-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.23/pageone.html <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.23/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times - Volume 3 Issue 23 </A> ----- Laissez Faire City Times June 7, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 23 Editor & Chief: Emile Zola ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well-Wishers Bid Families Adieu by Peter Topolewski Chalk up another victory for the decency soldiers of the feel-good 90s. This one goes to the politically appointed social engineers in Canada’s Supreme Court. With the familiar refrain "get with it, this is the 90s", they delivered a decision to strike down the heterosexual definition of "spouse", demonstrating that they lack foresight as much as the other politically correct cronies who have, this decade, deconstructed meaning in the name of "civility". The case came to the Supreme Court of Canada when a Toronto lesbian discovered she could not seek alimony from her ex-lover and business partner because Ontario laws defined spouse as someone of the opposite sex. The woman sued to have the definition struck down and two lower courts agreed with her. The Ontario government appealed the decision all the way to the top and lost. In its decision the court gave Ontario six months to amend its laws, noting that dozens of them use the heterosexual definition. The federal government and all the provincial governments will have to fall in line or face future lawsuits. Outside of the immense paperwork required, the legal ramifications are far reaching. In addition to granting a gay person’s right to alimony, the court decision affects the tax code, spousal benefits, health care coverage, and such things as disclosure rules for elected officials and political appointees. This means that with the benefits due them gay couples will also take on the accompanying legal responsibilities and headaches that heterosexuals know all too well – headaches and responsibilities that many gays would happily and ironically leave to heterosexuals. The Meaning of Spouse The woman who originally brought the case to court, and who long ago settled out of court, was essentially in a contractual relationship born of the time she spent with her girlfriend and the division of the spoils from their business venture. Not surprisingly, at its core the Supreme Court’s ruling outlines the legal contractual obligations required by and of homosexuals in a relationship. But to grant these obligations by questioning the definition of the word spouse and declaring that its exclusively heterosexual application is unconstitutional is not only pointless, but also unjustified. And the reason is simple – the heterosexual definition of the word "spouse" cannot be unconstitutional because that is what spouse means. And the alimony payments and the legal obligations applying to spouses do not apply to homosexuals because they are not, by definition, spouses. The Ontario laws do not apply to homosexuals and therefore cannot be unconstitutional. If there is an absence of law to cover the obligations and benefits due homosexual couples, fine, but no matter what the Supreme Court says, "spouse" concerns only husbands and wives. The winners in this wondrous display of doublespeak are, as usual, the lawyers. For they, most of all, will be busy in the courtrooms arguing on behalf of a sibling, friend, and or half-relative roommate who is common law and owed alimony among other things. Everyone, the courts will convince us soon enough, in any kind of relationship has the right to be a spouse. Or so the relativist vigilantes would have the rest of us believe. The problem is that with the ends in sight we have lost all sight of the means. In fighting to inscribe in law the equal treatment of all people, those fighting the equal rights battles have allowed equality to become sameness. This is a travesty, for they are not interchangeable and making them so is not desirable or the purpose of equal rights. Providing a gay couple the legal protections and responsibilities they deserved – "no more, no less" says John Fisher of EGALE, a Canadian gay rights group – is not the same as saying a gay couple is a heterosexual couple. In the terms in which the ruling has been couched, such a prospect is not desirable to either gays or heterosexuals. But the true goals go beyond the strict arguments of the Supreme Court ruling. Ian Brodie, a political science professor at the University of Western Ontario, states that the ruling "stops short of saying same-sex couples can get married, but that’s almost a secondary issue now." The problem of course is that marriage is, by definition and by tradition, a union of a woman and a man. If such a legal union for gays were all that were sought by equal rights warriors, it should be, with all our human ingenuity, possible to invent one in law with no cost to the heterosexual tradition. But gay marriage is sought for, among other reasons, to make "family" whatever it needs to be in the eyes of the law for two or more people to commandeer children, by adoption, surrogate mother, in vitro and et cetera. There is no better way to begin the groundwork for this project than by changing the definition of spouse. Look, Mom. No Biology. It is somewhat tangential, but immanently thought-provoking. to note that the collectivist civilizers who are so typically in tune with nature overlook the fact that a family is a biological as a well as a social organization, and any organization lacking a man and a woman cannot biologically create a family. That is not to say people cannot engage in whatever homosexual activity they wish to, but to suggest that by doing so they constitute a family is quite simply a joke. Except this is not a funny joke. Through legal solipsism "family" can be and has been twisted to mean anything that accommodates our technological prowess for creating babies. But because we are capable of inventing babies in any sort of circumstances, does not mean we are right to do so – most especially when it comes at the cost of a tradition thousands of years old. This tradition is being rather pretentiously dismissed in what is lovingly called an "evolution of opinion" – with the blanket assumption that all evolution is good, forgetting of course, among other things, the evolution of some of our cities into urban nightmares and our public schools into dumbed-down babysitting-cum-crime centers. The traditional family has been drawn and quartered in a few decades out of a hundred, the infinite wisdom and civility of the 90s presiding over that past and declaring it barbaric. Soon enough we can welcome the days when our children are reared by complete strangers who sue their lesbian bureaucratic counterparts for visitation rights and monthly checks. And we can put the family - its function and the word itself - in the heap with “spouse” and “marriage” and everything they represent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Topolewski was born in Canada in 1972. Against the odds that seem stacked against everyone at birth, he is just now beginning to learn that the society and system of authority one is born into is not the society and system of authority one must accept. He lives and works in Vancouver, where his corporate communications company is based. -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 23, June 7, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Published by Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc. Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar All Rights Reserved ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
