CKNW Editorial
for September 15, 2000

The Dutch have declared homosexual unions to be the equivalent of marriage should the couples so wish. They can marry and divorce as can heterosexual couples. In British Columbia, homosexual couples may adopt children. In my church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the debate over whether or not the church should bless gay couples who so wish continues. And I, in my little corner of this Kingdom, fret about how I feel. Must I, in order not to be branded illiberal at best, homophobic at worst agree with all these things?

I hope not because, quite honestly, my mind is engaged in its usual, whirring process when uncomfortable introspection takes place.

I do accept homosexuality as legal. There, that’s a start. I have no quarrel morally with what adult people do sexually by consent. It is not for me to make moral judgments so that’s behind me. I have also taken the next step – I have no problems with practicing homosexual priests in the Anglican church and as to other religions, that’s their affair. I have also thought about my church blessing homosexual relationships and I have no trouble with that but it may be of some importance to know why that doesn’t bother me. I simply am indifferent. Since I don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin I have no more reason to object to my church blessing a gay relationship than in watching my priest bless a building, or a ship. Gays may object to me putting it that way but that’s how I feel. If in His infinite wisdom God is offended by such a blessing that is for Him to deal with.

Taking the next step, I have no trouble with a practicing homosexual being an Anglican priest. I am a Christian and Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. I simply don’t buy the notion that because Jesus called upon people to obey the law in general terms that this means he endorsed the injunction against homosexuality so famously contained in Leviticus. Many, many others disagree with me and I think I’ve heard from most of them.

Now I’ve reached the place I have trouble. Should the state legitimize homosexual unions and should it permit adoption of children by homosexual couples?

I have trouble with gay marriages because I think that marriage, as a sentimental union if I might call it that, belongs to the church in the first instance and was only taken over by the state for two reasons. First, until fairly recent times the church and state were of the same body, so to speak. It was not really until the American revolution that the state was told to butt out of religious matters. But the state kept the institution of marriage as a matter of public policy for one reason only – it’s self perpetuation. Now at the same time, of course, it provided legal shelter for those who did not or could not have children but the reasons for that are pretty obvious. As time went on, the state paid benefits to couples who were married such as tax deductions and family allowances. It got involved in custody matters as a logical extension of this and also took jurisdiction over divorce.

In very recent times the state has moved away from its traditional role. The Murdoch decision of the mid sixties changed things when a wife, who had worked on the farm was given half of the assets even though they were in her husbands name. From there we moved pretty quickly into the position where the state’s interest in marriage was no longer confined to wanting to perpetuate itself. Government pensions and other so-called entitlements recognized the equality of partners in a marriage and it seemed that suddenly the state wasn’t just interested in keeping the population going but in having stable relationships, heterosexual of course, in society. From there it was a short, though for homosexuals a very painful step, to ignoring the sex of couples entitled to government largesse. I have no trouble with this and have said in the past that such unions should be possible, be legal and enforceable as well as breakable much as marriage is. I would call these unions something other than marriage – I’m damned if I can remember the phrase I coined … perhaps a listener might remind me.

That brings me to the one area where I still have trouble – adoption of children.

Adoption is not a right in our society – it is a privilege granted by the state which imposes conditions before granting that privilege. That having been established the question is whether or not it is in a child’s best interest to be brought up by a same sex couple. And I have trouble with this. When one of the couple is the natural parent, that’s another matter because there is an entitlement in law to raise your own child. My question relates only to adoption and foster parenting. And it is here, I think, that the jury is still out.

Some of the questions raised are silly as well as homophobic. I don’t believe that an adopted child with gay parents is any more subject to sexual abuse than in natural parents. Surely we have had enough evidence of fathers and grandfathers abusing children to toss this argument aside. I suppose I simply wonder if it is in a child’s best interest to grow up in a family where there is no clear male/female influence.

Now let me close with this. My mind is very much still open about this. I think it should be debated openly by society. I think we should hear the medical evidence as well as the actual evidence that is available.

All I say – and here is where I part from much of the gay community – that it is a question of the best interests of the child. Period.