Madam Speaker, I rise to thank the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have exercised their belief in the democratic process by telling this Parliament how they feel about the institution of marriage and their support for the family.
More particularly, I am pleased to take this opportunity to thank the thousands of constituents in my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke who took the time to personally contact me in support of the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
I want the people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke to know that I draw strength from their support in what has been a very personal and nasty campaign against those individuals who choose to defend marriage and defend the family.
I congratulate members from all parties and political stripes who have taken a principled stand on this issue and stood their ground.
It is interesting to observe that the tactic by the Liberal Party to wear out those of us who oppose its latest attempt at social engineering is not working. The Liberal Party has miscalculated the fact that while attendance at religious institutions may fluctuate, support for the family has not changed. If anything, the no compromise position of the Liberal Party to this issue has stiffened opposition to it. This is in contrast to the pro-marriage supporters who have consistently tried to seek compromise when the anti-family proponents pushed confrontation.
It is said that one can find a little good in anything. By challenging pro-traditional marriage Canadians, individuals who may have been complacent in the past about the importance of family are accepting the challenge to defend what they believe is right. I am pleased that constituents in my riding have accepted this challenge and have made sure that I am informed of where they stand on the issue of religious freedom and the institution of marriage.
I am thankful for the letters that I have received such as this one from eight year old Dominic from Pembroke:
Dear Member of Parliament,
I know that only God has the power to change marriage, and that only a man and a woman can make the place for a new baby to enter the world. This is what I mostly wrote to the Prime Minister. Thank you for standing up against him.
Here is another letter from eight year old John in Combermere:
Thank you for all you do to try to keep Canada a good country for us to live in. Society depends on families, and families depend on marriage. I will pray for you as you work to protect marriage. I hope you enjoy my essay.
God bless you.
Yours truly,
John Hanlon.
This is the essay he wrote entitled “A Person I Admire”.
A person I admire is our local Member of Parliament.
I admire her because she is willing to stand up for what's right even when she has hard decisions to make, or when all the other members disagree with her.
She supports Christian values and families. She spoke against abortion at the March for Life.
When my brother and sister wrote to her and asked if she would defend marriage, she wrote back and said that she would because marriage is a sacrament created by God.
She votes in Parliament for the things that are right. My MP proves with her actions that her words are true, and that's the sort of person we want in government.
Thanks for the letter John. I will try not to let anyone down. Out of the mouths of babes comes wisdom. I received this letter from Palmer's Rapids:
Dear Member of Parliament,
I am very concerned about, and totally opposed to, the proposal to change the definition of marriage. It is very obvious to most of us that marriage is for a male and female.
Conjugal union depends upon the natural and God-given differences between a man and woman, which are ordered toward mutual self-giving and the transmission of life.
Since the future of humanity depends on the creation of children, society has a vital interest in protecting the relationship that ensures its future.
It is my wish that you support true marriage and the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
This letter came from Braeside, Ontario:
Six years ago the vast majority of Members of Parliament voted to support marriage as being between one man and one woman. History, common sense and our own experience clearly tell me what marriage is and that you were right in your vote in 1999. I expect you to stick now to what you declared then and vote for the retention of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
A constituent in Killaloe wrote this letter:
Dear Member of Parliament,
I am very concerned about the proposal to change the definition of marriage as I am pretty sure you are also. It is so obvious to most of us that marriage is for male and female. They simply go together.
This is not discrimination. It is simply to recognize nature and common sense. Why are we questioning so much that this great nation was founded on? My grandparents must be turning in their graves. I pray they are praying for all decision makers these days that conscience and common sense will prevail.
As my representative, I expect you to support the continuance of marriage as we have known it by whatever means necessary, including the notwithstanding clause.
This note came from Victor in Petawawa:
Dear Member of Parliament,
I at this time wish to make it clear, real clear, that I'm against same sex marriage and if this becomes law the Prime Minister should be thrown out of office for sure. Please do your best to stop this bill.
And finally, this letter from a constituent in Renfrew:
The Liberal government has introduced legislation to legalize same sex marriage. I strongly oppose this. The traditional definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. To include same sex marriage in this definition is not right. The understanding of marriage is that children will be the offspring born from the love of their parents. Neither gays nor lesbians can bear children.
If same sex couples wish to be joined, there should be a separate word used to describe their union. Do not tarnish the sacredness of what marriage is meant to be. Granted, all marriages are not perfect. However, the vision of an ideal marriage is something that society should strive to preserve and all married couples should strive to achieve.
With more families splitting up from various pressures of life in the modern world, it does not help when our government tinkers with the definition of marriage. Governments who establish legislation for our society should support marriage.
I hope you and all Conservative MPs vote to uphold the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man to one woman in the same sex marriage bill.
This is just a sampling of the thousands of letters I have received from constituents on this subject.
Marriage is significantly connected to our children. For a government to redefine marriage to be that of any two persons, the message we are sending to our children is that we value adult relationships above the future generations of children. To build a strong nation, we need to have strong families. We strengthen society by investing in the family and maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.