The Sad Tale of M.M. and J.H.
Another of my series of unpublished letters to the editor of the Globe and Mail.
What struck me while reading Kirk Makin’s article (Globe & Mail – September 21,2004) on the precedent setting divorce of the lesbians J.H. and M.M., was the role the legal system has played in transforming these two “ordinary” women into unwilling celebrities (accepting as true their claim to that effect).
First, we must remember the Halpern decision introduced the judicial invention of same-sex marriage, under the pretext that to do otherwise would deprive same sex couples of another judicially invented “right” under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a favourite bootstrapping technique of revisionist judges, a fiction built on a fiction.
To Ms. Hannaford, lawyer for J.H. and provider of the convenient eponym for her client, are attributed two statements which are revealing of the direction in which some in our legal system have drifted since entering the fog bank of antinomian hyper-liberalism.
Marriage is nothing more than the result of “our cultural fixation on ‘pairing up’” according to Ms. Hannaford. Armed with this bleak view of the institution that forms the bedrock of our civilization, it is not surprising that Ms. Hannaford’s cynicism has blossomed to the stage where she predicts that in 50% of marriages one spouse would admit that it knew the marriage was over within two days of the ceremony.
Ms. Hannaford is free to hold those views and to express them. We who think her views are patently B.S. need to speak up and be heard, and to hope Ms. Hannaford doesn’t have aspirations for the Bench.
B.J. Buan
B.A, LL.B
Vancouver, BC
What struck me while reading Kirk Makin’s article (Globe & Mail – September 21,2004) on the precedent setting divorce of the lesbians J.H. and M.M., was the role the legal system has played in transforming these two “ordinary” women into unwilling celebrities (accepting as true their claim to that effect).
First, we must remember the Halpern decision introduced the judicial invention of same-sex marriage, under the pretext that to do otherwise would deprive same sex couples of another judicially invented “right” under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a favourite bootstrapping technique of revisionist judges, a fiction built on a fiction.
To Ms. Hannaford, lawyer for J.H. and provider of the convenient eponym for her client, are attributed two statements which are revealing of the direction in which some in our legal system have drifted since entering the fog bank of antinomian hyper-liberalism.
Marriage is nothing more than the result of “our cultural fixation on ‘pairing up’” according to Ms. Hannaford. Armed with this bleak view of the institution that forms the bedrock of our civilization, it is not surprising that Ms. Hannaford’s cynicism has blossomed to the stage where she predicts that in 50% of marriages one spouse would admit that it knew the marriage was over within two days of the ceremony.
Ms. Hannaford is free to hold those views and to express them. We who think her views are patently B.S. need to speak up and be heard, and to hope Ms. Hannaford doesn’t have aspirations for the Bench.
B.J. Buan
B.A, LL.B
Vancouver, BC
posted by Ben Buan | 4:15 a.m.
<< Home