Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow, editors
Published by The Institute for the study of Marriage, Law and Culture
by McGill-Queens University Press
ISBN 0-7735-2895-4 (pbk)
available for purchase from Amazon.com
from “the Foreword”
by Maggie Gallagher, co-author of The Case for Marriage and syndicated columnist
“Same-sex marriage will be, in effect, a public and legal declaration by governments that children do not need mothers and fathers. That alternative family forms are not only just as good, they are just the same as a husband and wife bringing kids up together.” pg vii
“Marriage is our most basic social institution for protecting children. Same-sex marriage amounts to a vast social experiment on children. Rewriting the basic rules of marriage puts all children, not just the children in unisex unions, at risk. Do not expect boys to become good family men in a society of [males] who believe, as they have been taught, that men are optional in family life.” pg viii-ix
from “War of the Ring”
by Daniel Cere, Director of the Montreal Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law & Culture
“The deconstruction of conjugal marriage in Canada has not been driven by democratic demand. In fact, the ongoing legal “reform” of marriage has been imposed from the top down. There is a sociological divide on the marriage issue, with support for same-sex marriage coming disproportionately from elite sectors of society – the academy, the legal community, the upper echelons of business and government – and from the media.” pg 19.
From “Confusion on the Hill”
by John McKay, Parliamentary Secretary for Finance
“We can see now, however, that those who were ringing the alarm bells were not being paranoid. The central objective of ‘gay marriage’ advocates is to see a forced acceptance of their particular view of marriage established into law. They are no longer interested in, or satisfied with, a mere absence of discrimination against those who practise homosexual lifestyles. Rather, they are interested in moving society beyond tolerance to legally entrenched acceptance, if not approval.” Pg 32.
“The confusion on the Hill cannot be settled by the Supreme Court… It will be settled only when Parliament works together with the citizenry it represents to find a solution to the same-sex marriage debate that truly accommodates profound differences of opinion, while determining what best makes for the common good.” Pg 37-38.
From “The Future of an Experiment”
by Katherine K Young, McGill University Professor of Religious Studies, and
Paul Nathanson, McGill University Faculty of Religious Studies researcher
“To the extent that norms affirm some forms of behaviour but not others, they are indeed discriminatory. But is every form of discrimination evil? … We discriminate against murder, because the collective good requires us to do so. That is an extreme example, to be sure. In our opinion, gay relationships are neither evil nor neurotic. Even so, we see no compelling reason for the state to promote them. It does have a compelling reason to promote straight relationships, on the other hand, in the form of marriage… Our point here is that just because norms establish a majority, does not necessarily entail the persecution of minorities.” Pg 44-45
“It should be clear to everyone by now that advocates of gay marriage are interested primarily or even only in the interests of (gay) adults… [W]e do know by now that two parents are better for children than one and that families with both mothers and fathers are generally better for children than those with only mothers or only fathers. We know also that biological parents usually protect and provide for their children more effectively than non-biological ones. That these facts are either ignored or trivialized by some advocates of gay marriage… says something about concern for children in our time.” Pg 49.
“Because fatherhood is the one remaining source of a healthy masculine identity… legalizing gay marriage could leave men with a major problem. We are referring specifically to lesbian marriages, which would legitimate the already widespread notion that fathers are unnecessary.” Pg 50.
“Canada welcomes immigrants, many of whom are religious. But religious freedom would become increasingly difficult to defend. Even if exceptions were initially made for religious officials, not forcing them to marry gay couples, these exceptions would almost certainly be challenged in the courts. The latter would have to choose between two competing rights: freedom of religion versus equality. Guess which one is likely to trump the other?” Pg 54.