CWL and same-sex unions. (News in Brief: Canada).

It now appears that there are two issues at hand. First, in a statement submitted to the House of Commons Justice Committee on April 11, signed by CWL President Marie Cameron, President-elect Agnes Bedard, and National Legislation Chairperson Lucille Partington, the CWL asks that the term ''marriage'' be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. But then their document "urges the federal government to establish a separate legal process for recognizing same-sex unions that outlines their entitlements, benefits and responsibilities."

As we have seen already (see C.I., May 2003, p. 28) recommending legal unions for same-sex partners contradicts the Church's view. For example, John Paul II, in an address of November 24, 2000, to the world's politicians, counselled against "all laws which would do harm to the family, striking at its unity and its indissolubility, or which would give legal validity to a union between persons, including those of the same sex, who demand the same rights as the family founded upon marriage of a man and a woman." He warned that "Christian legislators may neither contribute to the formulation of such a law nor approve it in parliamentary assembly" (LifeSite News, April 12, 2003).

There is a second point; the CWL also states: "Parliament can best act to support marriage by enacting a statute that allows for civil unions to be registered between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, with all the legal implications and responsibilities including separation, divorce, maintenance, etc." (emphasis our).

In follow-up letters to complaining members, President Cameron suggests that the CWL is following the lead of the Catholic bishops in this matter. The CCCB called for a possible discussion about "legislation allowing for domestic partnerships or civil unions" for couples other than those in a marriage relationship.

The CCCB's submission of February 13, 2003, states:

"We know that there are other relationships between adults that involve commitment, caring, and emotional and financial interdependence. For the last 15 years, the federal and provincial governments have found ways to address their needs and requests for social benefits, and three provinces have already enacted legislation allowing for domestic partnerships or civil unions....Should you also see fit to address the concerns of (these) adult interdependent relationships, we ask you to do so in a way that respects their human dignity but does not radically redefine or thus void the vital and irreplaceable social institution of marriage."

Comment:

This idea may well have misled the CWL in going forward by requesting such arrangements now. The CCCB, on the other hand, was only suggesting a discussion. Nevertheless, the whole idea launched by the CCCB is the product of fuzzy thinking. It plays directly into the hands of the promoters of "gay" unions.

As far as I recall, the idea of unions between "heterosexual" persons for couples other than those in a marriage relationship, was launched some years ago by, among others, Suzanne Scorsone, spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Toronto. The idea is that if homosexual unions are legislated, one could sweeten the deal for the rest of us by allowing also support for normal, heterosexual people, such as a daughter looking after her mother, or a woman looking after a disabled relative, etc.

The reaction of the CWL in asking for both type of "unions" in the same breath illustrates precisely the CCCB's tactical error. It should never have been brought up here because they are totally different things.