"Do you eat oysters?"--Crassus (Laurence Olivier)
"When I have them, master." -- Antoninus (Tony Curtis)
"Do you eat snails?" -- Crassus
"No, master." -- Antoninus
you consider the eating of oysters to be moral, and the eating of snails to be
immoral? My taste includes both snails and oysters."
REAL Women's argument is same as racists:
the father living with his daughter, the son with his mother, the brother with
his sister, in lawful wedlock”
Equal Marriage and the Law in Canada
March 12, 2003
(un)REAL Women of Canada
live in such a world, you have to lie to yourself and that makes everything poisoned
and it stifles any impulse toward humanity. If you ever admit the truth, you have
to do a wholesale rethinking of everything that you are and everything that you
believe about the people around you."
Ottawa - After the outrageous testimony of the Catholic Women's League, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights hearings on marriage (February 11, 2003), MP Andy Scott, the chair of the committee, began the next day with a note of caution.
"We were a little bit concerned about the nature of the discussions that had taken place to this point in this exercise," Scott said. "I think we all have to be a little measured in the language we use ..."
The ironically named REAL Women of Canada, a repressive and regressive group, ignored the request of the committee and insisted on stoking fears in hope of maintaining discrimination in Canada's marriage laws.
Myths and Fables
Gwendolyn Landolt began by attempting to portray gay and lesbian parents as inferior, despite evidence to the contrary.
"It's acknowledged that social science literature has stated that children raised in same-sex ... do not suffer, and are not detrimentally affected. However, much of that material is a reflection of the unfortunate fact that today a high cost is paid by scholars for opposing and criticizing the politically correct pro-homosexual position."
REAL Women, however, showed no discomfort with bigotry. Landolt often attempted to prop up her prejudice with references to gay writers. If they said so, it must be true for all gay people: the strategy was to denigrate homosexuals.
"They are not the same," Landolt insisted. "They are different ... there are differences in the financial arrangement between heterosexual and same-sex couples; their skill compatibilities are different; and their lifestyle is totally different, in particular with the prevalence of drug use."
Landolt went on to say that homosexuality is an acquired taste.
"It is changeable," she asserted. "For example, even our well-known member of Parliament Svend Robinson was happily married, according to a 1982 article in Saturday Night, and he changed to homosexuality. It seems it's acquired."
Landolt stated that marital fidelity "is simply not present and almost unknown in homosexual relationships." She supported this statement with a column from Vancouver's Xtra West, which she incorrectly identified as "their national paper".
"They say that nine minutes of sex with a stranger is as enjoyable as twenty years with someone else. In other words, their culture is noticeably different, and marital fidelity is not part of the homosexual culture ... What would happen if this committee decided to say that homosexual couples and lesbians could enter into traditional marriage? It would fundamentally change marriage. There would be loss of sexual fidelity, which is paramount in any marriage; the loss of monogamy in a marriage, in that one man and one woman for life would be lost"
M.P. Richard Marceau asked, "Could you explain why allowing two homosexuals to marry would cause you and me, who are heterosexuals, to be more prone to infidelity?"
"As to the length of their relationships, they actually last about three years," Landolt replied, stating that her figures come from a gay book, "And they all say that." So the "whole concept" of fidelity would be "swept away by allowing in a same-sex or lesbian couple."
"Should we also deny marriage to unfaithful heterosexuals?" Marceau asked.
"Now, there are exceptions," Landolt replied. "Certainly we all know the exceptions, but it doesn't change the fundamental principle that in a traditional marriage of a man and woman, it is exceptional when they are not committed to each other sexually. But it is the general principle within the homosexual culture that they would have outside relationships."
Polygamy and Incest
Bereft of any real argument against marriage, REAL Women repeated the disgraceful mantra of prior witnesses, and a staple of bigots through the centuries.
"If you can say that two men, and two women, can enter into a marriage, then in principle there's no way you can argue that three people, or a father and a daughter, or a brother or a sister, cannot," Landolt said, ignoring the warning of Andy Scott. "... when you open up marriage to brothers and sisters and polygamy ..."
"Mrs. Landolt ..." the Chair interrupted, but Landolt ignored rules of decency.
"... if you open up ..." Landolt pushed on.
"Mrs. Landolt, order," the Chair, Andy Scott demanded. "I need to correct the record. We're not talking about polygamy or incest. I think it's important that we do not equate an activity that the state sees as legal and acceptable with those things that the state sees as not legal. I think that's important."
The point was clearly lost on REALWomen - they cling to a different reality, one that is increasingly being discredited by their own words and actions.