Last week a Newfoundland Court ruled that a polyamorous threesome is a legitimate family that can raise a child. In the same week the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Christian Western Univerity’s Code of Conduct is illegal because it stated that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman.
Not a long time ago – we wrote about this here – the Canada Summer Jobs guidelines application process were changed resulting that many organizations are deemed ineligible because they are unable or unwilling to attest that their “core mandate” and beliefs align with the current government’s self-identified values – including the “right” for abortion.
Last week’s court rulings show us clearly that the aforementioned happening was not a sole event but rather it fits into a trend that is to create a new social order detached from Judeo-Christian core values such as monogamy, marriage, family and the protection of human life and dignity. It is getting clear that those Canadians who want to practice their faith according to the teachings of the Bible are getting into trouble.
Threesome is “the best interest of the Child”
On June 12th Newfoundland judge has declared a polyamorous trio of one woman and two men all legal parents of the child the woman gave birth to last year. The decision appears to be the first of its kind in Canada.
In ruling on the case of Re CC, Justice Robert Fowler of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court Family Division observed the child was born in 2017 as the result of a polyamorous relationship between two men and one woman he described as “stable and ongoing” since June 2015.
“None of the partners in this relationship is married and, while the identity of the mother is clear, the biological father of the child is unknown,” wrote Fowler. The judge did not seem aware of the existence of paternity tests.
The three adults went to court after the Newfoundland Ministry of Service refused to list them all as parents because the province’s Vital Statistics Act allows for the names of only two parents on a child’s birth certificate.
Fowler ruled having three parents was in the child’s best interests:
“To deny this child the dual paternal parentage would not be in his best interests. It must be remembered that this is about the best interests of the child and not the best interest of the parents,” he wrote.
The child “has been born into what is believed to be a stable and loving family relationship which, although outside the traditional family model, provides a safe and nurturing environment,” Fowler opined. “I can find nothing to disparage that relationship from the best interests of the child’s point of view.”
This precedent-setting decision effectively permits any number of cohabiting individuals to declare themselves a “family” and “parents” of any associated children. It completely severs the biological-genetic bond from family law.
Furthermore, Justice Fowler’s ruling is in open defiance of the spirit of Canada’s laws against polygamy and bigamy. Section 293 of the Criminal Code states “Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”
By sanctioning a polygamous type of relationship, the judge himself is guilty under this law.
A Christian University has no right to create a Biblical Code of Conduct
The Supreme Court of Canada has found in favour of the law societies of B.C. and Ontario and against Trinity Western University in a landmark case about religious freedom and civil rights.
“Limiting access to membership in the legal profession on the basis of personal characteristics, unrelated to merit, is inherently inimical to the integrity of the legal profession,” the majority of justices wrote in their decision.
Langley’s TWU, a private Christian university, has been fighting in the courts for years for the right to open a law school on its campus.
However, law societies in B.C. and Ontario challenged its right to educate lawyers because of the faith-based school’s Community Covenant. The Covenant, among other things, states the next: “according to the Bible, sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman, and within that marriage bond it is God’s intention that it be enjoyed as a means for marital intimacy and procreation. Honouring and upholding these principles, members of the TWU community strive for purity of thought and relationship, respectful modesty, personal responsibility for actions taken, and avoidance of contexts where temptation to compromise would be particularly strong.”
Both law societies withheld TWU’s right to certify new law school graduates.
The case pitted the rights of potential LGBTQ students, or potentially even students in common-law relationships, against the religious freedom of the independent university.
The majority of judges found that the Law Society of B.C. (LSBC) has “an overarching interest in protecting the values of equality and human rights.”
The judges also found that eliminating barriers to legal education would improve the quality of the legal profession. The Court found that harms to LGBTQ students enrolling at TWU could be more severe, including harm to dignity and self-confidence, as well as stigmatization and isolation.
“We feel this is a lost opportunity for Canadians, many of whom do not have affordable access to justice,” says Earl Phillips, executive director of TWU’s proposed law school. Phillips also said Canadians should be “troubled” by what he called a decision that sets a precedent for how the courts will interpret and apply Charter rights.
All three aforementioned cases show that Canada’s actual leadership does not believe in traditional social values and institutions such as family, church or faith based communities. More than that, they seem to find these values harmful, and are willing to eradicate them from their society, a society that champions itself as one of diversity, tolerance and respect. It now seems that there are some who are more tolerable and respectable than others.