This is of grave concern because comprehensive, controlled studies indicate that children are at greater risk of harm if raised in same-sex relationships. The reason why harm is caused to such children is because same-sex unions are not equivalent to opposite-sex unions, and it is these differences that cause the harm. The differences causing harm to children include:

Short duration of same-sex relationships,
High rate of infidelity in same-sex relationships,
Lack of commitment in same-sex unions,
Increased mental health problems,
Increased risk of suicide
Increased substance abuse problems
Homosexuals experience a significantly reduced life expectancy,
Same-sex partnerships have a high level of violence,
Same-sex parenting influences children’s sexual orientation, and
Sexual interference with children by same-sex parents.

It is acknowledged that there are studies that purport to establish that same-sex parenting is equivalent to heterosexual parenting. However, such studies fail scientific standards and a conclusion that there are no adverse consequences for children due to the sexual orientation of their parents is unjustified.

TheAmericanCollegeof Paediatricians has recently confirmed this, stating that it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting by adoption, foster care or by reproductive manipulation (new medical technologies). In this regard, it is noted that both the American and Canadian Psychological Associations and the American Psychiatric Association have all come out in support of homosexual parenting. Their position, however, amounts to political posturing superceding factual scientific research.


A great controversy arose inCanadaover a private members bill (Bill C250) by NDP homosexual MP, Svend Robinson. The purpose of his bill was to amend the hate crime provisions in the Criminal Code to include protection against hate on the basis of sexual orientation. The Liberal government backed this private members bill and, as a result, it was passed into law. The question arising is what is meant by the word “hate”? Its meaning under this amendment is uncertain. The definition under this amendment is uncertain.

This is very significant because to constitute an offense of causing “hate,” the act must take place in a public place. It is troubling that a “public place” is defined in the Criminal Code as including “any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied.” Under this definition, churches fall within the definition of a “public” place.

The question of whether religious sermons can constitute “hate” arose when Calgary’s

Bishop Henry distributed a pastoral letter on the homosexual issue in January, 2005. This led to two homosexuals laying a complaint against him before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. Bishop Henry firmly refused to retract any of his statements. This complaint against him turned out to be a poor political move by the homosexual activists. This was evidenced by the fact that the leading homosexual activist organization inCanada, EGALE refused to support the complaint, which was eventually withdrawn.

Political Manoeuvring

In early March, 2004, prior to the June federal election, legal counsel for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Fellowship were called to a meeting by senior bureaucrats in the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA). The purpose of the meeting was to warn them that their churches must remove themselves from any political activity on the same-sex marriage issue during the 2004 federal election campaign. The two lawyers were warned that officials in the department would be watching their churches’ activities during the election, with the object of removing their tax-exempt status should these churches become involved in “partisan” political activity. This constituted a warning shot across the bow. The warning was made because the Liberal government wanted to intimidate the churches into silence on the crucial issue of same-sex marriage in the 2004 election. The effect of this intimidation was to protect the ideas of a post-Christian society, at the expense of Christian traditions and historic values.


Same-sex marriage is a vitally important fundamental moral issue, and an integral part of most Christians’ beliefs. Churches must continue to speak out on the issue. This can be done by reminding believers at election time and otherwise, of the incredible importance of marriage and other moral issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, etc. This approach does not directly tell congregations which candidate for whom to vote, which would indeed be partisan. The CCRA would not find the approach of giving sermons based on religious belief as objectionable, since this would not constitute a partisan activity.

(a) The Future

One can allow oneself to be intimidated regarding speaking out on moral issues and thereby ignore the very principles of Christianity that have held this world together for over 2000 years. That is, one can always succumb to the deliberate intimidation of the Churches by homosexual activists and their supporters. The alternative is that religious leaders speak out definitively in support of traditional marriage and against abortion, euthanasia, and rampant promiscuity etc. If religious leaders do not speak out, then who will serve humanity as its guiding light?

(b) The Great Heresy

Christianity is now under serious attack in order to push it out of the public square so that religious beliefs will cease to play a significant role in determining public policy.

The attackers, are essentially, atheists. The atheists may not be overtly shown to be such, but that is exactly what they are, as atheists repudiate human reason, and regard God as no more than a figment of the imagination, a fantasy having no reality.

The final struggle we are now undergoing is between the believers and the non-believers. Will man become a slave to the state, which will regulate his every thought and expression, and demand the abandonment of human reason and remove all moral restraints imposed by human experience? In the end, it will either be a Christian or an anti-Christian victory.

It is now clear however, that those who are believers are not sitting back immobilized – but are fighting back with some apparent success. This has been acknowledged by the editorial in the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra, July 14, 2005, which stated that, religious believers’ involvement in political issues on same-sex marriage issue has “awakened a sleeping giant which … threatens to change a lot in Canadian politics over the next generation.”

It went on to say:

“Canadian fundamentalists had largely disengaged from politics over the past two decades as they became increasingly alienated by the pluralistic and secular nature of Canada since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms began playing its magical tune in our society. But, the idea of gays getting to use the term “marriage” to describe their sinful relationships – well, that got their attention, and with it, their voices, money and even bodies for demonstrations.”

Other articles such as the one written by pollster, Allan Gregg, head of the Strategic Counsel polling company which appeared in the November 2005 Saturday Night Magazine, warned about the growth and impact of the so-called “Christian Right” on the political scene in Canada. The federal NDP, as a result of our efforts, has now felt obliged to establish a so-called “faith” caucus in its party in order to offset what they describe as the growing dynamism of Conservative Religious activism. This all speaks well of our determination and effectiveness.

(c) Federal Election 2006

A federal election is nearly upon us. Pro-family groups have been organizing quietly for several months now for this election, and are poised to move into action as soon as the election is called.

However, please do not think that the matter is so well in hand that you don’t have to get involved. You, too, – each and every one of us – must put our shoulders to the wheel in this election campaign. We cannot, for the future of this country, allow anti-family policies such as euthanasia, legalized prostitution, widened access to non-medical drug use etc., to become law in Canada. All these issues are lurking in the darkness, ready to spring forward into the light, if the new Parliament elected is an anti-family one.

While carrying out our work, we must be mindful, of course, of the scriptural admonition that we be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents. It is a challenge for each of us, but a glorious one.