Harper is dropping the marriage issue ball

McGill prof says family unit and political freedom are threatened

- WCR photo by Deborah Gyapong Prof. Douglas Farrow worries that Stephen Harper does not realize the serious implications surrounding redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

By DEBORAH GYAPONG
Canadian Catholic News
Ottawa

McGill Professor Douglas Farrow says Prime Minister Stephen Harper is failing to show leadership on the marriage issue, and that failure could have serious implications for political freedom.

Farrow sees not only the family weakened by the redefinition of marriage, but also religious and political institutions.

Grapple seriously

The co-editor of Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers of Canada's New Social Experiment said he wonders if Harper has taken the time to "grapple seriously" with the implications of Bill C-38, which redefined marriage to include same-sex couples.

Some news reports indicate a promised motion on whether to reopen the marriage debate will be tabled in October. The Conservatives and Liberals will have a free vote, but the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois want their members to vote against the motion.

"If Harper himself believed freedom was threatened by C-38, he wouldn't be handling it the way he is," Farrow said in a phone interview. "My guess is he hasn't looked at it seriously and that to me is disappointing. I very much hope to be proved wrong about this."

"The connection between the natural family unit and political freedom is deep and vital," Farrow said. "When you abandon the natural family unit as your basic model, ipso facto, you abandon whatever service that construct does for society and whatever bearing it has on political life."

Natural family rights

"The natural family unit is a bulwark against the overweening state and is understood to have its own inherent rights and responsibilities," he said. "When the concept is abandoned and a state-controlled construct is put in its place, then the rights and responsibilities accrue to the state that once belonged to the family."

Farrow has long warned that Bill C-38, which removed child-bearing and procreation from the definition of marriage and redefined it as a close personal relationship between two persons, whether same-sex or opposite sex, jeopardizes the natural rights that children have to their biological parents and mothers and fathers have to their children.

The bill also removed terms such as mother and father from other legislation, replacing those terms with a construct such as "legal parent."

"Political freedom does demand that there be limiting forces and factors and counterparts to the state to force it to abide within certain bounds," Farrow said. "The family and religion are the two really serious limiting factors on the state."

"We have redefined family and in doing so, long term, we have effectively provided for the elimination of the family as a limiting factor on the state," he said.

"That just leaves the Church and of course one success leads to another. The state has successfully picked off one, and in doing so it has struck a great blow against the Church and other religious communities as well."

Farrow said that some people believe that if the upcoming motion is defeated, they will simply ask the government to strengthen protections for religious freedom.

"But putting in place protections for religious freedom that are constitutionally binding on the courts is very, very difficult, especially if you want them to operate at all levels, including provincial jurisdiction where most of the practical matters of family life and religious practice reside."

Provocative title

Farrow is preparing a talk on this issue entitled Nation of Bastards: On Marriage and Freedom that he will present in Ottawa Oct. 21.

Farrow said he realizes his title is provocative, but he pointed out that it used to be assumed that the stability of society demanded that most children be born inside wedlock, not outside. He said the new definition of marriage makes questions about legitimacy irrelevant and will also make marriage itself irrelevant.

"We need to ask ourselves whether we're being a little bit hasty in abandoning these distinctions."

Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 -- Western Catholic Reporter