OTTAWA, February 21, 2005 ( – Scarborough Southwest Liberal MP Tom Wappel has always been a strong defender of life and family, and his speech in the House of Commons on Friday defending marriage from radical redefinition was true to form. 

With a keen legal mind, Wappel dissected popular arguments supporting same-sex ‘marriage’ while showing that Bill C-38 is “a sham, and a hoax on parliamentarians and Canadians.” 

Wappel began by noting that he had already many years ago attempted to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in law but had been assured by successive justice ministers that such a move was unnecessary since the law was clear.

He dismantled the popular argument that the bill seeks to end discrimination.

“Is the institution of marriage discriminatory? Of course it is, by its very nature. We cannot get married unless we are of a certain age. That is discrimination on the basis of age. We cannot get married if we do not have proper mental capacity. That is discrimination on the basis of disability. We cannot get married unless we are of the proper bloodline. That is discrimination on the basis of who our parents are or who our siblings are . . . It discriminates against religion because it says we can only have . . . one spouse: one wife or husband.” 

He noted finally that the institution of marriage also discriminates “on the basis of sexual orientation because it says we must marry someone of the opposite sex.” 

Wappel warned matter-of-factly that polygamy would follow the redefinition of marriage. 

“Some say that raising polygamy is a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. That is utter legal nonsense,” said Wappel. 

He cited two cases where illegal sexual practices had become legal, first the law limiting marriage to a man and a woman and then the laws against anal intercourse, both of which were ruled unconstitutional by judicial fiat. 

“Why would members think, when those two examples have already occurred, it is beyond the pale that a judge at the stroke of a pen will declare polygamy legal because the law against it discriminates on the basis of religion?,” asked Wappel. 

“Those who argue in favour of polygamy will say, ‘How can we end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in marriage but continue to permit discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs in marriage?’”