Gay books debate reaches Canada's highest court; "Dire ramifications" if ruling overturned

SURREY, BC–The Supreme Court of Canada has decided to be the final arbiter of a longstanding dispute over whether elected officials can allow personal religious perspectives to influence their decision-making.

The Court announced October 4 it would hear an appeal of a unanimous B.C. Court of Appeal decision handed down in September 2000. That decision that the Surrey School Board acted within the law in denying an openly gay kindergarten teacher permission to use three books depicting same-sex families.

Iain Benson, executive director of the Centre for Cultural Renewal, was surprised by the Supreme Court's decision–since the deadline for seeking leave to appeal passed more than six months ago. "I don't precisely know what inventive arguments they came up with to pull that rabbit out of the hat," he says.

The petitioners argue that the trustees violated the section in the province's School Act that stipulates public education must conform to "strictly secular" principles.

Specifically, they maintain the trustees, several of whom profess to be Christians, were legally obligated to set aside their faith when deciding if they should approve the books in question–Belinda's Bouquet, Asha's Mums and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads.

In rejecting that argument, Justice Kenneth Mackenzie declared: "No society can be said to be truly free where only those whose morals are uninfluenced by religion are entitled to participate in deliberations related to moral issues of education in public schools. In my respectful view, ‘strictly secular' so interpreted could not survive scrutiny in the light of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by [the Charter]."

But Mackenzie also ruled that the books did meet the board's criteria as library resources, which teachers could use on occasion in the classroom. Even so, he cautioned, "A prudent teacher should consult with colleagues, parents and the principal before using sensitive materials."

At the time, Murray Warren, a gay teacher in Coquitlam and a petitioner in the case, seized on that part of the ruling and claimed their side had won. "That's all we wanted," he says.

Surrey School Board chairman Mary Polak believes she knows the answer. "What they're really asking for is a determination that our decision was ‘hateful,'" she said.

Polak warns there would be "some dire ramifications" if the Supreme Court should rule that the trustees acted illegally.

"What place would that put people of faith who simply want to express an opinion to one of their elected officials?" she wonders. "Are they going to be faced with, ‘Are you a Christian? Are you a Muslim? If that's why you hold that opinion, then I can't listen to you.'"

But Benson is more hopeful. "If the Court did [overturn the ruling], then the only consciences left in place would be those that are motivated by atheistic or agnostic beliefs. And as the Appeal Court said, that doesn't make any sense," he says. "I'm sure that the Supreme Court of Canada will come to the same conclusion."

Benson adds the real significance of the ruling is that it rejected the commonly held idea that religious beliefs and the opinions and public policies based on those beliefs–have no place in a "secular" society, and should be confined to people's homes and places of worship.

"The judges, the public, politicians and, frankly, the religious leadership in this country need a lot of education on this very question, because they often speak about the ‘secular' as if it's a non-faith realm," he says. "That's a huge mistake and it has to be changed."

Polak agrees that Christians in particular need to pay closer attention to issues affecting the role of religion in society. "How we answer those questions can be just as important an outcome of a case like this as the judges' decision itself. As people of faith, we need to be on the frontlines talking about what liberty means in a free country."

No society can be said to be truly free where only those whose morals are uninfluenced by religion are entitled to participate in deliberations related to moral issues...

But this is the result that the pro-homos have been striving for!

Thank goodness we have the 2nd Amendment in this country!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.