A very late response to my e-mail on Bill C-38 from Jim Prentice, M.P.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank-you for your recent
correspondence with regards to Bill C-38. I appreciate your thoughtful
comments and interest in this very important issue. I will continue to
listen to the dialogue of my constituents on this legislation.
Since the Supreme Court of Canada decision, I have embarked on an
extensive consultation process, fulfilling a commitment I made to my
constituents in Calgary Centre-North during the 2004 federal election.
I can confidently say, after consultation with hundreds of people, that
Calgary Centre-North reflects very diverse views and opinions on this
subject. Enclosed are my thoughts, as put forward on February 2nd 2005.
I encourage you to stay in contact with my office to voice your
comments.
Regards,
Jim Prentice
STATEMENT ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE
Jim Prentice, M.P.
February 2, 2005, CALGARY – Yesterday the Liberal government introduced
their much-awaited marriage legislation.
The decision I have come to has been a difficult one. I have spoken to
many hundreds in my riding of Calgary Centre-North. I have met with many
community leaders including religious leaders from Calgary and
representatives of the gay community. I have held an open Town Hall
Meeting and I have done my best to understand the legal and theological
issues that this decision has raised.
For me, the marriage question is one of individual liberty – of
constitutional liberty.
Let’s be clear. I have been married to the same woman for 21 years,
reflecting my own personal definition of what marriage is. It is also
the definition of my own church, the Presbyterian Church of Canada.
It is not, however, the personal definition of many of our fellow
citizens who are homosexual and who have sought the protection of the
Charter to obtain civil marriage licences from the government.
Fundamentally the question is this: what right do we as a society have
to refuse gay Canadians something that the rest of us are entitled to -
namely, a civil marriage license.
Set aside the legal debate, and ask the very simple question. What moral
or political authority do we have to deny gay Canadians the issuance of
a government marriage license?
The answer in my mind is clear. We have no such right at all because
whether two people of the same sex marry, and how and whether their
gender enters into the relationship, is none of the government’s
business, providing they do no harm to anyone else.
“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
- John Stuart Mill
I am a conservative, and this is the philosophy that guides me in public
life.
Each of us has the right to fashion our own life to suit our own
character without impediment from others, providing we harm no one else
and providing we accept the consequences of our own decisions.
If we have the right, as a society, to prohibit homosexual Canadians
from civil marriage because their idea of a marriage differs form ours,
do we have an equal right to prohibit some Christians, Muslims, or Sikhs
from preaching aspects of their faith, which are not shared by the
majority of Canadians? By parity of reasoning, would we not have an
equally valid entitlement to suppress the literature, political opinions
or political association of those who hold views different than our own?
These are the modern liberties of our western society. They are the very
liberties that underpin western society, and they are owed to each of us
equally and unconditionally.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that all Canadians
must be treated equally at law, including the right to marry. Equally
the Charter protects the rights of religions to carry on their faith
according to their own doctrine.
The vote for Conservatives is a free one. Stephen Harper has shown
courage and leadership and his position has been very clear to
Canadians. It is particularly disappointing that Mr. Martin did not have
the strength of leadership to allow his entire Caucus to have a free
vote on this issue.
I have come to the conclusion that I will stand in defence of the
constitutional right of homosexual couples to civil marriage, even
though their definition of marriage is not my own. I will be equally
vigilant in defending religious marriage and religious freedom, for it
is equally clear that neither the Christian community nor the other
communities of faith can be compelled to accept or perform same sex
marriages. Religious freedom must stand sacrosanct and religious
marriage must stand as the exclusive preserve of our communities of
faith.
I intend to vigorously support the Conservative Party amendments that
would strengthen these protections of religious freedoms.
This decision has been a difficult one. My riding has a diversity of
opinions on this question. I appreciate that my decision will not make
everybody happy. I will be accountable.
In the final analysis, I have concluded that religious marriage is the
authority of the church and that jurisdiction must be jealously guarded.
But civil marriage, or governmental marriage, of two Canadians, must be
available equally to all. Therefore, I will be voting in favour of this
legislation and I will support Conservative Party amendments designed to
protect religious freedoms.
. But! We did watch the worst butt best movie ever.
