Contact us now: Phone: +111111111



It’s time for a Royal Commission on Marriage

Mon, September 18, 2006   |   Author: Ron Gray   |   Volume 13    Issue 39 | Share: Gab | Facebook | Twitter   

This fall Parliament is to re-open the debate on the definition of marriage. Sort of.

The Conservatives-who promised during the last election campaign to re-visit this contentious issue-will ask Parliament whether it wants to re-examine the definition of marriage (which was changed by Bill C-38 to include any two people). That definition, as it now stands, is dangerous. “Any two people” opens the door to things like incest and pedophilia. Of course, anti-moralists say that couldn’t happen, “because incest and pedophilia are against the law.” But remember: sodomy was also against the law.

And therein lies the problem: laws can easily be changed. That’s why we must demand that Parliament enshrine the traditional definition of marriage-a definition that predates the institution of government itself-in the Constitution.

But the more immediate problem is this: what shall we ask our MPs to do this fall, when they vote on whether to re-visit the definition of marriage? On the face of it, that’s like asking someone to put their hand into a buzz-saw: most MPs would rather just see this thorny issue go away.

But it won’t.

The real question they should be addressing, however, is far deeper than a mere “yes or no” on whether we should repeal Bill C-38. There’s a much bigger question behind all this posturing and flip-flopping:

What is the state of marriage in Canada today? What forces are working for and against this most important of all human relationships?

Parliament must step back and address these larger questions. It should establish a Royal Commission to examine the state of marriage, and authorize it to hold extensive hearings-all across the country.

No one wants to deprive anyone of legitimate rights; but when claims for the sexual “rights” of adults jeopardize the rights of children and the future of the nation, someone must have the courage to declare:

“No! You may not use a claim to private ‘rights’ as a weapon to threaten the rights of those who do not yet have a voice, nor to threaten the stability of the nation.”

France has done this. Their government established a commission on marriage and the family, and it resoundingly rejected same-sex “marriage”, adoption by same-sex couples, and assisted procreation for single women or same-sex couples.

There’s a statement at the heart of the French commission’s report that should be relayed to every Canadian MP:

“The purpose of adoption is not to provide a child to a family, but rather provide a family for a child.”

Similarly, the French commission quotes the UN Declaration on the rights of the child:

“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.

-(United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, article 16.)


“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

This issue is much too important to be subject to “political correctness” and political posturing. A Royal Commission is needed to examine how past decisions have hurt marriage in Canada; and what needs to be done to protect marriage from further depredations in the future.

Let’s have a constitutional amendment, by all means-but first, let’s have a wide-ranging Royal Commission, to ensure that all relevant research and opinions can be heard and recognized before such an amendment is drafted.

Download PDF Version

Share to Gab

Other Commentary by Ron Gray: