A statement of the bishop von Calgary threw beyond that in Canada and high waves, because the bishop calls the things courageously with the name. A Hirtenbrief and nevertheless worth reading: „The refusal of a social and legal status „of the marriage “for homosexuals of pairs is not a discrimination. It does not contradict the justice. On the contrary: The justice requires such a refusal. “

Many believe that we are powerless in this instant. One appointed oneself with the decided national acknowledgment of the homosexual Konkubinates to „the Charter of the rights and freedoms “. The highest Court of Justice of Canada spoke and the thing is obviously decided. It would be to be believed nevertheless wrongly that we are powerless.

The highest Court of Justice states that it is permitted the parliament to redefine the marriage. But the court did not say that the parliament must redefine the marriage so that in it homosexuals of pairs are enclosed. The highest judges speak to read the condition „in a broad sense “. The condition is „like an alive tree, which includes the realnesses of the modern life by a progressive interpretation and adjustment. “

I would like to underline in this connection that the tree of the Canadian condition possesses more roots than only „the Charter mentioned of the rights and freedoms “. The tree of the condition possesses also historical, cultural, philosophical, moral and anthropologische roots. If we do not worry about the health of all roots, we risk, to kill the tree and destroy the common weal.

Contrary to what is mostly maintained, the principal purposes of a national acknowledgment of the homosexual Konkubinates are not reaching financial advantages or a health, an inheritance or a pension precaution, as they are connected with the marriage.

The search for durability and obligation is not the first interest homosexuals of a relationship. The intention behind the enforcement of the homosexual Konkubinats is not also the equal rights. The goal is rather to get an effective psychological weapon into the hand in order to replace the social refusal of homosexuals practices and ways of life by a gradual, although hesitant, acceptance.

It is not to be seen without meaning that 18 months did not make Canadian homosexual of its long-longed new right use after the national acknowledgment of the homosexual Konkubinats in Canada over 95% of the adults, implemented by courts.

One continues to note that the highest Court of Justice of Canada rejected it to answer the question whether „the Charter requires “that the marriage is to be redefined.

When we regard catholics the marriage as a Sakrament and holy federation, by which man and woman express their mutual love and itself with God together in the Erschaffung of new humans, who are intended for the eternal life, connect.

Also apart from the sakramentalen reality and the certification of the holy writing a majority of the Canadians agrees with us, that understand the marriage as a unit about man and woman, those in love faithfully is at the same time open and each other for the gift of the life.

Before and family are the bases of the society, by which children are drawn up into this world to come and. To that extent the family is a social mechanism, which is more fundamental than the state. A healthy family is vitally necessary for the well-being issue of our society.

Because homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the family and thus the foundation of the society, the state must intervene, in order to forbid or limit these things in the interest of the common weal.

It is sometimes maintained that what we do within the private sector of our dwelling does not concern anybody somewhat. The privacy of the house is certainly holy, but it is not absolute. A bad action remains a bad action whether it is implemented now at home or in the public.

The decision to marry and the choice of the marriage partner is a personal decision. But the future married people do not have the right to change the sense or the features of the marriage. These do not depend on liking or on the sexual orientation of the married people. They base in the nature right and cannot not change.

Living together, to which two persons of the same sex commit themselves, is not the same human reality as the marriage volume between man and woman. The Konkubinat between two homosexuals is not a physical connection, which can witness children and pass human life on.

Such Konkubinat is not the combination of two complementary nature, which complete each other. Briefly: a Konkubinat between homosexuals is not a marriage. The opinion that homosexuals can invent a homosexual due to a personal decision „marriage “, is wrong. All packing of this world, can not change contents.

Some it may state that the resistance against the homosexual Konkubinat is a prejudice. Also this statement is wrong. There are human rights, which say: Man and woman are to receive the same wages for the same work. Or: An employer may not discriminate against someone because of its skin color. Or: Landlords may not reject anybody due to a sexual orientation.

These regulations defend the right of the particular and strengthen at the same time the Canadian society. They encourage us to recognize the people its of the other one.

Man and woman, which marry each other, can be completely different in their characteristics: Color, nationality, prosperity, social status, physical characteristics and education. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles for the marriage. Two persons of the same sex are however to never marry without prejudice to their race, social position, education or their reputation because of an insurmountable biological inability in the position.

The refusal of a social and legal status „of the marriage “for homosexuals of pairs is not a discrimination. It does not contradict the justice. On the contrary: The justice requires such a refusal.

All citizen, those over the unjustified demand to invent the institution of the marriage again anxious, have the right and the responsibility are in this debate to participate and their opinion with truth and love before the fellow citizens and the political representatives kundzutun.

Please they take themselves the time to write the members of the government or the delegate of their populated area. Announce their resistances to the bill, which places the requirement to invent the institution of the marriage again.

January 2005

+ Frederick Berne pool of broadcasting corporations Henry, bishop von Calgary (Canada)

sttn: Long speech…

… however arguments, why one should not reject that was really available.

Gallowglas: Sadly…

like church representatives try their racism and their contempt for mankind in perfectly abstruße way to justify…