CKNW Editorial
for April 11, 2000

In light of considerable correspondence on the subject lately I feel, notwithstanding my obvious record as a flaming heterosexual, that I must state unequivocally that I'm not now, never have been and have no intention of becoming a homosexual. But I go further. Whenever I think of homosexual practices, which I assure you seldom happens and only does happen when listeners remind me of them, I personally have a sense of revulsion.

Would I like my child or grandchild to be one?

No, of course I wouldn't. I would be disappointed for a number of reasons and because of my upbringing would have a lot of trouble accepting it. But accept it I would. For whatever my prejudices, I would far sooner have my son or daughter in a homosexual relationship than be like a number of people I have known well who forced themselves into a heterosexual union only to have it become impossible after there was a marriage and a family. That sort of tragedy no one needs.

I'm accused by several listeners of not being a Christian. This is an interesting point because I always thought that a Christian was one who believed in and tried to follow the rules for life Christ laid down. This I try - with admittedly very limited success - to do. I have searched the four gospels in vain for any pronouncement by Christ on the subject of homosexuality but even if I had found something, it wouldn't change my approach. For if homosexuality is a sin, that's between the homosexual and God. I would render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. And I would continue to love my neighbour. It is not against the law to be homosexual and it is not for me to condemn anything as sinful.

But shouldn't I as a Christian, assuming that there are one or two injunctions against homosexuality in the Bible, condemn those who sin? My answer is of course not. For under my religion, it is considered unchristian to be a Muslim, a Jew or a Buddhist and it is certainly against all

Christian churches to be an atheist or even an agnostic. But it is certainly not against the law of Canada to be such. In fact it's not against the law to be a member of any religion or to have no religion at all - and indeed the right to be a homosexual is protected under our law.

My position is strictly a secular one and rather than judge myself lest I too be judged, I will leave moral judgments up to them who feel they are entitled to make them.

I look at the matter as a practical one. There are homosexuals, indeed bisexuals, and they have always been with us and always will. We accept that under our laws to the point where we have no alternative but to explain their existence to our children and try to make them understand tolerance.

We have also reached another level about which I personally still have reservations - so-called entitlements that normally go to married couples now going to homosexual couples. This raises several issues but since governments are bound to follow this course, one issue seems to me to be paramount - how do we establish the right to that government "entitlement".

Wendy and I do so by establishing that we are married. Other couples - be they gay, or two brothers, or mother and son - ought to be required to show that they are indeed couples before making an claim as such on the public purse.

I stated last week that as a practical matter, those who wish to be treated in law as couples ought to enter into a formal relationship that carries with it similar obligations as does marriage. It would not be marriage for that’s a religious status and ought to be left there. If, however, we do create a new relationship - I called it bonding - and some religions wish to bless them, that's their affair.

Society has changed a great deal since Pierre Trudeau, as Justice Minister in 1967, said that "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." Back in those days heterosexual, not just homosexual oral and anal sex was considered a "gross indecency" and punishable by imprisonment. Whether the legal changes that have taken place since 1967 are good or not seems to me to be a moot question - we're not going back to those days nor are we returning to the days when homosexuals went to jail.

In the privacy of my Church I have many thoughts about what is wrong and what is right. And I'm entitled to try to persuade my fellow citizens of whatever views I have. But when my fellow citizens make a choice - and I'm always entitled to disagree with it and try to change their minds - it becomes a matter of common sense to try to make society work well with the changes that have taken place.

Since I was a boy, the society I live in has had to make enormous adjustments. We’re no longer a mostly white, mostly nominally Christian country that banned cocktail lounges, frowned on all sex except the missionary method practiced by married couples, didn't buy things much less go to a ballgame on Sundays, refused the vote to Indians and other minorities and prevented minorities from entering the professions. The changes I've seen continue and will continue ad infinitum. As a society, which is not always to say as individuals, we've had to become more tolerant of those who differ from us. No one has ever suggested that we must embrace minorities, have a drink on Sunday or use the missionary method with spouses only. We have only said, as a society, that we are a nation of differences and that as such we will be tolerant of others.

If that be a sin, I'm guilty as hell.