Debate resumed on the motion for third reading of C-38.

	Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein drew a parallel between debates on SSM and those on capital punishment. He suggested that public opinion is shifting. Debate in homes and religious institutions continues and "...goes to the heart of the nature of the fundamental building block of our society — the family....This bill is about equality of rights to all citizens under the rule of law." He reviewed his own thought processes which led up to support for C-38: Marriage is not based on procreation. About 20% of all Canadian marriages are childless. There is no scientific evidence that SSM is any less "good" than opposite-sex marriage. There is no evidence that children brought up in a SSM are adversely affected. "The Canadian Psychological Association concluded that all available scientific evidence indicates that children of gay or lesbian parents, of single-sex families, do not differ significantly from children with heterosexual parents with regard to psychological and gender development and identity. The association concluded that all children deserve to feel that society accepts and recognizes their families, and children of same-sex couples are no exception to this principle." The Bill and the Canadian Constitution protects clergy who refuse to marry same-sex couples because of their religious beliefs. The argument that SSM is against natural law is invalid. Natural law evolves as does common law. For example, polygamy and unequal treatment of women was once acceptable under natural law. The still are in some areas of the world. "...Natural law is sometimes in the eye of the beholder." The problem of marriage commissioners who refuse to marry same-sex couples is on the way to resolution. Without C-38 signed into law: Same-sex couple can marry in one jurisdiction but not have their marriage recognized when they move to another. This violates the couple's mobility rights. Couples in different areas of Canada are treated differently. "The thesis of Canadian citizenship is based on equal protection under the law." The fear that SSM could lead to polygamy is without merit because C-38 specifically restricts marriage to two persons. Polygamy, bigamy, and incest will continue to be criminal acts. The principle of separation of religion and state is established by tradition in Canada. But some religious institutions that are opposed to SSM want the government to violate the principle: "...by suppressing equality of treatment to all citizens." He commented on the international impact of C-38. He commented: "....human and minority groups in many member states [of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)] struggle daily to climb up their individual slippery slopes to the fertile fields of equality, with which we are blessed, whether in respect of race, religion or gender. All gaze a watchful eye for sustenance for emerging rights from Canada as an exemplar for leadership and as a template of equality in the 21st century."
	Senator Anne Cools is strongly opposed to C-38. She describes it "act of constitutional demolition and vandalism." She characterized debates by Senators supporting C-38 as: "...absolute rubbish. I have never heard such babble in my life." She raised many points: "Liberals here do not want to separate church from state; they want to separate Canadians from their religions. There is quite a difference." "All marriages are both civil and religious at the same time." The term "draft bill" which was used to refer to the government's proposed legislation on SSM submitted to the Supreme Court is "an attempt to mislead and to deceive." A bill is, by definition, a statute in draft. There is no such thing as a draft of a draft act. "In the entire debate, I have not heard a single parliamentary authority cited." The Supreme Court acted improperly when it received and answered questions on the draft version of C-38. She provided many historical quotations of the roles of Parliament and the courts.
	Senator Lorna Milne has supported C-38 and found that many witnesses at the Standing Senate Committee hearings reinforced her decision: Cardinal Ouellet, the Roman Catholic Primate of Canada, implied that the church would refuse to baptize children of same-sex parents. She recommended that he read Luke 18:16 which records Jesus' words "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the Kingdom of God." Former Deputy Minister of Finance, Stanley Hartt said that the debate is: '.. being done for political purposes so that people can feel better about the outcome' as if there were no rights issues involved. Phillip Horgan, President of the Catholic Civil Rights League, said that anyone who questioned the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs on SSM was not "an authentic Catholic." She concluded: "He apparently believes that Catholic Canadians should not have the ability to speak for themselves." Ms. Diz Dichmont, former Newfoundland marriage commissioner said: "It makes my blood run cold and it seems that we are now beginning to regress rather than progress in many ways in this country as we change our mores and even legislation to accede to minority pressures... Are we seeking to be avant-garde, or are we, in fact, being retro-garde [sic]?.....Gay activism historically started in Germany during Hitler's regime and under the umbrella of the disco scene. It has grown in intensity and even in violence throughout the years..." Senator Milne suggests that the move to make marriage more inclusive is avant-garde and warms her heart. She pointed out that one function of the Nazi Holocaust was to exterminate homosexuals. She said: "homosexuals, by and large, are not perpetrators of violence; they have been its victims for centuries." Ms. Gwendolyn Landolt, President of REAL Women Canada claimed that Mental health problems are higher than normal among gays and lesbians. Homosexuals have a reduced life expectancy. Children of same-sex parents become homosexuals later in life at a higher than normal rate. Sexual orientation is really a behavior characteristic. If Bill C-38 becomes law, the birth rate will drop. Fewer than 2% of homosexuals are monogamous. Senator Milne drew an analogy between such statements and those of a misogynist. Dr. John Patrick of Augustine College said that C-38 would allow "...ways of living which do gratuitous harm to others." He listed physical problems that he associates with homosexuality. He also said that Canada is currently governed by barbarians. Senator Milne said that "Canadian, European and American journal of medicine and psychiatry stopped believing that homosexual activity was an illness or would lead to great disease a long time ago." Dr. Patrick also said that supporters of SSM "...base their assertion of a right of homosexuals to change the meaning of the word 'marriage' on no visible intellectual foundations. They just invoked the Charter. The Charter is merely a piece of paper. Where is the argument?" Senator Milne said that the Charter is more than a piece of paper. It is "..infused with values that Canadian and, indeed, western societies have been developing for hundreds of years."
	Senator Terry Stratton, the deputy leader of the opposition, opposes C-38. He feels that the bill is not needed, because 90% of the Canadian population already has access to SSM. Meanwhile, the federal government cannot guarantee that clergy will retain the freedom to discriminate against same-sex couples, because that is a provincial responsibility. Meanwhile the right to discriminate is under attack: Some marriage commissioners have had their jobs threatened. A lesbian couple has laid a charge against the Knights of Columbus in British Columbia because the latter unilaterally cancelled a rental contract for their hall. Two complaints have been brought before the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Bishop Henry of the Roman Catholic Church for his call on governments to use "...its coercive power to proscribe or curtail" homosexual activity. He concluded: "We do not need Bill C-38. I would go so far as to say that this legislation has had a disastrous impact." He also noted that: The debate on C-38 has been very divisive and acrimonious. There is every likelihood that the Supreme Court would find a separate but equal system of civil unions to be constitutional. Two of the three countries that legalized SSM have also legalized euthanasia. Many countries have instituted civil unions, registered partnerships or similar arrangements for same-sex couples.
	Senator Marcel Prud'homme supports C-38: He explained: He would have preferred for the Senate committee to hold hearings across Canada. He said: "There are people like me who would have loved to travel around Canada with Senator St. Germain and a number of other friends from the Conservative party to listen to Canadians spew out their nastiness to us, to talk with them very wisely and patiently with the understanding that there are people with things to say, that people for years have been wanting to tell us of their despair. It is by listening that we achieve a dialogue and comfort people saying, 'Do not be afraid, Canada is in good hands, and the institution of marriage is not in danger'." Roman Catholic Cardinal Ouellet's comment that he would deny baptism to children of same-sex parents broke Senator Prud'homme's heart and troubled his mind. He said: "I asked myself, how can anyone turn away a child? A child is a gift from God. How can anyone deny a child baptism because his parents are not what we would like them to be?" There have been many past divisive debates, over the flag, anthem, death penalty, abortion access, etc. But our institutions have survived. The implication is that Canada will survive SSM.
	Senator Ione Christensen, noting that the hour was late and that most of his points had already been covered by others simply read an Email from one of his constituents in the Yukon -- a man in a same-sex marriage. He wrote: "You have no idea what a difference it makes to the human spirit to know that you are treated equally under the law."
	Vote: The senators appeared to run out of steam at this point; no further debate was offered. "In the end, the debate concluded of its own accord, without the need for closure." 3 The senators voted 47 to 21 in favor of C-38, with 3 abstentions. Senator Moore would have voted against the bill. However, he abstained because of a prior agreement with an absent senator. 1