Bringing the state back into the bedrooms of the nation?

Bringing the state back into the bedrooms of the nation
Is freedom as important as equality?
By Kate Fraher, Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada

Canadians are well versed in the main argument in favour of redefining marriage, namely that broadening marriage to include same-sex couples grants equality, while taking nothing away from heterosexuals.

A compelling argument, not to be dismissed. But not discussed in the public square are the equally compelling arguments of Canada’s academics who oppose the redefinition of marriage.

Canadian professors premise their opposition to redefining marriage in three basic ways: There are those who believe redefining marriage eliminates biology as the basis for parenthood [1], those who believe any redefinition of marriage violates the right of children to know and be raised by their biological mother and father and finally, those more concerned with political freedom; once biology is eliminated as the basis for parenthood within marriage, the state begins to encroach on the rights of individuals.

[Cere] points to recent studies that have discovered inherent differences between the male and female brain, as well as studies that highlight the unique bond that exists between biological mothers and their infants, also known as maternal attachment [4]. These findings, he says, disprove claims that gender and sex are mere social construction and somehow culturally malleable [5]. Marriage is meant to address sexual difference by sustaining complex forms of social interdependency between men and women-not an easy task-and to ensure rights of children to their parents [6].

Cere and Canadian-born political scholar Dr. Seana Sugrue both agree that the redefinition of marriage by the state is a threat to political liberalism. They both cite John Locke, the father of political liberalism, who “recognized that the market and conjugal society require a measure of autonomy from overly zealous state regulation to function effectively” [12]. Sugrue and Cere agree that marriage, like the market, is a pre-political institution which operates on self-generated norms. When the state tries to dictate these norms, the normative structure of the institution collapses and political freedom is lost [13].


It really does boggle the mind to know that the Canadian public could be so duped on the question of same-sex “marriage”. To believe that the redefinition of such a foundational institution as marriage would not have irreparable and destructive consequences on our society is incredibly short-sighted.

As parts of the excerpt of the article point out, children are the first victims of this new sexual utopia, followed shortly by a loss of freedom. The remarkable thing about it is that the secular liberal establishment would rather kiss away the freedoms they created for themselves over the past forty years rather than to fight for the legitimate exercise of the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
9 ⁄ 3 =