There are many good reasons to oppose Gay Marriage including: the non-democratic judicial activism that is shoving it down society's throat; the redefinition without debate about what is a family; the redefinition of a non-state institution by the state; the brazen attempt by politicians to buy Gay votes and advance social liberalism in which everything and all things are relative; and the scientifically unproven notion that Homosexuality is genetic. Marriage predates any Constitution and is the fundamental block of building a moral society. As Writer Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said:

"Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it."

People are also wrong in assuming homosexuality is genetic [another long topic entirely]. Many experiments and reports prove that genetics plays a very minor role, and that there is no gay gene. For instance the Boston Globe reported in its June 29, 2003 survey that "nearly 40 percent" of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into "civil unions" in Vermont "have had a previous heterosexual marriage." The gay gene myth has been explored and exploded by various studies including Stanford and the University of Western Ontario.

People might not care if someone is Gay, but there is a fundamental tyranny in making society not only approve of homosexuality but also Gay marriage – through judicial activism and tax payer funded programs. This is the same government induced relativism that forces taxpayers to subsidize a broken Native Indian program, feminism, modern art programs, French language programs of various sizes, and minority/ethnic programs targeted to protect or maintain ethnic diversity. All levels of society are using tax payer funds to pay off special interest groups and minorities. Gay marriage falls into this rather disreputable category.

Approving of multi-racialism or homosexuality is different than funding it, approving it and coercing society to accommodate these minority groups through the tax system. This is the crux of the problem with Gay marriage. The tax system was set up to help people in family roles – the gay lifestyle is rather anti-family and the entire pro-homosexual movement is based on a sexual revolution and a gender roles revolution premised on attacking such traditional family forms. No one has made the argument that homosexuality should be funded by taxpayers because the homosexual lifestyle is improving our moral, economic and political life. Few if any homosexual couples are likely to even desire a division of labor like that envisioned under Social Security.

Mitch Raphael, the editor of a Toronto "gay" magazine has said, "I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever." Yet this is exactly what Gays are proposing – the acceptance of traditional marriage. Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, queried, "Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?" Certainly they would. It is well know that Gays have 4-7x more sexual partners than heterosexuals even if they are in relationships. They are far more likely to use the health care system to treat ailments and diseases as well.

No one has discussed the economic costs of Gay Marriage – which in Ontario alone would total at least $100-$400 million dollars for current and back payments for social programs. The defense of such spending is that 'Gays pay into the system'. Well so what ? So do singles, common law couples, polygamists, bigamists, Wiccan worshippers and those who believe in incest. Society has made a deliberate choice that the tax system should help, not hinder families. Redefining families must be a democratic process not a political/judicial one.

CP News reported on Jan. 20 2004: "The Justice Department said yesterday it will challenge an Ontario court order that Ottawa must make CPP survivor payments to those [homosexuals and lesbians] widowed after April 1985. That ruling was expected to cost taxpayers between $100 million and $400 million. Ottawa wants a higher court to clarify Parliament's ability to say when its laws take effect, said Justice Department official Patrick Charette. The case now moves to the Ontario Court of Appeal, where it will likely drag on for at least six months."

Pensions would just be ONE claim by this group on society.

If you make the argument that Gays should be allowed to access the welfare system because they pay taxes, than the same argument should be made for a wide variety of income groups that pay far more than they take out. The argument that Gays pay into the system and therefore need and deserve to access it, is nonsensical and would have to be extended to those groups that support; incest, polygamy, bigamy, and those who choose NOT to get married. These groups all pay into the social welfare net but do not benefit from it. You would need to divide up society into separate groups and calculate what they pay in on average vs. what they take out. You would need to calculate EI costs, Health Care usage, public goods usage and pension benefits. We doubt that this exercise is worthwhile.

So for those who support Gay Marriage – with tearful references about 'the Love' – get out your cheque-book and start writing cheques, while the rest of us, say 'No Thanks'.