When a Canadian Parliamentarian states publicly in the House of Commons what many, possibly most, Canadians think about a certain sexual preference, those of that sexual bent vilify the speaker. Is that correct? Should an elected Member of Parliament be held up for ridicule simply because that person speaks from the heart and soul and has the intestinal strength to so state? The answers for some, yes. For others, no.
A close reading of the letters-to-the-editor in several Canadian newspapers reveals that for the most part, those who protest MP Elsie Wayne's comment have missed the point of it. When MP Wayne stood in the House and uttered "Shut up!" she simply said what was on her mind. Nowhere has it been shown that she intended to vilify homosexuals or homosexuality. Yet, the letters are filled with vindictive comments that show clearly that the writers of those comments fall into the 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks' category. [Shakespeare, Hamlet, act 3, scene 2]
Had none of the homosexuals bent themselves into shapes that resemble pretzels and voiced their condemnations, we would not have known much about Ms. Wayne's utterance. It would have simply been one more thing spoken in an arena that is filled with utterances that make little or no sense; we in Canada call it debate in the House. Most is for the television cameras so that constituents might see their mighty defender rise 'in his/her place' and consume his/her allotted speaking time. Most of what is said in the House is spoken to an almost empty chamber. Were it not for the members of the Fourth Estate [and its pale imitators, the Fifth Estate] much of what goes on in the House of Commons -and in each provincial/territorial parliament - would go unnoticed by the populace. Hansard is a ready source of reference but few Canadians care to take the time or to spend the money necessary to subscribe to the House of Commons record. So, what's the fuss over Elsie Wayne's 'Shut up!" comment.
One wonders how those homosexual Members of Parliament, and other homosexuals, would feel if heterosexual people paraded around Toronto or Vancouver or Halifax or any other Canadian city half-nude promoting the sanctity of marriage or the love one heterosexual holds for a member of the OPPOSITE sex all the while putting down homosexuals who, in the minds of the heterosexuals, are out to lunch on both sexual preference and the sanctity of marriage. Most, I imagine, would have a fit and demand a public apology if not a wholesale Royal Inquiry that questions the rights of the heterosexuals to promote their 'hatred,' 'bias,' 'prejudice,' or 'lack of awareness' publicly. The sword cuts both ways. [Proverbs chapter 5, verse 3 "But her end is bitter as wormword, sharp as a two-edged sword."]
It would be best if both homosexuals and heterosexuals simply lived their chosen lives quietly away from the glare of public lights and stopped nattering about each others' sexual preference. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality guarantees that a person is intelligent, considerate, compassionate, religious, heroic, or any other adjective one might use to put an imprimatur on either themselves or others.
I long for a return to the days when the axiom "Live and let live" reigned supreme.
To my heterosexual friends and to my homosexual friends, you know my innermost feelings about this issue. Now, let's all get on with the grunt and move this fading country back into the limelight that she so richly deserves. Together, we can do it!
Advertising Information 
