Wednesday, March 29, 2006

I opened my email this morning to find a lovely email from United Families Canada President, Jill Calhoon. I don't know if it was related to my post on Sunday, but at any rate, if it was, somehow they assumed I was against gay marriage. Oh, little did they realize my feelings on the subject. And they really didn't. So, I wrote them a letter, and emailed it. Here is the lovely letter/action alert I received in my inbox:

"Action Alert
March 28, 2006
An Urgent Invitation to Help Restore Marriage in Canada

Dear Fellow Canadian:

United Families Canada is launching the Restore Marriage Canada Project with the goal of restoring traditional marriage in our nation. This will not be easy, and we will need the help of hundreds of thousands of concerned Canadians like you to accomplish it.

You are receiving this invitation to join in this effort because you have participated on the marriage issue in one or more of the projects or activities that United Families Canada has sponsored in recent years. If you do not want to receive future alerts and updates from us on the marriage crisis, you can easily “unsubscribe” from our list by clicking here, but we hope you will decide to join us in this effort to restore traditional marriage in Canada.

It is essential to understand first of all that there is nothing more important than restoring traditional marriage in determining what kind of nation and society we will pass on to future generations of Canadians. Radically redefining marriage to include same-sex individuals undermines this vital institution. Throughout history, marriage between a man and a woman has been essential to forming strong families. Strong families, in turn, have always been the foundation of all successful societies. We ignore these lessons of history at our peril.

With the recent election of a Conservative Government, we have a chance—probably our last chance--to revisit the legalization of same-sex “marriage” that the Liberal Government rammed through Parliament last year without holding fair, balanced, honest and adequate hearings to consider all of the consequences of this radical redefinition of this fundamental institution.

As you will recall, Prime Minister Harper made revisiting the issue of legalization of same-sex “marriage” a key election issue and he has committed to at least bring the issue before Parliament for a free vote. It will not be easy for the government to win this vote, even though opinion polls consistently show that a solid majority of Canadians oppose legal same-sex “marriage.” One of the reasons he will have difficulty, of course, is that he was only able to form a minority government.

We all have an opportunity to make a difference, to be heard, and to exercise our rights in a democracy. For the sake of our future we must do it on this issue. This is why it is so essential that all of us concerned about our future pitch in and do whatever we can to help. We will provide you with information and opportunity to be part of the process.

One critical thing each of us can do to help is to sign the new, on-line National Restore Marriage Petition we will be sending to Parliament. Click here to go to the Restore Marriage Canada Website to sign it. It is essential that our MPs know that the majority of us still feel strongly about restoring marriage and receiving this petition with tens of thousands of signatures on it will help!

The second important thing you can do is to help spread the word to others and encourage them to also get involved in this effort. You can easily do this by forwarding this alert on to others. Or, if you wish, you can use the special feature on our Web site to send a suggested e-mail message from you to others on your e-mail list.

Our Restore Marriage Web site also has additional background information on the marriage issue and why it is so vital that we restore traditional marriage to Canada.

We do not know when the Prime Minister will try to revisit the same–sex “marriage” issue. He has said only that he will do it “sooner rather than later but not right away.” That means we could be having this critical vote within the next couple of months, so we must act urgently!

Thank you for joining us in this vital effort!

Sincerely,

Jill Cahoon
President, United Families Canada"



And here, ladies and gentleman, is my reply:

Au contraire, Madame President,

While I do feel the institution of marriage is threatened in current
Canadian society, I do not feel that same-sex marriage is threatening
in the slightest. That two people should be able to marry and build a
home or family together is a right I believe that heterosexual couples
are no more entitled to than their homosexual neighbours.

In fact, I think the people who pose the greatest threat to the
institution of marriage today are heterosexual couples who carelessly
enter into this legal union, with little or no understanding of what it will
involve. It has never been two men or two women who have eroded
matrimony, but people who have taken vows that they never intended to
keep.

Heterosexual infidelity is, in my opinion, far higher and
well-documented than homosexual infidelity, and if anything,
homosexual couples have actually fought for this right, and value it
more highly than many heterosexual couples. In addition, spousal
abuse in heterosexual couples is extremely high; the statistics are
sickening no matter how you view them:

-One-quarter of all women have experienced violence at the hands of
their current or past marital partner (includes common-law unions)
-One-in-six currently married women reported violence by their
spouses; one-half of women with previous marriages reported violence
by a previous spouse
-More than one-in-ten women who reported violence in a current
marriage have at some point felt their lives were in danger

Source: Statistics Canada. The Daily, Thursday, November 18, 1993.
http://www.womanabuseprevention.com/html/statistics.html

Attempting to strengthen and promote the union of marriage in Canada
without addressing the issues of infidelity and spousal abuse is not
only naive; it is negligent.

I do hope that it is your last chance to address the same-sex marriage
issue in Parliament. Unfortunately, while there happened to be a
majority of Canadians who were opposed to these measures, it is
sometimes the job of elected government to do something in the
interests of ALL citizens. You'll recall that at many points in history,
including democratic nations such as the United States, people have
been discriminated against for their colour, religion, heritage or
gender, among other senseless reasons. If we once discriminated
against Chinese immigrants and built a railroad on their dead; if we
interned Japanese in Canada because it was the fashionable thing to
do; if we sold children into farm-based slavery in Quebec because they
were born out of wedlock or worse... this is all the more reason to
do the right thing for once, and recognize the rights of ALL
Canadians, whether all Canadians are human enough to do the same, or
not.

Sincerely,

(Y'all know my name.)
That's it for today.

4 Comments:

Blogger Sima said...

I love you Lily; I really do. And I also love your top-notch intelligence. Althought I must admit, I was totally surprised by the end of your letter when not a slight bit of uncontrolled rage, profuse profanity (like that aliteration?), and/or shock-value banter had taken place.

While I look forward to these aspects of your opinionated character, I think it was a wise decision and hope someone reads your response and gives consideration to your remarks.

For me, however, it all comes down to a simple maxism, regarding Gay Marriage: treat others how you want to be treated. I don't think the "Right" has ever gotten that very simple maxism.

That is, I can openly say that I support Gay marriage not because I'm Gay, but because I'm Someone. And EVERYONE who is someone knows that they can be discriminated against. That is, in my own selfish little way, I want to live in a society where people aren't condemned for who they are or their lifestyle choices. For the sake of internal consistency, if I want to be able to be free from discrimination based on what I am and who I marry, then I had better damn well sign up to support the rights of others, irrespective of whether I like the way they live their life. For example, I'm not a fan of fast food. I think it's bad for people in the same way that the social conservatives think homosexuality is bad for people. But I'd sign up in a second to defend the right of people who eat fast food to marry, to vote, to sit at the front of the bus, to continue to eat fast food, and to be able to call fast food "a meal" the same way a wholesome flaxseed bagel with soy milk is considered "a meal". No need for traditional definitions here. Why? Because I certainly wouldn't want anyone telling me what I can or can not do, based on their subjective beliefs. Simple as that. Supporting Gay Marriage thus, has less to do with Supporting Gay Marriage as it has to do with respecting humanity, protecting YOUR rights by protecting the rights of OTHERS, and for god's sake, treating others how you want to be treated. Why oh why, do the social conservatives not get that?

Sorry for the rant Lily.

11:24 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very well put letter Hills!

9:22 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A well written argued letter Lily.

It's not fair, Sima, to suggest that those on the "Right" don't "get" the golden rule. Many on the right advocate strongly for better treatment for others: the unborn, trafficked women, and presecuted religious minorities all come to mind.

Let's look at it from the other side. I don't suppose violent leftist protesters in Seattle, etc. cared a lot about how store owners wanted to be treated. Similarly, those lefties who advocate immediate withdrawals out of places like Iraq don't seem too concerned about the common Iraqi who would be left at the mercy of tyrannical, racist, and hateful organizations who love nothing better than bombing crowded religious ceremonies and decapitating people because of their heritage.

Methinks being a non-empathizing jerk has much more to do with arrogance and pride than with ones place on the political spectrum.

12:10 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A well written letter Lily.

It's not fair, Sima, to suggest that those on the "Right" don't "get" the golden rule. Many on the right advocate strongly for better treatment for others: the unborn, trafficked women, and presecuted religious minorities all come to mind.

Let's look at it from the other side. I don't suppose violent leftist protesters in Seattle, etc. cared a lot about how store owners wanted to be treated. Similarly, those lefties who advocate immediate withdrawals out of places like Iraq don't seem too concerned about the common Iraqi who would be left at the mercy of tyrannical, racist, and hateful organizations who love nothing better than bombing crowded religious ceremonies and decapitating people because of their heritage.

Methinks being a non-empathizing jerk has much more to do with arrogance and pride than with ones place on the political spectrum.

12:15 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home