Sherwood Park News — I want to begin this column by giving several huge thank yous.
First, thank you to all my supporters who faithfully showed up at the nomination meeting on June 24th to put their “X” on the ballot at a time when it really mattered.
I was overwhelmed by the number who made it a priority to do that, and I am truly grateful.
Secondly, thank you to everyone in the Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton parades who clapped, cheered, or gave a thumbs-up when we passed by. It was very encouraging to receive that support!
The big issue in the news these days is the matter of whether homosexuals should have the right to marry, and whether Svend Robinson’s hate-crime amendment on sexual orientation should be supported.
Our offices have been inundated with phone calls, e-mails, faxes and letters on this matter.
It seems to me that public and tax policy should be directed toward promoting and encouraging citizen behaviour that is advantageous to our country and its citizens.
If the object is to be fair to all children and to give them assistance, then tax credits should follow the children. I believe that we have nothing to gain by promoting, encouraging, or endorsing aberrant sexual behaviour.
I believe in the equality of Canadian citizens. If people in a conjugal relationship can name each other as beneficiaries in pension and other benefit schemes, then I believe that others should have that privilege as well.
I know of several instances where people are living together, to the mutual benefit of all, but who have no sexual relationship.
Should two sisters who live with their aged mother and look after her and each other not have the same benefits? (Furthermore, how do we know that they are “conjugating” without observing their behaviour?)
In any case, this can be accomplished without including them in the definition of marriage.
Through the ages, marriage has been defined as and understood as the union of a man and a woman.
I find it incredible that this definition has been challenged.
On June 8, 1999, our party proposed the motion of the day: . . . 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. That motion carried, 216-55. Mr Chretien and Mr Martin voted in favour of it.
In my view, the courts are in contempt of Parliament when they “rule” that the definition should be changed, in direct defiance of the parliamentary motion.
And now, even the government (prime minister and his cabinet) are in contempt of Parliament in not challenging this ruling.
After all, the motion said that we would take all necessary steps to preserve this definition.
Ken Epp is the member of Parliament for Elk Island. He can be reached at 467-4944.
Proprietor and published by Sun Media Corporation - A Quebecor Media Company at 168 Kaska Road, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada T8A 4G7
