Principled Intolerance Still Alive and Well
 

On Oct. 5, New Democrat MP Svend Robinson introduced a bill to recognize the
right of gay and lesbian people to marry. "Currently," he noted, "federal common law
restricts the institution of marriage to marriage between one man and one woman. This is
a clear denial of the right to equality for gay and lesbian people extended under the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms which, by the way, was pioneered by the late prime minister Pierre
Elliott Trudeau." Certainly, Trudeau had his faults, chief among them his lamentable fail-
ure to uphold the sanctity of human life. But he never suggested that equality rights for les-
bians and gays should be included in his pet project - the charter.

In fact, there is no mention of homosexuality anywhere in the charter. This was a deliberate
omission Robinson tried to overcome through an amendment to the charter in 1981. With
solid backing from the Trudeau government, the special joint committee of Parliament on
the Constitution decisively repudiated the proposal by a vote of 22 to two.
 

Of course, the express will of the great majority of the elected representatives of the
people of Canada in enacting the charter means nothing to Robinson or to gay rights
ideologues in the courts. With supreme contempt for Parliament, the Supreme Court of
Canada proceeded in Egan v. Canada, (1995) to read homosexual rights into the charter.
And with last year's ruling in M. v. H, the court directed the Ontario legislature to amend
the definition of spouse in the Ontario Family Law Act to provide same-sex couples with
the same rights and responsibilities as commonlaw couples.

Now Robinson will settle for nothing less than granting lesbian and gay couples the
right to marry. In this demand, he has solid backing from the ever-so-trendy apostates
within the General Council of the United Church of Canada. It used to be the leadership
of the United Church upheld traditional Judeo-Christian morality. As recently as 1960, the General Council of the church issued a statement affirming that "homosexuality is a sin." Then
came the sexual revolution of the 1960s. The United Church was quick to capitulate. By
1988, the church's General Council had decreed a gay or lesbian sexual orientation
was not a barrier to ministry.
 

Earlier this year, the General Council of the church declared that "lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgendered as well as heterosexual orientations are gifts from God." And to the
dismay of the rapidly dwindling number of virtuous parishioners left in the pews, this same Council called upon the church to, "affirm lesbian and gay partnerships. recognize them in
church documentation and services of blessing and actively work for their civil recognition."
Robinson insists, "The time is long overdue for recognition that the relationships of gay and
lesbian people are just as strong, just as loving and just as committed as those of heterosexual
couples."

These assertions are dead wrong. Homosexual unions are notoriously fragile,
In a well-researched study titled Straight and Narrow: Compassion and  Clarity
in the Homosexuatity Debate, Thomas Schmidt cites an authoritative survey of
homosexuals in the eight per cent of homosexual men and seven per cent of
homosexual women ever had a relattionship lasting more than three years.
 

There is no evidence to indicate homosexual relationships are any less breakdown-prone
today. Sexual promiscuity among gays remains rampant. In January, the Canadian
Medical Association Journal reported the findings of a survey of sexually active young gay
and bisexual men in the Vancouver area.  While the average age of the men was just 25,
they admitted to having already had, on average, no fewer than 30 sexual partners in their
lifetime. Worse, this same study estimated least 25 per cent of these young gay men will
test positive for HIV within the next 20 years.  Regardless, Robinson goes on trying to legit-
imize homosexual behaviour. In the middle of an AIDS epidemic, he insists Parliament
should grant gays the right to marry.
 

That's irresponsible. Any politician who cares about the lives and well-being of Canadi-
ans who might be tempted to take up a lifestyle of addictive sexual promiscuity should aim to
strengthen the traditional understanding of marriage as a lifetime commitment between
one man and one woman.

Rory Leishman (rieishman@home.com) is a Canadian  freelance writer.

revised  March 1, 2002

QBaal Comment:  More and more I'm appreciating the genius of Jesus, St. Paul, Augustine and
Martin Luther (c. 1517) who clearly knew that  homo sapiens must approach God and one another
on the basis of faith (trust in God's power and acceptance - love) and definitely not the Law (Torah
or ethics).  Of course, ethics is important but faith in God is more important.

I seems to me, despite Iron Age pronouncements in the Bible au contraire, that humans cannot
always resolve moral issues correctly in accordance with the will of God.  Too difficult.
Notice one of the most- focused- on- morality- societies-ever crucified the Christ.   Jews, and
Romans too.  And notice, some of the most ethical, principled folk in history still keep
mouthing moral "Bible" maxims that seem the height of moral perfection but destroy many folk
in the execution - some guilty, maybe but many totally innocent.   And love and concern for the
individual and the creation of a really civil society quickly evaporates.  (Are there not simply
too many gays for them to be simply designated outcasts?)

The top Bible scholars now inform us the Gospel of Mark contains stories of the Christ
in conflict with the Torah/Bible ethics authorities at every, yes every, turn.  Stories maybe
based on sayings of Jesus with no real context.  Still, there is no way of getting round
the incontravertible fact that Jesus did not engage in extensive conflict with
the Pharisees.  It was in fact the early Palestinian Christians who were in conflict with
Judaism and it was they who had been booted (c. AD 70) unceremoniously out of the
 synagogues.  Their presence and their Christ  were not appreciated - in bad
odor in the extreme.

Still, like  brilliant future thinkers of Christianity, the early Christians held the line
against those who would diminish and subvert the basic premiss of Jesus' Kingdom of
God - acceptance and grace, both human and divine, must govern human relationships.
Over and against  law.  Not considerations of purity.  (John Spong's latest book
concludes by making the point the future Church, to survive, must move off pushing its traditional
sin product and start promoting grace and acceptance instead - in other words as
the wiser  theologians are now saying  "get the church out of the control business"
for the good of all concerned.  Yes, the Church  the place of acceptance for all humans,
each with his or her particular dark-side {maybe the essence of being human as hinted
at in the myth of the Fall}   Believe me,  Jesus would be pleased at that development.)

Thus, the law, if elevated to the status of some god,  is  ultra-deadly and becomes the main
enemy of God and social cohesion.  Thus, St. Paul says the law actually worked death
in his being.  St. Augustine (4th century) wouldn't even allow ethics to be even taught
in the parish where he was bishop.

I'm currently reading Mack's  Myth of Innocence.  Mack makes it plain that the
early church grew out of a fellowship meal, frequently enjoyed,  as much as it did
the sayings and other memories of Jesus.  Of course,  the breaking of bread and
sharing of dring/wine was proclamation of Jesus still present - the resurrected
one - the same Jesus who ate with sinners and other rejects of "polite"
society.  So,  the early Christians continue to experience Jesus as the gracious
all-accepting one  religiously avoiding the judgemental spirit of the religious
Jewish elite and any of their anal-retentive  followers.

I don't pretend  to understand gays fully.  But I would be very surprised if they are not
greatly loved and appreciated by the Father of All.  (I could say I regret that Jesus
failed to address the "gay problem" with a definitive moral assessment.  Yet,  in
fact he did when, in deed and act, he demonstrated acceptance of "unclean" darksiders, yes
even tax collectors, and ate with them.   Without the all-too-standard moral judge-
mental attitude of Christianity and many others through the last 20 centuries.)  And even
 if gays are sinner par excellence, then what does that imply re God who created them
that way in the first place.  And where  does that leave us if we deal harshly with them.??

 More Insights re Homosexuality

    Argued on the Internet