|
In
January 2004, The American College of Pediatricians concluded:
"The research literature on child- rearing by homosexual
parents is limited.
"The
environment in which children are reared is absolutely
critical to their development. Given the current body
of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes
it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children
and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition
on homosexual parenting, neither by adoption, foster care,
or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted
in the best available science."(Human Parenting:
Is It Time for Change?)
Despite
the benefit of such social scientific evidence, and without
adequate democratic deliberation and the normal process
of judicial appeals, our federal government has repudiated
the historic definition of marriage in favor of social
re-engineering.
Their
approach imposes uniformity in the name of equality which
means pursuing the erosion of marriage and the family
by belittling the importance of the union of a woman and
a man, a wife and a husband, a mother and a father.
The
educational impact of laws on attitudes is undeniable.
If Canadian law must henceforth teach marriage is the
union of two persons, a majority of Canadians face the
risk of a serious threat to their freedom of conscience,
religion and expression through the imposition of an "orthodoxy"
that is contrary to their values.
Same-sex
marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance
and diversity, yet the foreseeable effect of their success
will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination
the likes of which we have rarely seen before.
In
view of the passage of same-sex marriage legislation,
must a majority of parents accept it as inevitable, that
schools and the media will transmit a vision of marriage
contrary to their own?
It
will be argued that the Charter of Rights and the new
law on same-sex marriages compel public schools to teach
their students the moral equivalency of heterosexual and
homosexual relations and marriages. Furthermore, to the
extent that these concepts are explored in health and
physical education classes, the exploration must be equivalent.
The argument will be that any other approach would be
discriminatory and contrary to the equality rights under
s.15(1) of the Charter and the numerous court cases that
have led to the passage of Bill C-38.
The
impact of the social re-engineering is bound to filter
down to school classrooms.
Ordinary
words such as 'husband' and 'wife' will be replaced by
'partner' and 'spouse.'
Children
will have to be taught about homosexual acts.
Every
person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled
as bigoted and openly discriminated against and dragged
before Human Rights Commissions. Parents who complain
will be branded as homophobes and their children will
suffer.
A
B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has begun hearing a case filed
by a same-sex couple.
The
complaint filed against the B.C. Ministry of Education
in 1999, alleges that the ministry's curriculum does not
adequately "address issues of sexual orientation."
The claim is made that "there is systemic discrimination
through omission and suppression of queer issues in the
whole of the curriculum."
To
focus the human rights complaint, the complainants have
selected the Social Studies curriculum for Grades 8 to
10 as an example of the discrimination.
They
would like to see the curriculum changed to include: "Queer
history and historical figures, the presences of positive
queer role models -- past and present, the contributions
made by queers to various epochs, societies and civilization,
and legal issues relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trangendered
people, same sex marriage and adoption."
Pro-family
groups have raised the concern that permitting explicitly
homosexual material in the curriculum would promote homosexuality
as a normative and safe lifestyle option.
The
complainants also desire to ensure the material is mandatory.
If successful, the case would strip parents of the right
to pull their children from the offensive portion of the
curriculum.
Traditionally,
only those matters on which there was a large measure
of consensus in society would be taught in the public
school system. The rest was left to the home, church or
to other institutions.
The
adoption of a new constitutional norm means, in respect
of homosexuality at least, this strategy is to be abandoned
and students confronted on the issues.
Consider
Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36. The Supreme
Court struck down the decision of a B.C. school board
to refuse approval for three books presenting positive
images of same-sex families for use in junior kindergarten
and Grade 1.
The
refusal was on the basis a significant number of parents
and others in the school district would consider them
incompatible or inconsistent with their moral and religious
beliefs on same-sex relationships.
The
case marked a significant moment in the debate about parental
rights in education.
Chief
Justice Beverly McLachlin said that: "Parental views,
however, important, cannot override the imperative placed
upon the British Columbia public schools to mirror the
diversity of the community and teach tolerance and understanding
of difference."
In
effect, therefore, it is parental views that are to be
overridden by the new state religion to the detriment
of children.
Bishop
Henry, Calgary
|
