Are you sure, are you positive?' I couldn't believe it."

Police say charges can not be laid for the death of the baby because the baby is not considered a person under Canadian law.

Wilson and her boyfriend already knew that the baby was a boy, and had named him Garrett. "We had started collecting stuff, a baby stroller, a bassinet crib for the bedroom. I bought him a little hat and booties to bring him home in."

Garrett was delivered by caesarean section, then dressed by hospital staff. "He was absolutely beautiful," Wilson said. "He looked like a little porcelain doll. When I first was looking at him I didn't feel hurt, I was just so in awe. I was just absolutely amazed at the fact that we had created something so beautiful. He's got Charles' lips. He was born with a full head of dark hair like I was."

Wilson said she can't understand how her child could not be seen as human: "He did everything that a normal child would do. I could pretty much time when he was going to start moving in the evening. He would always prop one foot under my rib and one on my hip, and I could feel his heels moving around. He used to get hiccups on a regular basis."

"Garrett used to, every once in awhile, push back when you pushed him. You can't tell me that something's not human that reacts back, and has certain schedules. Just because he's in my stomach doesn't mean he's not a human. Without the accident, he would have survived."

Police are still investigating the accident before laying charges.

Read local coverage: http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprovince/news/story.html?id=cfb72db6-c720-4e9...

tv

 Back to Top

---

Italian Bishops Urge Resistance To Public Campaign to Remove Christmas Crèches

ROME, December 9, 2004 (CWNews.com\LifeSiteNews.com) - Cardinal Camillo Ruini has urged all Italians to resist a public campaign to eliminate Christmas crèches, or nativity scenes, from public places, dismissing the argument that such displays might be offensive to non-Christians.

Arguing that the complaints of a few people are being "exaggerated-- much too much," the cardinal said that by removing the traditional Christmas displays from public schools, authorities would be acting on the basis of a "radically bad" approach, which could have serious repercussions for schoolchildren.

Cardinal Ruini was entering into a heated public debate that began last week, when one Italian elementary school altered a traditional Christmas poem, substituting "virtue" for an explicit mention of "Jesus;" the school explained that it did not wish to offend two Islamic students. The debate expanded as other schools revealed that they would forego the traditional display of a Christmas crèches, and performance of Christmas carols.

By making these decisions, the cardinal observed, the schools were forsaking their own intellectual heritage. "Our Christian tradition is a tradition of goodness and truth," he argued. "with full respect for others, only in Christ can we know the full meaning of human life."

Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Migrants, noted that public officials face the challenge of "responding to the presence of a different identity, without alienating our own identity." He argued that few immigrants would wish to eliminate the cultural identity of their new countries, and any such demand would be profoundly misguided. "We have a right to be ourselves," he said.

Sj

 Back to Top

---

New Zealand Acknowledges Same-Sex Unions

WELLINGTON, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - New Zealand's parliament mirrored Canada's Supreme Court Thursday by voting in new legislation recognising civil unions for same-sex couples. The new law grants any unmarried couple -- same-sex or heterosexual -- all the rights and privileges of marriage, including the right to adopt and retain custody of children, as well as pension and taxation benefits.

National MP Nick Smith called the bill a gay "marriage" bill dressed up "in drag," according to a BBC report.

Brian Connell, also an MP from the National Party, said: "The fact around this bill is that it's about homosexual marriage. And the overwhelming view of the people of New Zealand is that they don't want a bar of that."

Tv

 Back to Top

---

LifeSiteNews.com NewsBytes

U.S. Has `Confidence' in UN's Annan, Danforth Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aNvCtLQglibo&refer=us

'Immaculate Contraception' Ad Withdrawn
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004120809050002965312&dt=20041...

Marriage on Trial: Why We Must Privilege and Burden the Traditional Marriage Bond
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=PL03D1&f=WU04L07

NDP MP to vote against Same-Sex Marriage: Anti-Choice Leader Layton to Crack Whip on the Issue
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/12/09/774539.html

Anti-Choice California to Sue U.S. Over Conscience Protection Given Health Care Providers in Spending Bill
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a3IGdOpUdPvA&refer=us

New Brunswick Parents: Sex-ed course links to porn
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/12/07/771321-cp.html

 Back to Top

---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.