PRESS RELEASE
| September
8 , 2003 Statutory Agreement of Mutual Existence For immediate Release Is government really foolish enough to disrupt the convention of marriage, as we now know it to be, for a group of homosexuals that make up less than 3% of Canada’s population? If so a new Statutory Agreement of Mutual Existence needs to be considered for both them and a much larger group of heterosexual people. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. The Charter guarantees certain rights and freedoms that extend to everyone the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion. This means religious organizations that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law are free to practice their beliefs. While the Solemnization of Marriage is a provincial responsibility the federal government has the responsibility of internal administration. Under Equality Rights, section 15(1) “every individual is equal before and under the law… without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, (meaning male or female) age, or mental or physical disability”. The Charter looks at an individual singularly whether its sex is male or female. It does not look at an individual’s life style. There is nothing in the Charter denoting sexual orientation. (2) Subsection (1) deals with the same rights as they relate to “disadvantaged individuals or groups”…. Should the courts allow two individual homosexuals the right to co-exist, with benefits, then those same rights need to be extended to any two individual heterosexuals who may also want to co-exist. The charter does not or should not discriminate between one group of individuals and another. Comments made by Prime Minister Chrétien regarding the majority’s unfair domination over minorities (homosexuals) is without reason. It would appear this issue, not a priority to most Canadians, has monopolized our entire country. This monopoly might be better characterized as a distraction considering the small numbers who seek to benefit. Nevertheless, this issue has taken on a life of its own with many looking closely, at election time, at how their politician stands on this issue. The majority of Canadians favour the status quo of marriage being between a man and a woman and would prefer to leave it that way. The Solemnization of marriage is not a concession. By convention it is an existing right of religious organizations that have religious freedom under the Charter to perform and protect it, even if it is performed civilly. France expressly prohibits homosexual marriages from taking place in the “town hall” Homosexual unions in France take place in a court of law. They do not allow for the submission of joint tax returns for a period of three years. This consideration is owing to the volatility of homosexual relationships, and the opportunity for potential abuse. France along with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and Finland do not allow homosexuals to adopt. Italy provides for economic ties in situations where groups “cohabit” on the basis of “bonds of affection”. There is no particular provision for homosexuals, and no ceremony of marriage. Belgium provides for a Statutory Cohabitation Contract signed by a notary public. These countries do not provide homosexuals with “marriage” in terms of a formal celebration, whether it is in a church or in a civic town hall. Ireland, New Zealand, England, Australia, and the United States, all “peers” of Canada and particularly English Canada, do not provide for same-sex marriage or any special legal considerations or civil unions. Why then would Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Premiere Gordon Campbell be eager to move the nation and this province in this direction? If politicians persist in continuing with this folly of recognizing two homosexuals, then we must allow for something along the lines of a Statutory Agreement of a Mutual Existence between any two individuals. We must also insure we do not allow two individuals of the same sex to adopt children as this is not in the best interests of the children. Along with Robbins SCE Research it is our view that the support of the status quo for marriage of a man and a woman is in the majority by a 63-37 margin. However, it is also our conclusion that all Canadians want to see all people, including homosexuals safe, secure, and comfortable, as we should all hope to be Accordingly this agreement should not be particularized to include what goes on in the privacy of one’s bedroom as a basis for economic security. Couples, Homosexual or not who choose to live together, should be allowed to create an economic existence with statutory rights on matters of housing, health benefits, taxation; and in the event of dissolution of the relationship, inheritance and property division Reform
Principles (www.reformbc.net)
do not allow for homosexual marriages.
Our suggestion of a new Statutory Agreement
of Mutual Existence, which has to be ratified
by our members, is mainly to show that
you cannot arbitrarily decide to allow
for a homosexual union at the exclusion
of a heterosexual union. -30-
For
More Information contact:
|