Tyranny of the Minorities would be my title.
This great article predicted TROUBLE ahead. Below: See the Recent news article about Intimate partner violence, now crisis-level status in the province of Nova Scotia.
The speaker in the news article below is a woman named 'de Ste. Croix' , literally "of Holy Cross". Where are the crucifixes in gob'mt today?Unofficial.***
Society of St Pius X
District of Canada
February 2005
Dear Faithful,
Radically redefining marriage in Canada by legalizing same sex marriage as the Government proposes to do is not necessary and would be detrimental to our country, especially to our children.
There is no need for this. These are sufficiently protected by the laws of the land, almost more so than those who enter a traditional marriage. Persons who are simply living together, whether they are heterosɛҳuąƖ or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, can make whatever arrangements they want. They can divide up their —possessions whatever way they want: They can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it.
The real issue is not equal rights. The real issue is something which cannot be legislated: acceptance. What the activists are seeking is forced official social approval of their lifestyle. But, as a writer out: this is the antithesis of equal rights. “If you have a right to someone else’s approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it. The rhetoric of "equal rights " has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gαy activists would take that road as well. It has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.“ (Thomas Sowell: 'gαy Marriage Rights Are Nonsensical' posted January 3, 2005 on Human Events On Line.)
"The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gαy marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else. Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle apart of the structure of values that make a society viable. " (Thomas Sowell) What these people want is very clear: change our culture, change our society.
You may think this is far fetched? "But marriage equality will also contribute to the abandonment of toxic religions, liberating society from the prejudice and hatred that has polluted culture for too long." (Purging toxic religion in Canada, gαy marriage exposes faith-based bigotry, by Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell. This is a virulent attack against Calgary's Bishop H***). Our ʝʊdɛօ-Christian culture, and every culture in the world and throughout history has been founded on the traditional definition of marriage.
It will be detrimental to our nation. The strength and stability of a nation depends on the strength and stability of its basic unit: the family. The best way to destroy a nation is to destroy the family. Divorce, contraception, abortion have all taken their toll on the family. Same-sex unions are the next step. When conjugal fidelity and children are replaced by pleasure seeking as the foundation of marriage it is only a matter of time before everything goes. What's next? Polygamy? ‘No’ says the Prime Minister. Responding to Stephen Harper he said: "It is an extreme vision. Polygamy is against the law and will always be against the law." Need we remind the PM that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity was also illegal until (Pierre)Trudeau came along. Once you start down this road there is no stopping.
"11 is not fashionable to say so, but this decline (in marriage) presents a very serious social problem. Single people and people in non-traditional relationships are more likely to be poor, to get sick, and to need help from the government than married people. Cohabiting women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than married women; single men are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol than married men." (David Frum: 'A Blow to Canada's Families', National Post December 14, 2004)
It will be detrimental to the freedoms the country guarantees its citizens. 'In a nation of minorities,' the Prime Minister told CTV on December 27, "you can't allow the majority to basically impose its will on a minority, and so the Charter is crucial to our democracy." The Prime Minister wants to replace the "tyranny of the majority" by the "tyranny of the minorities". For those who care, this will be the end of our democracy. In a democracy the majority rules according to a consensus. This vision is the replacement of the rule of our democracy by the rule of special interest groups. This will do more damage than any separatist threat (re: Quebec). When innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times. By encouraging these special interest groups they entertain division in the country. This is what you call: "divide and conquer". Isn't this how the Liberals have remained in power?
It will also be detrimental to our children. Research studies prove conclusively that the traditional family is the best situation for them. "When marriage declines, writes David Frum in his excellent article, children lose. Children who grow up with their biological mother and biological father are dramatically — that is by margins from 50% to 300% -- less likely to break the law, drop out of school, get pregnant in their teens and end up as single parents themselves than children raised by single parents or in stepfamilies. Today, after three decades of anti-family policy, a Canadian child's odds of reaching age 18 in the same home as his or her father and mother are less than 50-50." Our children are our future and they have the right to be raised in a traditional family with a mother and a father. This is their origin, a mother and a father. They do not come from a mother and a mother! No law will ever change that. It is the nature of things. The Government should not be endorsing any form of marriage that deprives them of this right.
The decision handed down recently by the Supreme Court on this matter stated only that it was constitutionally possible for the government to change the definition of marriage, but that the government is not required to do so. So why do they want to do it? What is their agenda? Is it really equal rights? Incidentally, as many writers have pointed out: it is not even clear how many ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs actually want the right to marry, even though gαy activists are pushing it.
At last some Canadian bishops are speaking out. They are as much citizens of this country as the gαys and politicians and as such have as much right to have their say no matter what the Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew says. I guess for him the only constructive dialogue is when everyone says the same thing. The government must be running scared! The bishops are our shepherds, they have the duty to defend and lead the flock entrusted to their care. Let them not be afraid of what the world thinks and says. This is what they will be judged on. It is better for them to follow Ambrose, Anselm, Thomas a Beckett, John Fisher and countless others than cave in to pressure. They will be in good company! Let us pray for them. This is a good reason to make a good Lent.
Write your Member of Parliament. Get your friends and relatives to do the same. Tell him/her that: as your representative, you want them to vote against the government's upcoming bill to redefine marriage and any efforts to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Let them know that how they vote on this issue will be a major factor in determining how you vote in the next election. Tell them also that you want them to vote for the enshrining of the traditional definition of marriage in the Canadian Constitution. To obtain telephone,
email, fax and address information for MEMBERS of PARLIAMENT see:
http://www.lifesite.net/getinvolved/politics/canada/findvourmp.htmlWith continued prayers and my blessing,
Father N.
*******
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/a-plea-to-stop-the-cycle-of-intimate-partner-violence-in-ns/Excerpt:
...Transition House Association of Nova Scotia executive director Ann de Ste Croix has made an emotional plea and a call for action at a time when intimate partner violence has reached a crisis-level in Nova Scotia.
“The recent intimate partner homicides in our province have left family, friends and entire communities grieving unimaginable losses,” de Ste Croix said, with tears in her eyes as she described the recent tragedies.
Six deaths in Nova Scotia dating back to Oct. 18. -- a seventh violent death occurred on Christmas Eve in Saint John New Brunswick.
de Ste Croix urged the premier of Nova Scotia to deliver immediate support.
“We call on you to provide the epidemic-level funding that our organizations require, to address the scope and scale of intimate partner violence in our province,” she said. “We need the necessary resources and support to address this epidemic.”...
*****
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-31.5/page-1.htmlCivil Marriage Act
S.C. 2005, c. 33
Assented to 2005-07-20
An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes
Preamble
WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada is committed to upholding the Constitution of Canada, and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination;
WHEREAS the courts in a majority of the provinces and in one territory have recognized that the right to equality without discrimination requires that couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex have equal access to marriage for civil purposes;
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that many Canadian couples of the same sex have married in reliance on those court decisions;
WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity, in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Parliament of Canada has legislative jurisdiction over marriage but does not have the jurisdiction to establish an institution other than marriage for couples of the same sex;
WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;
WHEREAS it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage;
WHEREAS, in light of those considerations, the Parliament of Canada’s commitment to uphold the right to equality without discrimination precludes the use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deny the right of couples of the same sex to equal access to marriage for civil purposes;
WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to support that institution because it strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians;
AND WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes should be extended by legislation to couples of the same sex;
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Marginal note:Short title
1 This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act.
PART 1Marriage
Marginal note:Marriage — certain aspects of capacity
2 Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Marginal note:Consent required
Topic: Tyranny of the Minorities, SSPX 2005 Newsletter, Defending traditional Marriage (Read 354 times)