?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

...apparently hasn't been getting mail from these people:



"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"


Some tidbits, if anyone find the cut daunting or uninteresting:

"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."

Dear Right-Wing Nutjobs: Oh, silly me. I though things like education and democracy and citizenship and responsibility determined the future of a society. Shows what I know. But then, I'm just a girl. (Oh, no, I swear that's relevant.)

"...the Liberal Government rammed [Bill C-38] 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."

I... I...

Oh, hell. I give up.

...If the redefinition of civil marriage, so that it no longer discriminates between partners based on gender, is such a radical change, then perhaps there was something deeply wrong with the existing definition. Let's see... the beginning of Bill C-38 reads: "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..." and so on, of course. But the meat of it is that the Constitution states that nobody gets to get legally defined based entirely on their gender. (Sometimes I wonder if you folks even *read* these things.) That means regardless, meaning in any legal arrangement, meaning that the law already said that, because saying that "everyone is equal" means men and women, straights and gays. If that looks like a parallel, it's because it is.

But to repeat, in plainer language: the law is not supposed to discriminate between genders, sexualities, or anything of the kind, in any situation. If you don't think that one of the most basic precepts of the Constitution (aside from being meant to guide laws based on reasoned argument, not baseless and illogical dogma) should apply to what you lunatics think is the "most basic unit of society," then you need your fucking heads examined and your keyboards confiscated. Nobody that stupid should be going around screaming at the top of their lungs. For your own good, you understand. I, of course, would never explicitly support the muffling of expression, no matter how ill-informed, irrational, psychotic, hateful, and generally STUPID.

Okay. Calming back from the Capslock of Rage. For a minute, anyway.

"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!"

"This critical vote." Oh, you're right, of course. Making sure that the gay couple don't move in across the street and comment negatively on your hideous decorating scheme make you realise all of your "arguments" were complete shit, all along corrupt your children "devalue your lifestyle" or "invalidate your marriage" is much more important than, say, making sure the elderly have free healthcare, or making sure that we keep our national literacy rate, or ensuring that my entire generation doesn't end up as permanently bitter tech-support call-centre wage-slaves by the age of thirty. Or, and I mention these not because I give them much thought but because you people are constantly bitching about them, making sure the budget is reasonably balanced, protecting us from terrorists, fighting forest fires, mad cow disease the avian flu, or the AIDS pandemic. Actually, never mind that last one. You folks probably think they deserve it, anyway. Oops. Was that politically incorrect? I guess telling you to shut up and die would be, too. Damn. What was I thinking?

Let me just re-state, once more, for anybody who missed it the first two times: law is about reason. Our laws say that everyone's equal. That means that, for all legal intents and purposes, a citizen is neuter, sexless, and recognizable only as a voice, and a vote. Their sexuality, their gender, their religion (even!) is not meant to enter the equation. Repealing Bill C-38, which really just re-stated something that was already inherent in the existing Constitution, would suddenly make necessary the opposite set of laws, that would make up dozens of sub-sets for each individual based on their age, their sex, their whatever. This rather defeats the purpose of democracy, which is meant to assume that everyone is equal. You can't have it both ways. Either every adult entity is equal, in every legal way, or they're not, and we have a hierarchy, not only culturally implied but written into law. Who wants to return to a caste system, or a world where women can't leave the house without an escort? I sure as hell don't. But it's happened. These are not unrelated issues.

More specifically on-topic: letting gay people marry has absolutely no affect on your dull little lives, Anti-Choice Folk and Homophobe Folk. If anything it is the government taking one step back from the entire question of marriage beyond the necessary civil details of where you live and how you file your tax return. Do you, traditionalists demanding a return to simpler, more basic times, want the law to be more complex, with greater variations of grey? This makes no sense to me.

"Marriage" is not a civil matter. Or a legal matter. It never really has been. At the most the legal acknowledgement of the "institution," actually a rather archaic religious ritual, was for the purposes of bookkeeping. And that's as far as it should go. Governments should never be religious. That rather defeats the purpose. You want to live in a theocracy? Move to the Vatican. Or hell, drive South. Wait five years. You'll be happy there. And hey! All your homes will be empty and waiting for the people I expect to be fleeing North at the same time! See how that works out?

Canadians like to say that the government stays out of the bedrooms of the nation. It's a nice thing to say. It's a nice thought. Governments have no business treading the shady and treacherous areas of morality - democracy is amoral, as it should be. Asking the government to legislate morality isn't just inappropriate, it's disgusting, in more ways than one, and more importantly, it just pisses me off. It also betrays a lack of self-control which also pisses me off. What exactly are you people afraid of?

So don't you dare go applying your moral statutes to my reasoned convictions. They have no relation, nor should they. You want to keep the nice lesbian couple down the street from getting married in your church? Great. Fine. Talk to your pastor. Control what happens on private property. But when that nice lesbian couple says "to hell with it" and heads down to the nearest municipal hall, you keep your epithets to yourself. I have some serious doubts about marriage in the first place - I think the existing ritual is arbitrary, that the implications (especially those concerning the respective positions of men and women) conditioned into Western society, even those of us who socially, are determinedly secular and straight, are in there too deeply to remove easily, and that it's all far too seeped in the irrational and the oppressive to ever be serviceable as a definer of interpersonal relationships, and in addition I really, really resent the idea of somebody else trying to define my relationship with somebody, whatever that relationship happens to be.

How's that for destroying society? My eventual and fully-reasoned intention to possibly live with but never marry some nice imaginary male? I guess it makes me immature that I imagine with glee your shiny red exploding head, but hey, I take my glee where I can get it.

Hell, I almost enjoy meeting those tract-sprinkling Fundies, arguing with Jehova's Witnesses, engaging streetcorner Scientologists in analysis of science fiction, and savouring the violent impulses inspired in me by homophobic ranting. But I should note that I have never hit one of you in the face, lost my temper in public, or used my democratic vote to try and enforce the instinctive but irrational desire that is my response to such encounters to have the lot of you forcibly sterilized. The point is that those kinds of questions extend beyond the reach of democracy and government. As well they should. We can scream at each other all we want. But at the end of the day, I'm running to catch the train home from class and you're going home with McDonalds for the kids or something and I hate you and you hate me, but all we're going to do is wish the other was more enlightened from our side. Nobody, at least tomorrow nobody is going to break into your house and force you into a homosexual relationship, sell your children into gay kiddie porn, or take your wife or husband and separate you on opposite sides of a lake of molten lava. I swear we eeeeville lefties are not that militant.

But by the same token, you don't get to decide who gets a life insurance payout from a dying spouse, who gets custody of their kids, who gets to control their body's reproductive capabilities, or who gets to call their relationships valid based on gender, sexuality, or anything else of the kind. Because under the law, we are all identically faceless and shapeless. And whether or not specifically gay people get to call themselves married is none of the law's business, and it's none of yours.

Pray for me all you want. But stay the HELL out of my bedroom.

Love, me.

...I can only assume that they have my e-mail address from that vote for/against the legalization thing that appeared online last year when the lovely, lovely progressive Bill C-38 was passed. I don't *remember* entering my e-mail address. Certainly not the one to which this was sent. But it's possible.

For the curious, their site is at restoremarriage.ca, whatever the hell that means.

Their links page includes a "scientific study" linked out of McGill (oh, McGill), a militantly anti-choice site called LifeSite which seems to like nothing better than accusing Planned Parenthoods the continent over of being kiddie porn moguls (I'd ask where the logic was, there, but look who I'm talking about), and my favourite: REAL Women Canada, whose credo explains, with great long-winded enthusiasm and all the subtlety of a wiffle-bat to the head, that while it's very nice that women are now legally allowed to go out, have careers, and make something of themselves independent of their biology, all of that really only makes all the more obvious the fact that no woman is a REAL Woman until she marries, reproduces, sacrifices all that silly nonsense, and nobly chooses to live out her life in a woman's only "natural" place: in the home.

Holy bloody gods. Can you revoke uterus privileges? I've never so ardently felt the desire to do so. Dumb fucks.

If you'll excuse me, I now need to go scream into a pillow for a few minutes so that I can fall asleep.

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
crantz
Mar. 29th, 2006 10:14 am (UTC)
Lame.

Hey, did you hear Harper giving a speech about the released hostages a bit back? I was kinda weirded out by how disappointed he sounded.
chandri
Mar. 29th, 2006 07:22 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I did. Harper always seems to have the opposite reaction to what a reasonable person could expect. Torture victims being given freedom? "Damn." Major American corporation accidentally poisons fifteen hundred people and gets away with it? "Oh, wait, guys, I have to put a straight face on." I don't know if that makes him a sociopath or a supervillain.
smolder
Mar. 29th, 2006 08:32 pm (UTC)
Isn't it comforting to know that the Conservatives' top priority is not to scale back government or cut spending, but to curtail the rights of innocent citizens? I also find the argument that they are "protecting traditional values" to be delightfully spurious. The world didn't end when Massachusetts legalized marriage, or when Canada did... Maybe God won't rain Hellfire down upon us for treating everyone the same.
chandri
Mar. 29th, 2006 09:14 pm (UTC)
What I always want to ask, whenever I hear them touting their commitment to protecting "traditional" values, is "whose traditions?" Sure as hell not *mine,* my family's, or actually anybody I know, personally. I mean, forget democratic rule. That's not even populist. o.O
captainspiffy
Mar. 29th, 2006 10:09 pm (UTC)
Oh ari, there you go legitimizing my own zealotry...

Bear in mind that isn't the government itself sending you that message though. Just the people who rabidly support it and voted it in. I think the conservatives probably learned thier lesson about explicitely stating their beliefs to a public audience what with all the past scandals it created.

And no, I've only met a few people in my life who would support that sort of thing. Sadly, my uncle is one of them, but I blame his wife (who made him... MADE HIM... join the promise keepers. She MADE HIM JOIN THE PROMISE KEEPERS! WTF! - Promise Keepers are a mens association that basically states that men have a duty to god to run a home in which the woman is seen but not heard. They also use the term "sexual purity" a lot. I'm not sure what that means).

But my point was there are lots and lots of "people" out there who DO believe that a woman's place is prego in the kitchen and that the people of the gay community aren't really people. The election kinda proved that. And to them I say: Don't watch V for Vendetta. And go fuck yourselves.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

reeciebastion
chandri
Chandri MacLeod
Fantasi.net

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com