Tim Dooling, a Roman Catholic with the group Canadians Against Same Sex Marriage helped organize the meeting. He compared heterosexual marriage to a downtown city street: "Do we stop using that road because it's under repair or needs repair? It's a road that keeps on going. It's part of our history. It's not new that there's been problems in marriage. It goes back centuries, thousands of years, so you don't throw it out, you work at it." The Ottawa Citizen reported that he later said at the demonstration: "We have one message here today and that is: Don't mess with the definition of marriage." ₁

We received an E-mail which commented on Dooling's earlier comment. The sender liked the analogy between a government road in need of upgrade and the institution of marriage. But he noted that city streets are funded by tax dollars contributed by persons of all sexual orientations. They are made available for all people; that's why they are called public roads. Christians, Muslims, Jews, followers of other religions and of no religion; men and women; gays and straights; -- all are free to use them. So too, marriage should be available for all loving, committed couples, not a special right for couples with a specific gender makeup.

Derik Rogusky, vice-president of family policy of Focus on the Family, Canada -- a Fundamentalist Christian group -- said that SSM, like common-law relationships and no-fault divorce, sends the message that the institution of marriage is no longer important. "Piece by piece, we're disassembling marriage." According to the Ottaws Citizen he said, at the rally: "This really is a public-policy issue. It's not a human-rights issue. Public-policy issues need to be decided either by our elected representatives...or through a national referendum."

Gilles Marchildon, executive director of Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE) said that he expects thousands of people to protest on Parliament Hill. He said: "Equal rights is not a popularity contest. I'm sure there were large public outcries when slavery was abolished or when women were given the right to vote...historically I see it in the same perspective." He said that he does not understand the argument of the anti-SSM groups: He asked: "If you're so much in favor of family values, why would you prevent people from creating families?" ₂

Dr. Gamel Soulamen, imam of the Ottawa Muslim community, said: "We believe in the way established thousands of years ago about marriage as a union between man and woman." ₁

Only one federal politician addressed the crowd. The Ottawa Sun reported that Canadian Alliance Member of Parliament, Cheryl Gallant, said: "This [rally] is not about equality, or a woman's right to vote, or about lifestyles, or about any other unrelated excuse that is intended to confuse Canadians.  This is about one thing, this is about protecting the institution of marriage."

Participant Cyril Bagan of Windsor, ON, told the Globe and Mail that marriage "is a faithful union between a man and a woman for the sake of children, for the sake of the society, for the sake of our future. The gift of marriage is the stability of the society, the growth of the society and the life of the society and to begin to change that definition drastically is beginning to tamper with the foundation."

Dennis Mok, a Chinese Christian from Toronto, ON, told CBC Radio: "There is a silent majority that is concerned about this marriage definition. Chinese tend to be very quiet, and we decided that we are going to do something to bring them out, to help them to voice out their opinions."

Deputy Prime Minister John Manley happened to be walking on the Hill just before the rally started. He commented on the need to have a uniform definitin of marriage across Canada. According to the Ottawa Citizen, he said: "We...have decisions, including the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, which has legalized same-sex marriage in the province of Ontario. It's legal in the province of British Columbia. Shortly, it will be legal in the province of Quebec. That's about 80% of the Canadian population. So if we do nothing, it's legal for 80% of the population." Manley told the Globe and Mail that "at the same time [we're] protecting the rights of faith communities to define marriage as they are comfortable with doing." ₁
 

2003-AUG-26: Alliance Party to propose a non-binding motion: On 1999-JUN-8, Canada's extreme right wing Reform Party introduced a non-binding motion which stated that: "marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada." The phrase "take all necessary steps" appears to refer to the use of the not-withstanding clause which would allow the federal government to retain the present marriage act, even though it has been declared unconstitutional by the most senior courts in three provinces. The motion passed by a vote of 216 to 55. There are rumors that the successor to the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance Party, is planning to reintroduce an identically-worded motion on 2003-SEP-17. This would force members of parliament to make public their support or opposition to same-sex marriage. A number of changes have occurred since mid-1999:

	Three senior courts in Canada have ruled that the present marriage act is unconstitutional and that homosexuals must be allowed to marry.
	The Liberal Party has decided to support same-sex marriage legislation. In 1999, it opposed SSM. Anne McLellan, who was Justice Minister at that time, said: "I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same-sex partners which now face us as Canadians." 3
	A majority of Canadian adults now support same-sex marriage. Support is particularly strong among women, young adults, and middle-aged adults.
	SSM has become an extremely volatile, hot-button issue.
	Gay and lesbian couples by the hundreds have been marrying in Ontario and British Columbia. The sky has not fallen. The nature of the debate is now changed. It is not a matter of whether we should extend marriage to include same-sex couples. That has already happened. It is whether we should tear up hundreds of marriage licenses and deregister hundreds of marriages that already exist.

2003-AUG-28: Marriage Canada tabulates MPs intent: Marriage Canada is a organization recently founded by David Mainse, former host of the 100 Club, a fundamentalist Christian television program. They are attempting to maintain a list of Members of Parliament, with their current stance on SSM. As of AUG-28, they believe that 129 members are in favor of excluding gays and lesbians from marriage; 111 favor including them, and 61 are undecided. The totals were unchanged on SEP-9. ₄

2003-AUG-31: Roman Catholic attack on SSM: Father Alphonse de Valk is a Roman Catholic priest and editor of the Canadian monthly publication, Catholic Insight. He wrote an essay in opposition to SSM which was published in the Toronto Star newspaper. ₄ He made a number of points:

	"Homosexuality activity rages against God's will." He apparently accepts that homosexual orientation is not a sin, because it is not chosen. However, the Church expects all gays and lesbians to remain celibate and not be sexually active.
	Loving and committed opposite-sex couples rise above the sexual and paternal instincts which are shared by all animals (including humans). They subordinate "natural instinct and individual impulse to the common social good." They are freed from slavery to their own passions.
	Loving and committed same-sex couples exhibit none of the above.
	Homosexual activity, even within a committed relationship, is unnatural and pathological.
	SSM corrupts the law.
	The ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that gays and lesbians have a right to marry is false.
	At this point, Fr. de Valk's logic is a little difficult to follow. He seems to imply  that: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of discrimination for certain protected classes, including race, gender, ethnic origin, etc. These are all factors that a person is born with. The Supreme Court of Canada decided in 1995 that sexual orientation is also a protected class. Homosexual activity is an act of free will, not something that one is born with. Thus the Supreme Court's decision is wrong. Homosexual orientation should not be a protected class because it is chosen and not innate. However, his argument seems in error for three reasons: When discussing the Charter, Fr. de Valk referred to sexual orientation. In referring to free will, he referred to sexual activity. Religion has always been a protected class; it is a chosen behavior. Thus there appears to be no reason why homosexual activity cannot be considered another protected class. Essentially all human sexuality researchers and mental health professional associations agree that sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, is not chosen. Free will is not present in an adult's sexual orientation. If free will were involved, then a sexual orientation would be chosen and changeable. It is neither.
	"The Church is right: The homosexual condition is a disorder, and homosexual acts are grave moral aberrations." By "The Church," Fr. de Valk apparently is referring to the Roman Catholic Church. The United Church of Canada, the country's largest Protestant denomination, recently passed a resolution in support of SSM. Earlier resolutions accepted that homosexuality is a normal, natural, and fixed orientation for a minority of adults.
	Gays and lesbians have no right to have their relationship "...enforced in law. Wrongdoing and sin do not have rights."
	Stealing and adultery cannot be a right. Neither can homosexual behavior. "Virtue has rights; vice does not." 5

2003-SEP-3: Coalition of religious and social conservatives attack government: Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, said that the federal Liberal government has no right to breach "the separation of church and state and attempt to redefine a religious term as sacred as marriage." He has been joined by one socially conservative group, REAL Women, and several conservative religious groups: Quebec's francophone evangelical Protestant community, the Canada Family Action Coalition and a clerical group called the Evangelical Association. The coalition called for Canadians to attend prayer rallies on SEP-7. They have three concerns about SSM:

	They believe that SSM is undemocratic, because it violates the will of the majority of Members of Parliament. The latter passed a resolution in 1999 which promoted exclusive marriage rights restricted to opposite-sex couples. At the time, the ruling Liberal party favored retaining the historical Canadian definition of marriage, and so an overwhelming number of Liberal members voted for the resolution.
	They are concerned that the government will eventually force churches to perform SSMs against their will.
	They believe that the legislation could allow genetically related individuals to form incestuous marriages.

The group has targeted a number of Liberal members of parliament, and one member each from the Canadian Alliance, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. All of the targeted members won the last election with a slim majority. ₆

2003-SEP-4: Supreme court sets a date for hearing: The Supreme Court of Canada has tentatively selected 2004-APR-16 to hear arguments about the reference recently sent to the Court by the federal government. According to CanWest News, "The decision means the divisive issue would be fresh in the minds of voters if a federal election is called next spring." Many conservative religious groups are planning to intervene in the case. The province of Alberta is intervening on the negative side; Quebec is intervening to protect its legislation which created civil unions. British Columbia filed notice of intent to intervene, but hasn't decided whether to actually become involved. ₇ [The federal government later asked that the hearings be delayed until the fall of 2004.]

2003-SEP-4: Alliance Party to force vote on SEP-16: The Alliance Party, Canada's most conservative political group, is planning to force a vote on a resolution excluding gays and lesbians from marrying. A "senior government source" has indicated that the Liberal party will allow its members to vote according to their conscience on this resolution. The Toronto Star newspaper states that "...the Alliance wants to....exploit divisions in the Liberal ranks." ₈

2003-SEP-6: Editorial blasts leader of Canadian Alliance party: The editor of the Toronto Star criticized Alliance leader Stephen Harper for his earlier comments which allegedly suggested that the federal Liberal government was involved in a conspiracy.  Harper is reported as stating that the Liberal government had been quietly stacking the courts in Canada with liberal judges in a massive plot to introduce same-sex marriage. The government's motivation was allegedly to deflect the controversy from Parliament to the courts when the law was modified. The editor wrote: "If...Harper's paranoid outburst about a vast conspiracy to 'fix' same-sex marriage weren't so appalling, it would be hysterically funny." The editor pointed out that many of the senior judges had been appointed by governments led by the Progressive Conservative party. He continued: "The last thing Canada needs is someone who calls himself a national leader tarring those who disagree with his point of view as somehow corrupt....Harper's disgraceful outburst is a slap at the honesty of our justice system. He owes all judges an apology." ₉

2003-SEP-7: Sanctity of Marriage.ca sponsors rally: Sanctity of Marriage coordinated a series of Millions for Marriage rallies across Canada to promote heterosexual-only marriage. They had hoped to attract 100,000 protestors. Attendance appears to have fallen very much short of expectations. "In Montreal, for example, journalists outnumbered protesters in front of Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's office." ₁₀ Four people rallied at Paul Martin's constituency office. Ten appeared outside of Liberal MP Tony Lanno's office in Toronto. About 100 prayed outside of Alliance MP Jim Cummin's office. About 300 gathered at Labor Minister Claudette Bradshaw's office in Moncton, NB.

A large group turned out at Halifax:

	Sanctity of Marriage's web site estimated attendance at over 2,000; 11
	Today's Family News, published by Focus on the Family Canada, estimated in excess of 1,000 attendance.
	We counted the number of attendees who were included in a photograph of the crowd on Sanctity's web site. They totaled 276 people. However, there were probably some individuals outside of the range of the photo. 11

The Globe and Mail newspaper said that the prayer vigil "drew only a handful of participants" across Canada ₁₀ They interviewed some participants about SSM:

	Adassa Campbell, 61, of Toronto said it was "against the will of God....I'm completely opposed. It's totally wrong. God created man and woman to multiply and replenish the Earth. God created a woman for Adam from his rib. He didn't make him a gay partner."
	Fran Agugua, 52, also of Toronto said: "If two men are married, they can't procreate. You've got to get an egg somewhere. And neither one of them have it."
	Jackie Borque of Ottawa dais that SSM is "completely opposed to God, his principles and why he formed man and woman....He did not form Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve."

CBC News reported "low turnout."  Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, helped organize the rallies. He said: "This is a first. Praying for marriage and praying for all political leaders is a mandate of Scripture that was fulfilled. Sunday was the beginning of a unity of prayer that I have not seen before in this nation." He estimated that close 100,000 people, including about 1,000 clergy, took part in the event. ₁₂