NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
SUNDAY SPECTATOR
January 7, 2007
Three parents?
When I edited some literary magazine, years ago, several early Mac word-processors were brought into the office, and the staff computer-wizard networked them. One of our problems was how to protect valuable manuscripts from, as I put it, “falling into the holes between the computers”. Eric, the aforementioned wizard -- our “can-do” kid from Montreal -- said he had worked out a fool-proof system.I discovered it for myself when I was trying to get rid of an exceptionally useless file. I hit “delete” and a message flew up on the screen: “Are you sure you want to delete this document?” I typed, “Yes”, and got another message: “Are you really sure you want to delete this document?” ... “Yes.” ... “Are you really, really sure?” ... “Yes.” ... “Well you can’t.” I was reminded of that adventure, when the Ontario Court of Appeals, which tried to delete the ancient and natural definition of “marriage” four summers ago, performed another Contra Naturam this last week. It was the related task, of deleting the definition of “parenthood”, too. By the time Canada’s various revolutionary courts are finished, they will have repeatedly deleted every fact of nature. And yet, nature will still be there. Twisted, writhing, contorted, and finally wreaking vengeance on us all -- yet still not successfully deleted. Until Tuesday morning, every child ever born had two parents -- in nature, in logic, in fact, and in law. But by Wednesday, we had the first child with three of them, in pure legal “theory”. For Roy McMurtry’s court had decided to rewrite nature, logic, fact, and law, to bring them into accord with the latest psychedelic fantasies. “D.D.” is the poor innocent child who is the first person in the world to be thus over-endowed with parentage. One is the mother who bore him; one is the father who “donated” the sperm; and one is his mother’s lesbian partner, who becomes co-equally a parent in the hallucination of this fresh-written Canadian law. How do you argue against a decision that attempts to strike down a basic reality of human life? And which has huge implications, to the future of children and all social relations -- not only in this perverse, court-governed country, but as a dramatic legal precedent far beyond our shores. Implications which the court, in its written judgment, could not be bothered to consider. Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry -- whose daughter is a lesbian and might be presumed to have an interest in the case, and therefore would have recused himself under our older ethical principles; who was photographed at a party with the plaintiffs after the 2003 Ontario decision on "same-sex marriage", thus bringing scandal upon the impartiality of our courts -- THAT Roy McMurtry -- is an old “Red Tory” political pro. He knows where the power is now, and it is certainly not in our Canadian legislatures. Indeed, a man who can blithely rewrite the laws of God and nature, must have a great deal of power. (Nobody is all bad, however. McMurtry is also a fine landscape painter.) The decision was written by Justice Marc Rosenberg, and made unanimous by the support of Justice Jean-Marc Labrosse. What can be done about them? Nothing -- they were never elected, and so cannot be thrown out of office. What can be done about the decision of their court? Nothing -- politically or judicially, because in Canada today we do not have politicians or judges with the courage to stand against the New Age breeze. They are terrified of what the “progressive” factions in the media, bureaucracies, universities, and in particular, the law-school cliques, could do to them. This in turn leaves the Canadian people defenceless against experimental ideologies being pumped down our throats by a revolutionary legal establishment, dripping with hubris. Yet the laws of nature will not be overthrown. We work with them, or we work against them. When we work with them, we do not try to break them. When we work against them, they break us. In this case, the victims won't be three foolish old judges, but the whole society their decision undermines. Needless to add, it specifically undermines the few principles left standing in the same court's previous “same-sex marriage” decision -- leaving the future of children and the family in antinomian chaos. For once courts agree, as Canadian ones now do without blushing, to create such legal fictions as that a child can have three parents, the game is up. Big lies have big consequences, and put us in a psychedelic wonderland, where only the vendors of the latest fantasies have any power. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top