Those who oppose the sexual orientation clause in human rights codes correctly argue that the clause does more than simply protect the civil and constitutional rights of homosexuals.
Homosexuals are working towards a radical redefinition of public mores regarding sexuality, marriage, and the family. A good example is a recent case before the Supreme Court of Ontario in which a lesbian employee of the Toronto Public Library Board, Karen Andrews, claimed that she and her live-in female partner (and her two children) are entitled to family coverage under the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan. The Toronto Public Library Board is willing to pay the family rate for OHIP premiums, and Andrews’s union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1996, supports her case.
The Ministry of Health, which administers OHIP, has refused to accept this application for family coverage. The Ministry’s lawyer argued that the definition of a family in the relevant legislation restricts it to spouses of the opposite sex. He told the Supreme Court of Ontario that a lesbian’s relationship with her partner can be likened to the obligation of one sister to another sister. He explained that lesbians are not alone in such a situation but that other non-traditional family units, such as adult sisters, cousins, or a mature child supporting a parent under the same roof, also are required to pay separate OHIP premiums. Furthermore, he pointed out, the lesbian couple are at a financial advantage because Andrews’s partner can apply for premium assistance, and her two children are already covered through premiums paid by their father.
On March 7, the Ontario Supreme Court ruled that lesbian mates do not meet the criteria of “spouse” as defined by the Health Insurance Act and other provincial laws. The term spouse, said Justice Nicholas McRae, refers to a person of the opposite sex in approximately 79 Ontario statutes. He wrote: “Heterosexual couples procreate and raise children. They marry or are potential marriage partners and, most importantly, they have legal obligations of support for their children whether born in wedlock or out and for their spouses pursuant to the Family Law Act. A same-sex partner does not and cannot have these obligations.”
McRae also ruled there was no basis to the couple’s argument that OHIP’s refusal to consider them spouses threatens their liberty to “engage in an adult, intimate and consensual relationship with a person of the same sex.”
Andrews is not really interested in the financial benefits; she explained that she initiated the three-year court battle and jeopardized her career in the interests of obtaining dignity and equal treatment. She said that the province’s refusal to grant her equal treatment to heterosexuals in common-law relationships is an attack on the dignity of homosexuals. Her lawyer argued that failure to provide family coverage to same-sex couples amounts to sexual orientation discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code. The Canadian Union of Public Employees is considering an appeal of the Supreme Court ruling.
Mr. Justice McRae expressed the opinion that Andrews’s case before him was “premature” because the courts have ruled that claims of discrimination must first be pursued under the Human Rights Code of Ontario, and so this is probably not the last we’ll hear of the matter. On the basis of precedent, Ontario’s Supreme Court refused to recognize a homosexual relationship as a marriage in this case. However, the Human Rights Commission may well view this as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and side with the complainant. If that would happen, the destructive intentions and impact of the “sexual orientation” clause in the law would become undeniably evident.