EDMONTON, December 1, 2003 ( – Speaking at a meeting in his Edmonton Southeast riding Wednesday, Liberal Cabinet Member David Kilgour, Secretary of state for the Asia Pacific region, explained to his constituents why he did not show up for a vote in support of the traditional definition of marriage.  The vast majority of his constituents support traditional marriage and wanted an explanation as to why their concerns were not voiced by their political representative.  Kilgour revealed that as a cabinet member he, if he wants to retain his post, does not have the freedom to vote against the government even on so-called ‘free votes’.  “In our system, if you vote against cabinet solidarity, you have to resign,” he explained.  Kilgour explained to a reporter that he thought the fact that he did not show for the vote was courageous.  “I told the prime minister I could not go and support his side of the motion, and frankly, I thought he was going to throw me out of cabinet over that,” Kilgour told the Edmonton Journal. “We assumed that since I’d been ordered to show up for the vote, and I didn’t show up for the vote, I would be out of cabinet. So I thought that was showing some backbone.”

Edmonton Journal reporter Paula Simons presents Kilgour as being concerned that legalizing homosexual ‘marriage’ could lead “to the acceptance of polygamy and incest”.  “So you’re saying your fear is that gay marriage could lead to legalized polygamy?” Kilgour was asked by Simons.  “And, I’m afraid, and I’m not the only one afraid of this, it could lead to mothers marrying sons and all kinds of things,” he reportedly responded.  Incoming Prime Minster Paul Martin phoned Kilgour Friday for clarification. Kilgour said his comments were misdirected.  In a press release Friday he said, “I do not in any way believe that homosexuality leads to incest and/or polygamy and in no way meant to imply that they are related. My comments stem from a concern that were a law to be too broadly written, it might be legally impossible to prevent any individuals from marrying. I deeply regret that my comments may have been misinterpreted as disparaging towards gay and lesbian Canadians.”  Martin’s reaction to the report indicated an extreme intolerance of any dissent against the pro-homosexual unions Liberal stand.  Kilgour’s mild comments reflect just part of what many experts have been warning would logically follow the re-definition of marriage to be only the union of two persons. “I cannot believe that any member of the Liberal party and any Member of Parliament would say that or think that,” said Martin.  After the thrashing by Martin, Kilgour admitted late Friday, “This is the worst day I’ve had in 24 years of public life,” he said. “I wish I could go back to bed.”  Given recent appointments by Martin, his consistent pro-homosexual statements and now this intolerance of Kilgour’s comments, family advocates are not likely to see any improvement in the Liberal’s family destructive policies. Pro-family and pro-life leaders have been advising serious caution about Martin for some time. Unfortunately, some religious and family organization representatives have not yet accepted that it is not possible to quietely negotiate with tyrants such as Jean Chretien and now it appears also Paul Martin, on fundamental issues of conscience and morality.

See the Edmonton Journal report and Kilgour’s release: