On September 1, 1992, the Ontario Human Rights Commission made public its decision to grant gays and lesbians partners equal status with legal marriage, including all financial benefits such as health coverage, and survivor benefits.
This announcement sent a shockwave of anger across the province, with people venting their frustrations on public radio talk shows and by phoning their members of the Ontario legislature.
One repeatedly stated opinion has been that the Human Rights Commission is a powerful body and one tangles with it at one’s own peril. This statement has a somewhat intimidating effect on the uninitiated public. Most people do not know any details.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission is a body of eleven appointed members under the auspices of the Minister of Citizenship with responsibilities for Human Rights. The present Minister is the Hon. Elaine Ziemba.
In 1962, Ontario was the first Canadian jurisdiction to enact a comprehensive human rights code. It was mainly created to address discrimination in employment. Added to this later were the Friar Housing Act, the Age Discrimination Act, Women’s Equal Employment Act, and in 1986, by the Peterson Liberals and Solicitor-General Ian Scott, Bill-7, “sexual orientation” (making it illegal in Ontario to “discriminate” against homosexuals).
The Ontario Human Rights Commission deals with complaints from members of the public. In warranted cases a special committee is appointed to handle a specific case.
A decision that has been made by the Human Rights Commission is not in itself a law or legally binding.
If the H.R.C. recommends that a decision become law, the Attorney General can introduce legislation on behalf of the government. If this is done, everyone has to abide by it.
The decision of September 1, 1992 was handed down by a three-member committee, following a complaint launched in 1988. We may reasonably expect it to become law, because the groundwork has been laid.
In 1990, the majority NDP government extended family benefits to civil servants who are living in same-sex arrangements. This was announced shortly before Christmas, without debate in the Legislature or public input. There was no objection from the opposition parties.
Clever legislation, plus Human Rights Commission decisions, plus simple announcements have been used to leap-frog over each other and to set precedents to build on. No one expects an appeal. This process has been unique in the province of Ontario.
(In contrast, the Federal government appealed the Mossop case, in which a homosexual had won the right to paid bereavement leave when his partner’s father died. The Crown won the appeal and the lower Court decision was overturned.)
The legal implications of September 1, 1992 will be far-reaching, and the institution of the family and Christina morality will be further downgraded. As homosexual behavior will become accepted it will not just be tolerated, but actively promoted and our children will be openly recruited for the “alternate” lifestyle. Those of us who object openly will be derided and called homophobic, and persecuted by the Human Rights Commission and the law.
The basic question is simply this: Is sexual orientation a human rights issue like age, gender, race or physical ability? The answer is: Of course not. Homosexuals deserve protection from abuse or discrimination as human beings, but not for their sexual habits.
It is equally ludicrous to establish a quota system for minorities including women (who are 51% of the population!). Rather than stop discrimination, it invites reverse discrimination.
Homosexual behavior, like all sexual conduct, is an issue of morality and free choice.
Making previously unacceptable sexual conduct legally acceptable automatically makes traditional morality and adherence to it suspect.
Since 1968/1969, we have been made to accept premarital sex, divorce, contraception, abortion and common-law living. Elevating homosexual arrangements to the same level as legal marriage between a man and a woman is one more step to total lawlessness.
After the stealing of Sunday from the Church only two more items to be made legal come to mind: gambling and prostitution.
If and when this happens, the province of Ontario will have the unenviable record of having legalized the Seven Deadly Sins.