Love Wins Over Hate - The Decision From Ontario Divisional Court




Read more letters to MPs:



Click here to send an email to all Members of Parliament


Click Here For Email Address Of Your
Member of Parliament


Those who want to maintain discrimination against gays and lesbians maintain a list of federal M. P.s with addresses and phone numbers here. They're busy writing - we should be too!




Read more about Just Married






U.S. citizens and politicians question U.S. Customs






Same-sex marriage licence stats for Toronto - Updated






Back to court with new support:  Attorney General of Canada defends same-sex marriage.






A Toronto same-sex marriage bound for Hong Kong






Waffling on same-sex marriage - Martin's muddle






Blind Faith: Faith based bigotry seeks state support against same-sex marriage






Equality Scorecard - tracking the Parliamentary vote for same-sex marriage









Gay marriage - remove nasty bigots.  Gets Liberals clean!






Liberals for Layton - Dennis Mills betrays Liberal values by not supporting same-sex marriage.






Why the legal battle for same-sex marriage continues in Quebec






Bryden's bigotry: hiding  behind children to mask his intolerance for same-sex marriage.






The Inquisition targets same-sex marriage - Document promotes hate






Vatican collaboration with the Nazis; What history teaches us about attacks on freedom and same-sex marriage.






Canadian yearly meeting of the religious society of friends (Quakers) support same-sex marriage






External link to






SELECT to read "M.P. Lorne Nystrom:  A verteran's support for equal marriage "






External link to East Coast Bears






Link to learn more about how you can help couples across Canada pay for this important legal struggle.





Link to  Elliott & Kim - our heroes fighting for our right to marriage in Ontario





Join us as we legalize same-sex marriage.  Subscribe to our free newsletter





External link to learn more about the Canada Pension Plan Class Action (McGowan Elliott & Kim)





Link to learn why registered domestic partnerships (RDPs) are not acceptable as a replacement or alternative for marriage.
Registered Domestic Partnerships (RDPs)






Return to index of letters section of our web site.






Link your web site to ours with one of our animated links.
Help spread the word






Link to Open Concept Consulting






External link to our listing with Speakers' Spotlight






Link to Dr. Robert Wintemute's University of Toronto lecture about religion vs. sexual orientation






Mahogany Manor






Link to Bruce E. Walker Law Office






External link to Beacon Press page for E.J. Graff's "What is Marriage For?"






External link to Equality Forum






External link to Gay Spaces - Housing Help






External link to Never Say "No Comment" Inc.






Read more letters to Members of Parliament from 2002







Advocacy - Letters - Letters to MPs - 2003

Letter's To Members of Parliament
In Support of Equal Marriage

Sept. 25, 2003

Honourable Sir or Madam:

Somewhere in this country, at this very moment, a man and a woman, who know each other for years or merely a matter of hours, can obtain a marriage licence and solemnize their marriage in the matter of an hour or less. The relationship can last for decades, for a few years, or maybe less. Statistics show that among those who marry at all, fifty percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, while sixty percent of second marriages do so.

I honour and respect the right of anyone to define the legal and spiritual elements of marriage and to choose or reject the sacred institution as their conscience dictates. In this country - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - speaking to the soul of our Nation and that of the Party - has finally given me my basic human right to marry the person with whom I continue to share a strong legal, emotional and spiritual bond.

As a Christian, I believe and validate those theologians and simple members of our faith community who have made compelling and respected arguments that our committed and loving definitions of ourselves is NOT what either testament of scripture condemns.

Rather, these noted theologians- from both Catholic and Protestant traditions -often silenced by their own official magisterium - confirm the fact that God created us in His image and likeness, and that God loves me and He knows that I'm gay.

On June 12, 2003, we were travelling to Toronto when I suffered a heart attack. The next morning, I had an angiogram and was subsequently rushed into surgery to receive a quadruple cardiac bypass graft. We had waited twenty-eight (28) years to exercise our right to marry according to Charter Rights. On August 11, 2003, with the permission of my cardiac surgeons, I was permitted to travel the short distance in kilometres and at age 57, the longest distance in my lifetime.

I respect the leap of faith and the act of courage that it takes to overcome the prejudices and admonitions from some religious leaders to vote theocratically on this issue. I could tell you how emotional we were. I could relate how my 90-year old widowed mother, a francophonne native of Quebec,- who incidently has supported the changes that she has seen in her lifetime - was filled with tears as she witnessed her eldest son marry as had her other two sons had decades before. She loves my spouse, Albert, and has done so for decades. As Christ said to His disciples, " Mother, behold thy son, Son, behold thy mother."

Please - and I pray God - before you vote - I ask that you inform yourself further - and remember the lives of countless lesbian and gay couples like us who are filled with renewed love for their beloved Canada- as it truly stands as a beacon of liberty and freedom for the whole world.

I beg you - please do not remove civil marriage from anyone in order to deny it to us. Do not, I beg you - remove or annul our marriage from us. Give us equal rights and make us both proud of Canada - and we will always stand on guard for her.


Raymond and Albert Sawyer-Smith

Sept. 3, 2003

Regarding the legislation to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples

I cannot adequately describe my feelings the day I opened the newspaper and in bold print across the top was the article title: Canada OKs Gay Marriage. It was not something I’d ever expected to see and I had resigned myself to a life as a second-class citizen. That article now sits on my mantle next to the wedding rings I plan to use next month.

I am a lesbian, living with a woman I'd like to call my spouse. We are as committed to each other as any other couple could be. We are exclusive, monogamous, and in love. How much closer to the ideal marriage could we get? I appreciate that individuals may feel fear at the thought of changes that could challenge their safe and comfortable beliefs. I don't feel I am asking for some special status, but rather to have my citizenship be as full and rewarding as the level of participation offered to heterosexuals. I'd like the chance to walk into a hospital and be recognized as my lover's spouse, given the same courtesy as family: information and power in relation to the care of my spouse. I'd like the chance to have my commitment recognized beyond the curtain of individually generated liberal generosity. I love my partner as much as my brother loves his wife. I want my value as a citizen to be recognized.

I don't care, one way or the other, about the religious definition of marriage. The definition of marriage has gone through so many permutations; at this point in history, I cannot see it as anything other than a legal recognition of my status as the next-of-kin for my partner. For an institution that has its roots in the exchange of chattel, the modern version of marriage has become a simple, legal extension of rights and privileges to members of a committed relationship. The protection of children no longer needs the marriage certificate; our social contract has extended to include children of married and unmarried unions. I know that marriage vows have a particular importance for many people, that it indicates a full membership in society based on your ability to satisfy the community's need for perpetuation through children. I want the property sharing aspects to be made available to me. I question the validity of arguments that repudiate my relationship on the grounds of morality. Morality, like the definition of marriage, is something that is time and place specific.

I miss the true generosity of spirit that I grew up with in Canada. I grew up in a lively period of Canadian history, during the repatriation of the constitution and the determination of status for Quebec. I felt that we were a vibrant and welcoming society with high ideals and a moral certitude based on our common humanity not on carefully delineated definitions of in and out. The concept of a truly multicultural society is something about which I feel a great deal of pride and hope. I know that growing into the fullness of that ideal requires discussion and debate. I know that change is not easy, but I believe that Canada has the best chance of becoming the greatest of all nations through a pride based not on exclusiveness but inclusiveness.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I understand that while you must represent the values and beliefs of your constituents, you also bear the responsibility of looking forward into the future and helping to direct Canada into a rich new period of history that places value on human lives and the opportunity to deliver our true potential not just to ourselves in our backyards, but to the world.

Thank you

Wanda Phillips

August 21, 2003

Dear MP Calder, [Calder is against equal marriage]

I appreciate the hard work and dedication of all MPs, especially during difficult times. I consider myself and fair minded and just individual, and a spiritually minded mother of two grown children. I would like to express my support for same-sex marriage as I truly believe that equality benefits us all in building strong foundations for a strong society, division and separation breeds fear and destruction. Unity and co-operation tears down walls of fear, hatred and injustice. Canadian culture has evolved and the time has come for discrimination of sexual orientation to end, and full rights and responsibilities be given to gays and lesbians in equal marriage.

We live in a free and peaceful land where diversity is great and has created the very tapestry of Canadian culture, a global village where a vast number of religious beliefs cultures and languages as well as differing sexual orientations are represented. Most people know more gay and lesbians they think, because they are living everywhere. There are tax payers building and working in communities, voting governments in and out and overall contributing citizens that are now demanding their dignity and rights to be upheld. Many are raising children who are turning out to be healthy, intelligent, and caring human beings, in fact, many gay and lesbian couples that are raising children are upholding the qualities of a sound family life, which unfortunately many heterosexuals are sadly failing to give their their upbringing and their overall wellbeing.

It would be un-constitutional (certainly un-Canadian), for religious leaders to be told by society or a government in how to conduct their worship services, including to force clergy to perform marriages or any other religious ritual that goes against their personal beliefs, as they have the freedom to follow their faith in making those decisions, just as gays and lesbians should have the freedom to follow their faith and the right to be legally married where and how they choose to, as heterosexual couples do. These are basic human rights that should not, cannot, be denied any longer.

Thank you,
Maggie Constans

August 21, 2003

Dear Mr Lunney

You and your party are often heard to speak about the importance of representing your constituents. We are two of your constituents. We are also a Gay couple who have been together and represented ourselves as a couple publicly for over 16 years.

While we firmly believe that the rights of minority groups should not be dictated by the views of the majority, we also note that a variety of public opinion polls have consistently found that the majority of Canadians support the right of Gay and Lesbian couples to full legal marriage. As such it is our opinion that you are representing a minority of your constituents, and perhaps your personal views, in your opposition to same-sex marriages.

We hereby expect that you will be courageous and reject the views of those opposed to gay marriage. Please add your voice to those who champion the rights of all minorities in Canada, and vote to support the bill which will give us, your constituents, the right to a legal marriage if we so choose.

Yours truly

Glen Hasslinger and Michael Musclow
British Columbia

August 18, 2003

To all Members of Parliament,

The issue before us, namely equal -- or same-sex -- marriage, is one of the pre-eminent issues facing Canada today. There is a high degree of passion and strong belief on both sides of the issue. As a Liberal Member of Parliament you are being called upon to exercise your responsibilities as a representative in Parliament. Clearly, you have heard much from those opposing equal marriage. Many of the concerns being expressed by those opposed, while doubtlessly truly felt and believed, are not factual.

If passed, this legislation will not negatively impact on freedom of religion in Canada. As the government has repeatedly stressed -- as has Egale Canada (one of the principle lobby groups in this discussion) -- no religious institution charged with the performance of marriages, or the clergy that serve those institutions, will be forced to marry any couple if doing so is in conflict with the tenets of their faith. Rather, this legislation will enhance religious freedoms and choice by permitting religious institutions that wish to do so to marry same-sex couples. Various United Church congregations have already indicated their willingness, as have the Universalist Unitarian Church, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, some Anglican congregations, various Reform and even Conservative synagogues, and others.

It is a matter of opinion and perspective whether marriage, as we now know it, evolved because of humanity's social organization or came about because it was ordained by Deity. While Canada is inarguably based upon Judeo-Christian ethics, knowledge of the infinite is expressed in many different ways, and experienced in many different ways. We have, in Canada, been able to accommodate a plethora of religions: Judaism and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, and a variety of Christian teachings (Eastern Rite, Orthodoxy, Coptic, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Mormonism, as well as the more traditional "mainstream" systems such as Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Methodism, and United Church). This is the essence of multiculturalism and of being a just society. There has been little conflict amongst all these religions in Canada even though the conflicts are often bloody in their countries of origin. Recognizing the right of adults to not only organize their lives as they will, but to not deny one segment of the populace the rights and responsibilities afforded another, is another cornerstone of the mosaic that constitutes Canada.

Equal marriage will not negatively impact the marriages of opposite-sex couples, nor will it negatively impact the institution itself. How does the manner in which two men or two women choose to organize their life together impact in any way on how the opposite-sex couple across the street organizes theirs? Will opposite-sex couples abandon their commitment to each other simply because two men or two women choose to be married and to have that union recognized in law? Clearly not.

It has been argued that marriage, as we know it, has existed for millennia. This is not true. Marriage as we currently know it has only existed since the rise of a middle-class, starting in the late medieval/Renaissance period. Prior to that period, marriage was a dynastic contract between noble or wealthy families, designed to consolidate wealth and position and ensure a 'legitimate' heir (male heir, it should be stressed). For several centuries thereafter marriage was still predominately such an arrangement. One didn't marry for love or companionship or any of the other attributes now attributed to it. One married for security, to ensure true heirs; it was -- in short -- a business and property-focused contract. In other words, our concept of marriage -- and what it is -- has evolved.

Alternatively, it has been argued that marriage is a Judeo-Christian concept and, since Canada is founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs, to abandon or redefine the concept is to invite disaster, at worse. Clearly, marriage existed before the evolution of what we now call Judaism-Christianity and existed in a variety of forms.

Opponents maintain no society in history ever recognized or "blessed" same-sex unions. This is also not true. Considerable evidence exists to suggest that, at least in early and medieval Europe, such unions were in fact recognized socially and legally and in some instances even blessed by the Church.

In the Canada of the 21st Century we recognize the worth of the individual and no longer perceive the individual as a cipher in the service of the whole or some external authority. We have taken steps in the last one hundred years in Canada to ensure that individuals are not denied marriage because one is a Jew and the other a Gentile, or one is a person of colour and the other of European descent. The idea that at one time only members of the Catholic Church or members of the Church of England could be legally married is met with disbelief, although it is true. Jews, for instance, were not considered married -- in law -- although of course the union was seen to be valid amongst fellow Canadians, if perhaps not quite as valid as Christian weddings.

Same-sex marriage is about equality. To have the ability to marry, if one so chooses, ones same-sex partner and have that marriage fully recognized in law is about equality. Full equality. That is what this entire issue comes down to: Full equality. Either all Canadians are fully equal, or we are not. "Equal but different" is not equal, as segregation and apartheid taught us.

Resistance to same-sex marriage, then, is clearly based in something else. If this is the case, if such resistance is in fact based in anti-homosexual beliefs, then those beliefs must be challenged and the law must continue to reflect the ideals of equality. I therefore urge you to vote in favour of equal marriage.


Stephen Lock
Calgary, Alberta

August 18, 2003

To Nova Scotia M.P.s:

That such a basic union is possible between two persons of the same sex is so patently obvious by now to anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear that it is embarrassing to have it contradicted by pious souls or institutions with a lust for control. --Tom Harper

Good Morning! Those words convey my sentiments, yet they do not reflect the commitment my partner and I have. We are bonded in love which is no less than that of any committed married couple. We have between us 5 children and 5 grandchildren, whom we love dearly, as they do us. All of them form an integral part of our nuclear family, and we are blessed to have that bonding. No individual has the right to treat any group of individuals as second-class citizens, and I often say that I am a Rosa Parks, as I will no longer sit at the back of the bus, as I seek my rights as a Canadian citizen!


J.F. Waller

August 6, 2003

Dear Dominic LeBlanc, M.P.:

Thank you for your letter of April 10, 2003 in which you wrote about how you "respect the intent and spirit" of the Private Members' Bill C-250. You also wrote that "any form of discrimination -- including based on sexual orientation -- is unacceptable to me...".

Now here we are today with our courageous Prime Minister willing to take the personal and professional risks associated with walking the high road to bring about the end of all vestiges of law which discriminate against full civil rights for gays and lesbians -- to marry when in love.

I admire him for this stand, and look forward to admiring you, too, when you choose, as I am sure you will, to cast your vote in favour of changing the law from "man and woman" to "two persons". This is one very important action you can take which will assist in bringing about full rights and responsibilities for all of your constituents.

I also hope that you will begin to fearlessly speak openly about your views. Equal rights for all people are enshrined in Canadian law; the right of certain religions to continue to speak out against homosexual behaviour is also enshrined.

There are two marvelous articles in today's Globe & Mail (August 6) which I urge you to read. One is about a Catholic priest in Quebec who has risked a reprimand from the Vatican for his letter of open disagreement with the Vatican's position on gay marriage. The other is a lengthy article by an Anglican priest, who is also on Canada's Human Rights Commission. Both are wonderful examples of individuals speaking out powerfully without compromising their integrity and deep respect for all people. Then check out today's letters to the editor, all of which are powerfully written, including a moving reminder from the highly esteemed Tomson Highway.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue, Dominic. Thank you in advance for all that I know you will do to ensure that this legislation passes, allowing Canada, to be among the leaders in the 21st century as a nation respectful and supportive of the rights of all of its peoples.


Dr. Janet Hammock
Sackville, New Brunswick

July 31, 2003

Dear Mr. Keddy,

This letter is in support of the proposed legislation permitting same-sex marriage.

Clearly, these are difficult times as we witness social change. The opponents are becoming more vocal; the proponents continue to affirm the goal of equality and justice for all.

You are probably familiar with the issues and arguments, though I fear that the vocal opposition is getting more media coverage than the proponents of justice and equality. Today's (July 31) National Post reports that MPs are getting letters angry about "erosion of the traditional definition of marriage". But we eroded it with divorce and remarriage. We eroded the definition of person, when women were finally acknowledged as persons and given the vote. So perhaps "erosion" should read "expanded".

There was opposition to giving women the vote, freeing slaves, permitting interracial marriage, divorce and remarriage - but these freedoms did come to pass, and are now taken for granted, driven by our principles of equality and justice. And now that we understand a whole lot more about homosexuality than we did just 30 years ago, it's time to move forward with equality and justice for gays and lesbians.

It's going to take leadership and courage to take this step. To do what's right (and what the courts have consistently found to be right) in the face of those who prefer intolerance and discrimination, those who prefer a religious agenda, those who prefer the status quo. But in 1967, when the US finally permitted interracial marriage in all states , a majority of the population was opposed. With same-sex marriage, it's not about polls, and it's not about religion. It is simple human dignity and human rights as articulated in our Charter of Rights.

I hope that you and our parliamentarians have the leadership and courage that's needed.

Peter Dodd
Nova Scotia

June 12, 2003

Dear Mr. O'Brien:

I was truly shocked and taken aback while watching you during the debate on Mr. Robinson's motion, to support the Ontario Supreme Courts ruling on equal-marriage. Firstly you appeared agitated and very confused, and almost venomous in your attack on the decision of the court.

You then went on to say that this decision should be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Even though you previously stated that this was a role for legislators and not for the courts. Following that with; if I don't like their decision I would recommend introducing the notwithstanding clause. You commented that you could just be a "Nice Guy" and give us the rights we seek, but you don't believe in it. Mr. O"Brien we don't want you to be a nice guy, we only want you to be a right guy. A guy who does what is right for all Canadian citizens. You went into this committee with a closed mind, and it appears that you kept your mind closed to most of the testimony. For instance when we gave testimony in Vancouver you weren't here. Sir, we ask you to reconsider your hard-nosed stance on this important issue and at least abstain from voting this afternoon.

Lloyd Thornhill Bob Peacock

February 13, 2003

Dear Ms. [Claudette] Bradshaw M.P.,

On Jan. 30, Belgium became the second country in the world -- behind the Netherlands -- to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. On Sunday, September 22nd, voters in Zurich, Switzerland, approved giving marriage rights to same-sex couples. The measure extends to gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples, including tax, inheritance and social security.

When is Canada going to come out of the dark ages? Those who oppose equal marriage will one day be judged in the same way those who favoured segregation. I know this is a difficult time for you and your colleagues as you struggle with the decision facing you now. Please do the right thing. Stop denying us our Constitutional Rights.


Larry Dickinson & Jason Curl

February 6, 2003

Dear Ms. Bradshaw,M.P.

Dear. Ms. Hedy Fry, M.P.

We are writing to express our support for extending equal marriage to same-sex couples. It's the only fair thing to do.

We met in 1997, fell in love and held a commitment ceremony in Fredericton in 1998. We wanted to be make a true meaning commitment so in May of 2001 we travelled to Vermont and were married in a Civil Union. Several of our friends have been forced to do the same thing since we can't legally do it here. We have wills and have been forced to pay for a "Power of Attorney" so we can legally make decisions for the other in critical situations. Opposite-sex couples do not have to take this costly step. It comes as a "perk" of marriage.

To us, marriage is about love and commitment. We are just as loving and committed as opposite-sex couples. We should be allowed to marry here and be recognized by the government.

I know that Parliament is now considering its options about how to treat same-sex couples fairly. There is only one fair option - dropping the opposite-sex restriction and letting same-sex couples get legally married.

There has been talk about setting up a new institution that is similar to marriage but called something different. That's not equality, that's segregation. If it's not called "marriage", then it isn't marriage - it's second class status. We would like our Vermont "Civil union" recognized here as a marriage.

Canada prides itself on treating people with respect. If same-sex couples can marry it's not going to stop opposite-sex couples from doing so. After the dust settles, people will see it's no big deal. Other countries have done it, we should as well.

Please write and let me know where you stand on this important issue.

Yours sincerely,

Larry Dickinson and Jason Curl

Ms. Bradshaw responded: "The Government feels it is the responsible course to seek further clarity on these issues." And so Larry and Jason wrote back again.

Ms. Fry responded: "I agree with the recent interpretation by the Superior Court of Ontario, that it would constitute discrimination to oppose the legal union of same sex couples ... As you know Holland is the only country in the world that recognises same sex marriage [Belgium too]. As well, France has implemented, the concept in law of "civil union " between same sex couples. I think that the French model is useful one to consider since it deals with the law per se, leaving the religious concept of marriage up to the churches.

"I know the argument that marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman because it was meant to legitimize procreation. If one accepts this argument it would suggest that heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children are not entitled to be married. This has not been supported in law, so any refusal to allow same sex couples the same right to civil union would constitute discrimination. I believe that marriage is meant to enhance commitment and permanence amongst loving couples. The more we can facilitate this for all couples the more we facilitate stability within families, especially, but not limited, to those with children. As you know, same-sex as well as heterosexual families have children, both adopted and biological. Those children have the right to be regarded as equal to the children of heterosexual couples, both de jure and de facto .

"I understand that this is a difficult societal issue. However, we must be consistent in seeking remedies in the pursuit of true equality, under the-law, for all of Canada's citizens."

February 4, 2003

Mr. Peter MacKay, MP
House of Commons Ottawa

Dear Mr. MacKay:

I am writing to express my displeasure and disappointment regarding the recent statement that you made concerning same-sex marriage and the fact that you feel other matters such as homelessness are much more pressing social issues.

While homelessness may be a very serious problem here in Canada I am puzzled by your sudden concern around an issue that has required government intervention for many years. The present Liberal government and the previous Conservative government have done very little to eradicate the lack of shelters, affordable housing and programs to assist those unfortunate people who find themselves in the position of being without a place to live. This recent display of empathy and concern for homeless individuals certainly leaves me to question its authenticity and sincerity.

I find it most disturbing that the basic human rights of Canadians guaranteed by the Charter of Rights is considered a non-priority by someone who is hoping to lead his Party and this country in to the new millennium. I find it very difficult to believe that in a country such as Canada, which is based upon values of acceptance and personal choice, a group could be denied the equal rights that they are entitled to. It is very important that the federal government remedy the situation and live up to the promise it made to the people of Canada when it created the charter, for what is the point of having the charter if it is not going to be followed?

Instead of taking a stand on the values it claims to stand for, the government has chosen to waste millions of taxpayer’s dollars (and need I remind you that gays and lesbians are taxpayers too) travelling across this nation “consulting” the Canadian public about what it should do. Dubbed as the largest government-funded “gay bashing” this country has ever seen, the federal government will only delay what is the inevitable next step.

As a Member of Parliament you have been appointed by the Justice Minister to represent the government and the people of Canada on this special committee, to be fair and unbiased as you listen to and gather the views of Canadians across the country. If you felt that this issue was not an important one to Canadians, then why did you not ask to be replaced on the Committee? You had plenty of opportunity to do so. In fact there is still time. With your recent announcement concerning your views on same-sex marriage I urge Canadians to demand Mr. Cauchon remove you from this committee post and seek immediately to replace you with another house member.

Concern has been expressed by human rights activist groups such as Egale surrounding the Marriage Committee and the fact that three-committee leaders are all on record opposing gay marriage. And now, you have joined the ranks of those opposed to same-sex marriage by announcing that you do not feel it rates high, if at all, on the priority list. Your position on the definition of marriage and your statement that the federal government should not use the law to force churches to recognize same-sex marriage indicates to me how little time and effort you and other members of the committee and opponents to this issue have spent familiarizing themselves with the issue. At no time has it been suggested or requested that churches be forced to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. What has been suggested however is that gay and lesbian couples be treated fairly and equally, by allowing them access to the rights that are guaranteed them by the charter. There are churches who would sanctify and acknowledge same-sex marriage if it were recognized by the state. They do this willingly, with Christian love and acceptance, not because they are being forced or legislated to do so.

Recent government funded polls have indicated that the majority of Canadians feel that gays and lesbians should be entitled to marry. If two people choose to unite their lives, with commitment and sincerity under law, then they should be allowed. Prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from their legal right to marriage is discrimination because it is based on the sexual orientation of the persons requesting the right to do so. If “sexual orientation” is included in the human rights legislation as prohibited grounds for discrimination then why does this government continually support discrimination by refusing gays and lesbians the right to marry?

Like heterosexual couples that choose not to marry, some gay and lesbian couples may also choose not to marry. Equal marriage is about giving same-sex couples the same choice as opposite-sex couples have always had: the right to choose to marry. Equal marriage is about ending discrimination. Canada is a great nation that prides itself on its spirit and it’s freedoms. Yet each and every day the shackles of prejudice and discrimination bind us, as GLBT persons. As long as those chains of oppression bind even one person none of us can truly boast of our freedom.

Sincerely yours,

Don Tabor

Board Member-Membre du Conseil Egale
Canada Atlantic Region

Read a selection of comments from our mail. Link to our media coverage of related issues.