If there is anyone left in Canada who still believes that our judges are fair and impartial on the homosexual issue, they should know about an event that took place during Gay Pride Week in Toronto.
On June 26, 2003, The Ontario Law Society sponsored a panel consisting of the lawyers who had successfully argued for same-sex marriages in the Ontario courts. Attending this panel and the reception afterwards were invited guests including the judges who decided in favour of same-sex marriage and representatives of homosexual advocacy groups, plus organizations offering services for homosexuals/lesbians as well as representatives from all three levels of government.
There is a list of judges involved in same-sex marriage who were there and important quotations. Read the next bit to find out how true the ending quotation really is!
The most bizarre comment of all during that celebration was made by Toronto lawyer, Martha McCarthy, who had argued the homosexuals' case in the Ontario courts. During her speech on the panel she stated:
We have to be so thankful for the wonderful judges … who acted with impartiality when faced with an issue that Parliament dumped upon them. (Emphasis ours)
"Impartiality?" It is most definitely not the word to describe what has occurred.
Another female lawyer in the Ontario case was lesbian Cynthia Peterson, who perhaps inadvertently, revealed the Liberal Government's strategy in making the Reference (see article "Real Women of Canada Seeks Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court on Same-sex Marriage", p….., for definition of "Reference") to the Supreme Court of Canada on the three narrow questions. She stated:
The reference [to the Supreme Court of Canada] in my view is a political necessity, not a legal one. The government decided not to appeal the decisions, which I commend them for, but we know even within the governing party, there isn't unanimous support for that decision. So there is a lot of political pressure on the government .... that political pressure is evident in that they announced that there will be a free vote, which I think is reprehensible, but it is very common on gay and lesbian issues for the government to call a free vote, sadly. The reference is to get the approval of the Supreme Court of Canada, so that when it goes to the House for a free vote ... they can say that the Supreme Court has said that religious freedoms will be protected. There is a real political value in that ... the other political value is in the Alberta situation ... we know the government there is doing everything possible to prevent same-sex marriages. But if we can get assistance from the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference to either pre-empt the battle altogether or use it to ensure uniformity across the country, then I think there will be real value there as well ... I'm pretty confident that this is more a political necessity than a legal one and that it will not in any way undo any of the legal victories that we've won. (Emphasis ours.)
In other words, it is obvious that the Liberal government's legislation on same-sex marriage is going by way of Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to merely have it rubber stamped and endorsed by the Court for political not legal reasons. The Reference and debate on the bill in the House of Commons is just a matter of form to give the impression of democratic process in order to disguise the arrogant high-handed deed it is. The whole matter is a Parliamentary charade, and a grievous offence to democracy.
It appears that the judges in Canada have made a charade of justice. Who can trust judges any longer? Theirs is a political game playing out in Canada - not a legal one.
Did you ever believe otherwise? I did not. This is Canada.
Consider, for instance, a remarkable event during gay pride week in Toronto. On June 26 there was a private Law Society reception at which gay lawyers and clients purportedly whooped it up with the very same judges who had just ruled in favour of gay marriage. Amid toasting and applause, the judges were photographed embracing grinning gay activists.
