ONTARIO PURGE

Ontario purge
By LINK BYFIELD
March 4, 2005

I spent most of last week in Ontario's Niagara peninsula, land of grapes and apples, and in Hamilton, land of steel.

As I travelled about, the media were all talking about the new provincial ban on pit bulls.

I have to admit that (personally) I am not fond of large dogs who bark themselves insane, to convince themselves they should rip your leg off.

But I'm not sure why anyone would think pit bulls are any worse in this regard than German shepherds, Dobermans or Rottweilers.

However, while Ontarians were debating the fine points of extirpating pit bulls, and "grandfathering" existing ones by castrating them (the mind boggles), they paid hardly any attention to something much more important.

With scant debate, the Ontario legislature deleted the words man and woman, and husband and wife, from the legal lexicon of the province.

As provincial Attorney General Michael Bryant explained, these discriminatory words "offend against the Charter of Rights."

Under Bill 171, they have all been expunged from 73 Ontario statutes -- everything from the Children's Law Reform Act to the Education Act -- and replaced with the word spouse.

Now considering that everything Ontario does comes to Alberta, it's worth considering why such ordinary terms as husband and wife have become unconstitutional.

Why, like the poor, doomed pit bull, have "man" and "woman" been added to the extermination list?

Anyone who instantly guessed "gay marriage" goes to the head of the class.

You can't have marriage-related laws saying "husband and wife" if some of the couples (even a mere handful) are "husband and husband."

The problem arises partly because "I now pronounce you husband and husband" suggests that such a union might be a tad unnatural. And partly it just looks stupid.

Solution: Substitute an ugly, sexless alternative like "I now pronounce you spouses."

Think about this the next time you hear someone say that legalizing gay marriage doesn't impoverish society.

Think about this if you see one of those tolerant Liberal gay marriage buttons that say: "It's about the Charter, stupid!"

Think about the fact that in their Charter quest for "equality," judges expect us to stop using the English language -- or any other language -- for fear of excluding this particular group.

The final insult is that most members of the group in question-- homosexuals -- do not want the right anyway.

According to anecdotal news reports, most recognize that "marriage" is (as the Supreme Court declared in 1995) "by nature heterosexual."

That's why when former MP Svend Robinson was asked if he and his nine-year companion Max Riveron will now tie the knot, he replied no, they are in love and "how would the state's imprimatur change anything?"

So why did he insist for years that gay marriage was essential to "equality."

In fact the whole equal-marriage agenda has been driven by about a dozen taxpayer-funded lobby groups, two dozen taxpayer-funded lawyers, and two dozen taxpayer-funded judges.

Consider the chronology.

In 2003 Ontario appeal judges like Roy McMurtry, a former provincial attorney general, defy Parliament and the Supreme Court and declare traditional marriage unconstitutional.

Instead of appealing, Liberal Ottawa lets the judgment stand.

Instead of ignoring the judgment and waiting for Parliament to make sense of the matter, the Ontario government jumps the gun and erases "offensive" words like "man" and "woman" from the province's laws.

Instead of debating this ridiculous linguistic sterilization, all party leaders agree to shoot it through three rubber-stamp readings in three days, without so much as a recorded vote.

Although the Liberal and Conservative caucuses are seething with dissenters, only three Conservatives have the courage to stand up and demand a recorded vote.

The Ontario rules require five.

"What are you so afraid of?" demands one of the three MPPs angrily, to a half-empty House.

That elected member's ringing, defiant taunt hangs unanswered in the air, not just in Queen's Park but in Parliament, legislatures, churches, courtrooms and homes right across this country.

What are we so afraid of?