More "rights" for homosexuals.

Toronto--On October 25, 1999, Ontario's PC government changed 67 statutes including the Ontario Human Rights Code, treating homosexuals from here on the same as common-law couples who, in Ontario, have been treated the same as married husbands and wives since 1977. They have to have been together for three years. The Harris government acted in compliance with the Supreme Court decision of May 20, 1999 (the M. v. H. case).

M. v. H. case

The M. v. H. case--as we explained in July/August 1999--involved two lesbians, "M" and "H", who had lived together for 10 years, then split up, with one suing the other for alimony.

Among homosexuals, splitting up is as normal as having many partners over a short period of time. Relationships which last over three years are rare and, in actual fact, M and H had already settled with one another and gone their separate ways. But the court case rolled along on its own track. The Supreme Court, moreover, was desirous to loosen the legal standards for sexual behaviour further, as they had done before--as in January 1988 when they gave Henry Morgentaler, and all the other abortionists, free rein to go on killing the unborn; as in 1993 when in the Sullivan and Lemay case, they refused to designate an unborn baby about to be born as human or to indicate to the government that it must change its antiquated law flagrantly contradicting medical sciences; and again when, in 1995, they read "sexual orientation" into the Charter, directly contrary to the wishes of Parliament in 1981-1982, which had deliberately excluded it.

In M. v. H., the Supreme Court ordered the province to extend the same rights given to common-law couples under Section 29 of Ontario's Family Law Reform Act passed in 1977 to homosexual "couples".

Premier Mike Harris

This magazine pointed out in July/August that the Harris government had two options: either invoke the not-withstanding clause, maintain the existing legislation and ignore the Supreme Court's latest tendentious interpretation, or delete Section 29 of the Family Law Reform Act, thereby eliminating the recognition of common-law relationships.

Instead, Premier Harris ordered the changes and then blamed the Supreme Court for being forced to do so. Meanwhile, not a single voice of protest was heard in the 103-strong Ontario Legislature, whether from the government party or from the opposition. The measure passed without even a recorded vote. In fact, Liberals and NDPers outdid themselves in hailing the "end of discrimination." Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty saw it as an "historic" victory.

In introducing Bill 5, An Act to amend certain statutes because of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in M. v. H., Jim Flaherty, Ontario's Attorney General, said that "the bill responds to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, while preserving the traditional values of the family by protecting the definition of 'spouse' in Ontario law." But lawyers tell us that it would take an expert a full week's work to even begin to understand this omnibus bill, let alone estimate the consequences to pensions, inheritances, legal rights, adoptions, bereavement leaves, etc. Meanwhile, "gay" rights activists are convinced that it is only a stepping stone to the status of "married spouses". As one "gay" lawyer predicted: "(l)egally (the government) is in worse shape now trying to explain to the court why they can't provide for (gay) marriage."

Transsexuals

Just for good measure, Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Keith Norton, himself a homosexual activist appointed by the Harris government, has launched the idea that Ontario's Human Rights Code already ensures protection for transsexuals, cross-dressers, and drag queens as well. He now wants marriage and adoption rights for these "transgendered", not to mention the "right" of these "intersexed individuals" (his words) to use women's public washrooms.

The federal scene

Ottawa--As expected, the Federal Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, immediately followed up the Ontario decision by proposing her own sweeping legal changes in favour of same-sex "rights". This time she has the political approval of Prime Minister Jean Chretien which had been missing before.

As mentioned in April 1999 (CI, p. 22), McLellan had been urged by her late friend Shaunnessy Cohen to move ahead in this area. But because of opposition she had been restricted to furthering the homosexual cause by the more surreptitious administrative route only, such as allowing homosexual immigrants under a new Immigration Act.

But on November 4, 1999, she announced an omnibus bill to be introduced early in the New Year. More than 50 federal statues will then provide benefits for "gay" and lesbian couples" and ensure that their perverted lifestyle is legally recognized and honoured.

Comment

Christians will remember that the so-called same-sex "rights" of homosexuals have no basis in natural moral law. A homosexual person has the same rights which every citizen possesses. But "rights" flowing from immoral sexual activity are null and void in moral law; they are not "rights" at all. Instead, they are a scandalous immoral imposition by government leaders and judges.