Supreme Court: mocking democracy.

On May 20, 1999, in a brilliant step forward for the homosexual revolution, the Supreme Court of Canada released an 8-1 decision case called Attorney General of Ontario vs. M and H.

The case involved two homosexual women: "M" and "H" lived together for several years, split up, and then one sued the other for alimony. Of course, the Ontario Family Law Act would not recognize the relationship as spousal, so a Charter challenge was launched.

The Supreme Court ruling on the M and H case recognized a homosexual relationship as "equivalent to married." This ruling strikes both at the very heart of Canadian society and our exercise of democracy. Not only has the Supreme Court begun to dismantle the natural family, but it has also usurped the role of the Legislatures and Parliament by legislating matters of fundamental social policy from the bench.

Recall how in 1994 the Ontario Legislature examined the possible legal recognition of homosexual relationships in the form of Bill 167, proposed by the then NDP government. (Editor: see "The battle is over...but the war goes on," Catholic Insight, July/August 1994, pp. 6-8.) The citizenry, given some leadership by the Church, rejected homosexual "marriage" and adoption. and MPPs killed the bill. Five years later, homosexual activists have achieved through the back door of the courts what they could not do through the democratic decision-making process.

Consequences

The decision to expand the legal definition of family to include non-familial relations will result in profound consequences for society. Removing the definition of "spouse" from its biological foundation and substituting an arbitrary ideological model will devalue marriage completely over time as new groupings come forward and claim their "rights." If two men can be considered "married" on the basis of interdependency, then why not three men, or four? If the procreative function is no longer the central consideration in the decision to grant marital benefits or impose obligations, then why grant benefits or impose obligations? The objective basis for marriage has been supplanted in law by arbitrary and subjective considerations.

It is important to recognize that homosexual "marriage" is not about homosexuals gaining the special benefits and status of marriage. Rather, it is about watering down, and eventually tearing down, the social structure called the family. The family is the central societal obstacle to the success of the homosexual revolution because the family is where the next generation is born, raised and socialized.

The family headed by a married couple models normative sexuality and protects the young from sexual predation and deviancy. When family structure is weakened by such failings as divorce, abortion, or illegitimacy, the next generation displays various social dysfunctions, one of which can be homosexuality. The "sexual revolution" of the Sixties was the natural predecessor to the "homosexual revolution" of a generation later.

Creating pathologies

The consequences of the new revolution can only be worse than the old one. For example, homosexual adoption and fostering, by definition, permanently condemn children to a life without a father or mother. Even single parents still retain some hope of finding another partner: an opposite-sex role model for their children. This is never possible in the same-sex parent household.

Could homosexual "parenting" strike a little closer to home? Consider the possibility of custody in a divorce being assigned to the parent who has left the marriage to take up with his or her homosexual partner. This is not improbable in a legal system where homosexual relationships are considered morally equivalent to marriage.

The child victims of these perverse "family" situations will certainly display greater social pathologies than we can foresee. Today's STD rates, teen suicides, drug abuse, gang activity and school shootings will seem like a walk in the park compared to the anarchy that will result from the disintegration of the natural family.

Action

It is not too late to act to protect children and marriage from the dictates of the court. In fact, if the right action is taken, a blow can be struck for democracy too. When the Charter of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1982, its approval hinged on the addition of an opt-out clause called the "notwithstanding" clause which would allow the Legislatures and Parliament to override court decisions. It is a legitimate option for any elected government to use. Invoking the clause will protect marriage and family, and send a powerful message to the courts that majority rule is preferable to the tyranny of a nine-person minority.

Peter Stock is National Affairs Director of CFAC, the Canada Family Action Coalition. He lives in Ottawa.