If the end of the 80s provides any indication, the 90s are going to see increased militancy by homosexuals, and more and more demands for recognition of “gay rights.”
Judge Dube
Last November Toronto Sun columnist Dick Smyth finally got proof that the world had gone bonkers. Mr. Justice J. E. Dube of the Federal Court of Canada had just ruled that a homosexual prisoner had the right to conjugal penitentiary visits from his partner. The judge said that homosexuals as a group had “been victimized and stigmatized throughout history because of prejudice – mostly based on fear or ignorance, as most prejudices are.”
Lawyer Elizabeth Thomas, who represented the prisoner, was critical of Correctional Services Canada for even forcing her client into court in the first place. If his partner had been a woman, he would have been permitted conjugal visits, wouldn’t he? she asked.
Smyth was flabbergasted by the decision. “Quite apart from the appalling moral aspects of this reckless policy,” he wrote, “given the notorious promiscuity of male homosexuals and the endemic rapes and unavoidable liaisons behind bars, the government has thrown open the prison gate to AIDS.”
He added that the judgment represented a corruption of the English language: “Conjugal refers exclusively to relations, sexual or otherwise, between man and wife. The court decision is bad law. Do not compound it with bad English!”
Family under assault
Unfortunately this was only one example of the many kinds of concessions granted by courts and other public bodies in response to pressure from homosexual activists. As The Interim previously reported, last April a federal Human Rights tribunal in Ottawa rules that homosexual couples constitute a family. The decision was based on the premise that there should not be any special privileges for being heterosexual!
Should a hotel refuse to allow homosexual dances on its premises? A complaint will be lodged with the provincial Human Rights Commission, as happened to the Howard Johnson Hotel in Kingston last May.
Should a monastery forbid homosexual groups from using its facilities for a retreat? It might have to pay damages, as happened to the Redemptorists of Aylmer, Quebec when they were forced to pay Dignity Ottawa over $5,000 for turning the members of Dignity away because of their support of homosexual activity.
The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario, “formed in 1988,” as its statement of purpose reads, “to help ensure that Ontario’s Human Rights Code does what it’s supposed to do – protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” gives advice to its members on how to apply for government funding for gay and lesbian projects. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation should provide funding for Gay Games and other recreational projects; the Ministry of Culture and Communications ought to provide support for lesbian and gay arts events, telephone counseling lines and information centers; and the Trillium Foundation should be ready to help fund organizations serving people whose lives have been disadvantaged by disabling (read homosexual) conditions.
Homosexuality defense
The Summer 1989 Newsletter of the Family Research Institute (located in Washington, D.C.) published long extracts from a report on youth suicide published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The report, in part at least, turned out to be a manifesto in defense of homosexuality. It put a large part of the blame for gay youth suicide on the shoulders of “narrow-minded parents or ministers of religion.” Here are some of the comments on parents:
– “Parents should know that homosexuality is a natural and healthy form of sexual expression. They do not need to feel bad about something that is good.”
– “Those parents who have difficulty accepting their lesbian daughter or gay son should get more information on the subject and not try to change them.”
– “Parents frequently use religion as the standard to evaluate homosexuality.”
Against religion, the report says:
– “Religion presents another risk factor in gay youth suicide because of the depiction of homosexuality as a sin and the reliance of families on the church for understanding homosexuality. Many traditional (e.g., Catholicism) and fundamentalist (e.g., Baptist) faiths still portray homosexuality as morally wrong or evil.”
– “Religions need to reassess homosexuality in a positive context within their belief systems. They need to accept gay youth and make a place for them in the church.”
– “Faiths that condemn homosexuality should recognize how they contribute to the rejection of gay youth by their families and suicide among lesbian and gay male youth.”
Not surprisingly, the report’s recommendations suggest greater “understanding” of homosexuality. Schools should provide positive information about it, family life classes should present it as a natural and health form of sexual expression, and all students should learn about prominent lesbians and gay males throughout history. Big Brothers and Sisters should enlist gay and lesbian adults to work with gay youth. Homosexual “marriages” should be recognized. And, concludes the report, the whole of society should recognize that “Homosexuality is not a mental illness or disease. It is a natural and healthy expression of human sexuality.”
Congressmen
The Family Research Institute rejects the idea that homosexual activity is either natural or healthy. As an example the newsletter mentions three recent U.S. Congressmen who were mired in homosexuality: McKinney died of AIDS. Studds used his office to sexually violate several congressional pageboys. And homosexual “moralist” Barney Frank hired a male prostitute on the basis of a magazine ad and paid him as a consultant even though the man was on probation after conviction for possession of cocaine, oral sodomy, child porn and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
The Institute’s newsletter also published the results of a national comparison between normal people and homosexuals entitled “Effects of homosexuality on public health and social order.” This first appeared in the July 1989 Psychological Reports.
“Drugs, fights, crimes, shoplifting – whatever – homosexuals are more frequently involved,” the survey says. As one would expect, in a list of curious sexual practices the “gays” and lesbians turns out to have performed them up to eleven times more than normal people. On average homosexuals have had ten different same-sex partners in the last year, and over a hundred in a lifetime (as against an average of eight in a lifetime for heterosexuals).
Academic circles
The strength of the “gay rights” movement within academic circles was recently illustrated by a controversy in the University of Toronto Bulletin. On March 12, Professor Charles Chaffey wrote a letter which in previous times would have been regarded as a straightforward statement on a “motherhood” issue. Entitled “Sin no more,” the letter called homosexuality an attack on basic family values. It said that families sustain and perpetuate our society; families raise their children to take their places in society, whereas homosexual relationships do nothing of the kind. Furthermore, it stressed the harm which homosexual activity, in particular sodomy, can do to the individual; it leads to injury and spreads disease.
The letter produced a violent response. In the March 26 Bulletin, Joe Clark – apparently not connected with the University – accused Chaffey of taking the “usual irrelevant and insulting, but presumably heartfelt, Christian anti-sexual view.”
Clark declared that the university has no business “reaffirming the essential value of family”; it rights avoids dictating the form each person’s life will take. Celibacy is not right for everyone, and it is certainly not right that it be imposed on unmarried students’ residences; students who are consenting adults will have sex if they want to, and it is none of Prof. Chaffey’s business. Homosexual relationships can be bad, but only infrequently, just as heterosexual relationships clog the divorce courts.
Concluding, he insists that gay men and lesbians “have not ‘sinned.’” “We require acceptance, not ‘forgiveness.’” Professor Chaffey’s falsely compassionate, love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin attitude belongs in the catacombs. Fortunately, the University policy shows that he is being ignored. Hooray for the University!
Go and sin no more
“As a Jew,” he commented, “I know what my reaction to such a passage would be. A similar attack on the gay and lesbian community was published in the Bulletin…I can only imagine how a gay man or a lesbian reacted to what you did publish. I would hope that this would not recur.”
Finally, there was a third letter, indicating deep concern over Professor Chaffey’s views, which would “seriously prejudice the ‘opportunity to learn, to serve, to teach and to do research’ which he quite correctly says must be ensured for all.” The university’s position on racism states that it has a responsibility “to provide leadership to the wider community in the area of human rights. For these reasons, there is an obligation on the part of the members of the University to demonstrate awareness, openness and fairness with respect to [this] diversity.”
The writer does not question Chaffey’s right to express his opinions, but states unequivocally that “views such as he holds have played no part in shaping the policies or administrative directions of the University during my tenure of office.”
Who is the author of this letter? None other than the president of the University, G.E. Connell.
If what he says is correct – and he ought to know – what conclusions can we draw?
– that the University is committed to the liberalism and libertinism of which Mr. Clark speaks;
– that the University claims that right to assist in the moral corruption of its students;
– that the University does not defend any philosophy of man which could possibly support religious traditions or the traditional view that human life is precious. Everything is up for grabs.
If these inferences are correct, the University is acting against the family, which as Professor Chaffey says is the backbone of society, and therefore against the public interest.
Then why should the University receive public support?
