M vs. H

Radical judicial decisions are changing the way we live and think in Ontario, and all across Canada.

On May 20, 1999 the Supreme Court of canada re-defined the word "spouse" to include a member of the same sex. If allowed to stand, this decision will dictate drastic changes to Ontario's family laws, to allow such things as same sex marriages, and adoption of children by same-sex "couples".

When governments allow a handful of unelected judges to change the law, justice and democracy are not well served. The voters of Ontario do not want the legal definition of spouse changed, as evidenced by their overwhelming rejection of Bill 167 under the former NDP government, several years ago.

(Other judicial decisions responsible for radical changes in our society, are the 1988 striking down of the abortion law, and the 1991 declaration that an unborn baby is not a person, and therefore has no legal rights under the law, until he/she has been born completely from the mother's body.)

The union of man and woman is the only natural arrangement that has the ability to procreate, and sustain society. The founders of our country realized long ago that traditional families are the cornerstone of a strong and vibrant society, and as such, deserve special recognition and support under the law. Families are responsible for the creation, nurturing and building up of the next generation. That is why our forefathers established such things as the "baby bonus" or child tax credit, pension benefits, etc. for families.

Homosexual persons are worthy of the same rights as any other single person under the law, but they should not be entitled to the unique benefits granted to traditional families, because by their very nature, homosexual "couples" were never meant to raise up children for society.

If this court decision is an issue that you feel strongly about, please phone, fax, or write your Mpp, and the premier of Ontario. Ask them to represent you by using the Notwithstanding clause to protect the traditional definitions of spouse, marriage, and family, in Ontario.

Jean Hedley Walkerton, Ont.

Rev. Phelps

The coming of Rev. Phelps to Ottawa to protest a pro-homosexual decision of the Supreme Court is an opportune moment to clarify erroneous notions about homosexuality and to explain what the Christian attitude toward it should be. Is Rev. Phelps promoting the truth and love inherent in the message of the Gospel when he carries a sign that says "God hates fags"? The answer is no, because Rev. Phelps fails to make the distinction between the practice of homosexuality and the person who commits homosexual acts.

To God, all sin - and this includes homosexuality - is abhorrent, but He also has compassion on the sinner. And we are all sinners. Man does not lose his dignity as a human being made in the image of God when he sins. He simply tarnishes that image, sometimes so badly that it is almost unrecognizable. However, this image is never obliterated. Man is still deemed redeemable by God, no matter his condition. God's love is always greater than our sin.

Human nature, however, being what it is (full of pride and thwarted desires), often refuses to admit its sin or to accept and submit to God's law. Instead, it wants to change the natural law and the law of the Gospel to suit its fancy, but the eternal laws are not dependent on selfish and fickle man but on God Himself. By their very nature, they cannot change, no matter how hard we may try to change them.

We cannot change God's laws by a majority or a minority. We cannot change His law through a Supreme Court decision, or through a parliamentary motion "to vote God out" as some humanists and homosexuals are foolishly trying to do.

We cannot childishly rationalize away the natural law by using situational ethics and moral relativism. God's law does not depend on our feelings or our private conscience; otherwise, every individual on earth would be able to make his own laws and moral chaos would follow.

We cannot tyrannically impose our own laws on others like a Hitler, by the holocaust; a Milosevic, by ethnic cleansing; a Clinton, by vetoing the will of the American people and promoting partial-birth abortion; or Chretien, by preventing pro-life candidates from running and by refusing to initiate laws to protect the most defenceless of human beings, the unborn, thereby making himself responsible for the continuing holocaust of abortion in Canada.

When governments, religious denominations, groups and individuals begin tampering with eternal laws, there is no end to it; the Pandora's Box of moral relativism, with its spirits of confusion, hedonism and moral chaos, is let loose on our world, and everyone must suffer the consequences - the innocent as well as the guilty. Our only hope then is to return to God's eternal truths inherent in the natural law and the law of the Gospel. We must return to Christian morality.

Is Reverend Phelps right then when he says, "God hates fags"? No. Are homosexual advocates right when they proclaim, "Homosexuality is a human right?" No. No one has a right to sin and reject eternal laws, and no one has a right to condemn a homosexual or anyone to Hell because of his sin. Only God has that power. Both the homosexual and Rev. Phelps need a lesson on Christian morality. To correspond to Gospel teaching, both their signs should read: "God loves the sinner but hates the sin."

Deacon Daniel J. Dauvin Killaloe, Ont.

Pro-life voting

No one has ever accused Frank Kennedy of being without vision. However, this time he might have gone a little bit too far.

In the June Interim, he had the audacity to kick the sacred cow in the rump by putting in print what has been staring us the face for 30 years. He reminded us that the major political parties have done nothing to protect the pre-born babies - or their mothers. He went on to remind us of our collective guilt in this sin.

If he makes us feel uncomfortable, it's because we should feel uncomfortable. We have, by our frenzied loyalty to pro-abortion parties, done nothing to bring about a political end to the slaughter.

We can blame the bishops all we want (and we would appreciate more leadership and encouragement from them), but the fact remains that three beings enter the voting cubicle - the Holy Spirit on one side, the decidedly unholy one on the other, and the voter, armed with his or her conscience and free will, in the middle. I somehow can't see God being pleased each time we freely choose to vote for a pro-abortion machine.

Thirty years of education plus a decent dose of humility should make us face facts. Working within the so-called major parties hasn't worked. The big argument has always been, "It will be easier and quicker if we just clean up the big parties," or "We'll have more chance of getting a pro-life law if we work with the big parties." That theory was wrong 30 years ago and remains so today.

I must bear my share of guilt. I was once one of the greatest detractors of the one federal party which will accept abortion under no circumstances. I joined the Progressive Conservative party; later, I held my nose and joined the Liberal party. I actually worked hard in an effort to see the Liberal party elect a completely pro-life leader. I watched while Jean Chretien gave delegates to Sheila Copps rather than let one of the most eloquent, honest and hard-working members of his caucus come in third. I severed ties with the Big Red Machine that night.

From the sidelines, we watched as he assumed powers which, in theory and in practice, could make nomination meetings obsolete, as he swept loyal, longstanding - but pro-life - Liberal party members aside under the deceptive categorization blanket of "instant Liberals."

I forced myself to ask one simple question: "Which federal party will protect the pre-born baby under all circumstances?" I knew the answer. We all do. Would it be so very hard to give that party our support - or would we rather righteously take our thumbs from our mouths long enough to look at Parliament and scream, "Blood on their hands," and proceed to re-elect the same out-of-control monster machines.

If we're worried about that "wasted vote," let's mentally visit the graves of the millions of dismembered babies and ask ourselves to re-define waste. I call 30 years of human sacrifice followed by ineffective action worse than wasteful.

We are continually given something precious. We are repeatedly given another chance. Let's make the most of it. Even in the ballot box, God puts before us life and death. Let's choose life that we may live.

In the meantime, three cheers for Frank Kennedy, who puts his courage where his mouth (and typewriter) is. Congratulations to The Interim on having the editorial integrity to publish his commentary.

Margaret E. Purcell. Welland, Ont.

Christian voting

It is often difficult to decide who we should vote for in an election. Some people simply vote for the party whose ideology most closely resembles their own. Other people are primarily concerned about issues that will affect them personally. We suggest using a different set of criteria.

We suggest that the party or candidate which gets your vote should not be the one who will best represent you, but rather the party or candidate who will best represent those whom Jesus described as "the least of these [his] brethren!

It is worth noting that the party or candidate who best meets this criteria may or may not be doing the "right" thing for what we consider to be all the "right" reasons; they may not necessarily have the word "Christian" in their party name, and perhaps may not even profess to believe in, or "know" Jesus.

They may well be amongst those who will ask: "But when did we see you hungry and feed you? When did we see you homeless and shelter you? When did we see you in prison and visit you?"

The party or candidate which gets our vote should be the party or candidate to whom Jesus is likely to respond: "When you did it unto the least of these my bretheren you did it unto me!"

Clinton and Area Social Action Committee Clinton, Ont.

New injunction strategy

Thank you for your excellent report, "Three Toronto Pro-Lifers Arrested" (Interim, July 1999).

I participated with Linda in breaching the injunction, carrying the usual signs. However, I was determined to implement a pro-life strategy based upon the recent favourable judgments of the courts in response to our pro-life activism in challenging the injunction. The courts have made clear that:

(1) the law requires that it is the responsibility of the sheriff to enforce the injunction;

(2) peaceful, pro-life activism (including praying, picketing, distributing literature, and counselling) may be undertaken within the bubble zone without police interference or threat of arrest, until the sheriff has attended and read the injunction to those activists who are breaching the same, and ordered them to leave;

(3) pro-life activists who obey the sheriff's order and leave, may subsequently return later the same day, (after the sheriff has left), and continue activities breaching the injunction until the Sheriff returns to repeat the reading of the injunction and ordering the pro-lifers to leave.

This clarification of the law by the courts has "defanged" the injunction "tiger," leaving it "toothless." Pro-lifers may breach the injunction in accordance with these court judgments, in peaceful pro-life activism, with no threat of arrest.

That's the strategy I followed successfully on the day of Linda's last arrest. When ordered by the sheriff to leave, I got into our van and drove away - only to return an hour or two later - a few minutes after the sheriff had left. The sheriff did not return, but had he done so, I would have simply left at his order, to return whenever I decided to do so.

I suspect that it wouldn't be long until the powers-that-be decided their sheriffs have better things to do than to run back and forth at (abortuary manager) Maria Corsillo's command to enforce their "toothless" injunction!

We ought to be implementing such a court endorsed strategy which enables pro-life pursuits with only token resistance, and which might force the government to act - hopefully to lift and discard this "temporary" injunction. The Harris government has a new mandate and there's a new attorney-general, representing a socially conservative jurisdiction. The radical feminist instigator of this NDP injunction, Marion Boyd, and Charles Harnick, her flip-flopping Tory successor as attorney-general, are no longer in government. I have no doubt that the implementation of such a well-planned pro-life strategy could force the government's hand - a positive development no matter what might develop as a result.

Let's do it!