“Deep Throat” isn’t just the nickname of the supposed source in the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. It also describes what North Americans are being forced to do with the leftist gay marriage agenda. The notion of ‘equality’ is being used rampantly to leverage attacks on the traditional definition of marriage through the court system in both Canada and the USA.

Equality can be overrated. Flat-chested women have no business working at Hooters Restaurants, because Hooters with A cups is basically just Denny’s. Young children shouldn’t hold down 9-to-5 jobs. Kids who took the short bus to school and were forced to wear those special platform shoes back when they weren’t actually hip shouldn’t be allowed to practice neurosurgery, even though denying them the opportunity to do so could be considered discriminatory on the basis of mental disability. If a bus pulls up to the curb and the driver is clutching the steering wheel with his teeth because he doesn’t have any hands or feet, then I’m sorry, but physical discrimination or not, I’ll be walking to work. I don't want Mr. Itchy-Scratchy who has a visibly bad case of dandruff flaking out all over my steak at a five-star restaurant. And the list goes on.

Discriminating against gays when it comes to marriage would also be a wise move. Various studies have shown that children from non-traditional families--lacking either a mother or a father’s influence--are more likely to attempt suicide, drop out of high school, commit crime, run away from home, or become teen parents. When society picks up the bill, then it also ought to be able to make the rules.

But it’s not generally the gay community that’s whining about not being able to marry. Gays comprise a very small segment of the population, and they’re not clamoring to have their relationships legitimized through a religious institution such as marriage, when religion has, and always will, consider their lifestyle to be sinful.

One of the few reasons ever given for why gays would actually want to marry is that they want “legal benefits”. According to the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) website, these benefits include access to family health and auto-insurance policies, family bereavement leave, and dependency benefits through worker’s compensation. They also want to marry so that they can drag each other through the court system in a messy divorce, just like straight people do.

This last reason actually provides the best justification for allowing gay marriage. Picture gay “Divorthe Court”, with singer/actress-turned-judge, Cher, deciding who gets the chaise lounge, the accent chair, the crock pot, and the Tom Cruise DVD collection. It’s hard to imagine gays wanting to sell out to an institution that has rebuffed them, just for the sake of cheap car insurance, a little time off, a few compo bucks, and legitimized access to Judge Judy and Jerry Springer.

Gays don’t want marriage for gays. Liberals do. The gay marriage agenda is only the latest attempt by leftist elites at social engineering and devaluing the concept of Holy Matrimony. The idea has been in the liberal playbook since the 1970s. Socialists hate the idea of traditional marriage, and prefer the ‘common property’ model exemplified by Bill and Hillary Clinton. It’s a marriage that “takes a village”--not to raise a child, but to figure out which floozy Bill has been busy banging behind Hillary’s back on his morning McMuffin errands. Having a respectful, loyal husband is 'patriarchal', unless of course you’re ‘progressive’ enough to allow him to openly cheat on you and totally disrespect you however he pleases while bragging to your friends about how hip your blasé attitude makes you. Apparently, that’s supposed to be far more empowering for women.

Gay marriage is a top-down shove, with little appetite for the notion being detected in the general public. This past November, voters in the USA passed eleven out of eleven marriage bans. In the most recent Canadian survey, only 39 percent of adults believe that gay unions ought to be recognized as fully equal to heterosexual marriages.

Neither these figures, nor a Canadian Supreme Court refusal to declare the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, have discouraged Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin from wanting to shut down debate on the issue completely and ramming through his gay marriage agenda. For the very same reason that there shouldn’t yet be a federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in the USA that would circumvent any further debate at the state level, the Canadian Prime Minister shouldn’t be imposing this legislation on the Canadian people without a full national debate and referendum. If a referendum was good enough for a little group of whiny, militant Quebec separatists in the early 90s, then it’s good enough for the whole country.

Unlike in America, where marriage is defined on a state-by-state basis, Canadian Parliament is constitutionally mandated to legally define the concept for the entire country. Once Parliament sets the law, no single province or territory can opt out of the legislation any more than they can with the Criminal Code. So far, over half of Canada’s provincial and territorial jurisdictions have legalized gay marriage through court decisions. Each one of these decisions has cited the equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Referendum Act of 1992 provides for referendums on the Constitution of Canada. It has already been used to determine how Canadians feel about the notion of Quebec being considered distinct from the rest of the country. And if all gay marriage opponents resided in the province of Quebec, you’d better believe that Paul Martin would be having one. But Martin is denying Canadians a debate and direct vote on gay marriage. His Justice Minister is saying, “You don't subject minority rights to a referendum. That's not what we do in Canada.” Oh, no! We can’t have anything resembling an actual democracy with majority rule in Soviet Canuckistan! What would Castro and Stalin think?

There is no excuse for the Canadian Prime Minister not to hold a referendum on the issue, unless he fears that his party’s attempt at social engineering would be met with far less support in the general population that he would like to think there is.

When there’s no real passion for change--as is the case with the gay marriage debate--people tend to gravitate to the status quo. A national referendum resulting in majority defeat of gay marriage would mean that Martin would be pressed to use the Notwithstanding Clause loophole of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to override court decisions legalizing gay marriage, or risk voter wrath in the next election for ignoring the will of the people. He would have to re-open the debate, and possibly even consider tabling legislation that is exempt from the provisions of the Charter in order to meet the demands of Canadians and protect the definition of marriage. It’s a result that every single Canadian who has any respect left for the institution of marriage ought to be fighting for. Right now, you still have a voice. Use it or lose it--unless you re cool with a bunch of socialists making up your mind for you.

Now isn’t the time to be tuning out of the marriage debate in North America. Take a look at where complacency has led thus far: Is marriage even an institution worth preserving anymore, with TV shows like “Who Wants to Marry My Midget Cousin” coupling off total strangers in less time than it typically takes to pick out a new pair of shoes? Defenders of traditional marriage obviously didn’t put up enough of a fight against the concept of quickie, no-fault divorce. As a result, people now switch spouses like Paris Hilton changes accessories. Is it really too much to let a couple of guys who like to engage in ‘naked sword fighting’ call themselves 'spouses' instead of just kinky roommates? If any of this actually matters, then it’s time to stop hitting the snooze bar, because at the end of your next 10 minute nap, you could very well be waking up to a whole new reality--courtesy of the very same people who successfully redefined the term “documentary filmmaker” to include Michael Moore.