Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:53:27 -0500
From: Chris Ambidge <chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca>
Subject: Integrator 2000-1
INTEGRATOR, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto
volume 2000-1, issue date 2000 02 14
copyright 2000 Integrity/Toronto. The hard-copy version of this
newsletter carries the ISSN 0843-574X
Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9
== Contents ==
[2000-1-1]
GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN / Ontario government reluctantly grants
"same-sex partners" equal legal standing with common-law spouses
[2000-1-2]
SINGAPORE SCHISM / Anglican bishops throughout the world censure
irregular ordinations. - by Chris Ambidge
[2000-1-3]
THE FULL TEXT OF THE STATEMENT BY ARCHBISHOP MICHAEL PEERS, on the
Singapore ordinations.
[2000-1-4]
OTTAWA TO EQUALIZE BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
[2000-1-5]
WHAT'S IN A NAME? / Bewley vs the Registrar-General of Ontario
[2000-1-6]
NEW BEGINNINGS FOR INTEGRITY/TORONTO / Annual General Meeting Report
[2000-1-7]
STEPS FOR PEACE / Ways of Prayer by Sister Thelma-Anne SSJD
========
[2000-1-1]
GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN
Ontario government reluctantly grants "same-sex partners"
equal legal standing with common-law spouses
In May of 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the
definition of "spouse" in Ontario's *Family Law Act* [FLA] was
discriminatory, and gave the Ontario provincial government six
months to address the situation. [see *Integrator* article 99-3-2
on the *M vs H* decision]. The provincial legislature opened in
late October, and the first substantive piece of legislation was
an omnibus bill to comply with the Supreme Court judgement.
Space constraints delayed our reporting on this very significant
move until now.
Bill 5 (or, as it became on Royal Assent, the *Amendments Because
of the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M. v. H. Act, 1999*)
did more than amend the FLA, even though the FLA was the only
legislation directly impugned by the *M vs H* decision. It
created, for the first time in Ontario law, the new relationship
of "same- sex partner". It then proceeded to insert the separate
category of "same-sex partner" in 66 other pieces of provincial
legislation, from the *Absentees Act* to the *Workplace Safety and
Insurance Act*. These newly recognised "same-sex partnerships"
have the same legal standing as that of unmarried heterosexual
("common-law") couples. Bill 5 was rushed through in just three
sitting days and two-and-a-half hours of debate, with essentially
no opposition. This was a great contrast to the similar Bill
167, which was hotly debated for months in 1994 and was
eventually defeated. Just a few of Bill 5's actual effects for
gay and lesbian couples include access to the courts to establish
support payments after dissolution (the subject of the *M vs H*
case); and also hospital visitation rights; adoption rights; and
the right to crime victim compensation if a partner is murdered.
The bill also prohibits discrimination based on an individual's
relationship with another person of the same gender. It may
bring several same-sex partnerships to light, as conflict-of-
interest legislation has been amended to require public figures
to declare business interests held by their partners -- the law
had previously only required opposite- sex couples to make these
declarations.
The governing Conservative party did all it could to distance
itself from Bill 5 itself; as the contents are certainly not what
they have long advocated. Given the Supreme Court decision,
though, they had very little choice -- as is indicated in the
"short" title of the Act. Attorney General Jim Flaherty
introduced the measure in the most lukewarm of terms, including
saying three different times that it would not affect marriage or
the definition of spouse although the bill would fail the high
court's standard were a spouse to receive any treatment different
from a "same-sex partner".
As mentioned, the new category of "same-sex partner" is a new
creature in Ontario law. Bill 167 would have made common-law
relationships available to both same- and opposite-sex couples.
Bill 5 creates a separate- but-equal pigeonhole reserved for
homosexuals, while simultaneously excluding them from the same-
and- equal grouping of common-law spouses.
There is no doubt that the passage of this legislation is a
significant step for lesbians and gays in Ontario. It came about
as the result of literally thousands of people working for change
on hundreds of different fronts. One of those fronts was the
case *Bewley vs. the Registrar-General*, brought before the Ontario
Human Rights Commission by Integrity/ Toronto's own Bonnie and
Michelle Crawford-Bewley. (See *What's in a Name? *, article 2000-1-5,
below)
Civil rights court cases in the United States and elsewhere --
particularly around education rights and "Jim Crow" laws -- have
demonstrated that "separate but equal" is not equal at all. A
number of homosexual- rights advocates are investigating ways of
testing through the courts if the Ontario solution is truly in
compliance with the Supreme Court's directives in the *M vs H*
decision. *Integrator* will keep you updated with any further
movement on this front. In the meantime we celebrate the very
real progress made last year.
=========
[2000-1-2]
SINGAPORE SCHISM
Anglican bishops throughout the world censure irregular
Ordinations
By Chris Ambidge
On Sunday 30 January, the Primates of Rwanda and South East Asia
consecrated two American priests as bishops and said they would
be "released" into the United States. Archbishops Tay of
Singapore and Kolini of Rwanda are most concerned about what they
see as decay within the church, particularly in the USA,
"abandoning biblical values". The major issue for them is the
increasingly welcoming attitude to homosexuals within the church.
They have taken the almost unprecedented and possibly schismatic
action of ordaining bishops who are to go and act as missionaries
to conservative Anglicans within the territory of another (US, in
this case) national church.
The ordinations have been roundly censured by liberal and
conservative people alike. Archbishop Goodhew of Sydney NSW,
Archbishop Mtetemela of Tanzania and Presiding Bishop Sinclair of
the Southern Cone (leading conservatives all) jointly expressed
regret and disappointment, saying that they "cannot approve such
a step as [Tay and Kolini] have taken at this time."
Canada's own primate, Archbishop Michael Peers, condemned the
ordinations in no uncertain terms, saying: "Bishops are not
intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactured on one
continent and fired into another as an act of aggression."
The Archbishop of Canterbury termed the ordinations
"irresponsible and irregular" and said the action was "a grave
disappointment." In the United States, Presiding Bishop Frank
Griswold said he was "appalled" by the "singularly unhelpful"
actions and "profoundly disturbed by the caricature that has been
presented of the Episcopal Church in the United States." Serious
questions have been asked about the validity of these
ordinations; from the number of bishops actually consecrating, to
the absence of opportunity for objection to the ordinations, by
way of absence of synodical approval or election.
Clearly this matter will dominate the agenda of the previously
scheduled meeting of all the Primates in March. *Integrator* will
have extensive coverage of this significant story in our next
issue.
========
[2000-1-3]
Here is the FULL TEXT OF THE STATEMENT BY ARCHBISHOP MICHAEL PEERS,
member for the Americas of the Primates' Standing Committee of
the Anglican Communion:
I write as a member of the Primates' Standing Committee which,
together with the Archbishop of Canterbury, has spent time over
the past months planning the March meeting of Primates.
Because of the recent action in Singapore, there will be greater
need at that meeting to deepen the understanding of Primates
about episcopal ministry.
In the Anglican tradition, bishops are chosen by the local church
according to its standards and practices. The persons chosen are
affirmed by the wider church, that is, the province, and then
ordained by bishops acting in, with, and for the church of the
diocese and province.
Bishops are not intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactured
on one continent and fired into another as an act of aggression.
The recent irregular ordination in Singapore is, in my opinion,
an open and premeditated assault on Anglican tradition, catholic
order and Christian charity. I ask for the prayers of the whole
church for the Primates' Meeting that it may contribute to
deeper comprehension, mutual trust, and godly quietness among its
members and throughout the Communion.
Archbishop Michael G. Peers
Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada
========
[2000-1-4]
OTTAWA TO EQUALIZE BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
Just before this issue of *Integrator* went to press, the federal
government tabled legislation to give same-sex couples the same
rights as common-law spouses in many areas of federal law. Among
the areas affected will be income tax and pension benefits for
bereaved partners. The legislation will not allow for legal
marriage of same-sex partners. Immigration sponsorship of same-
sex partners is due to be addressed in separate legislation later
this year. Integrator will have more detailed commentary on the
passage of this major piece of legislation in our upcoming issue.
Stay tuned!
========
[2000-1-5]
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
Bewley vs the Registrar-General of Ontario
Long-time readers of *Integrator* will remember that we reported
three years ago on Integrity/Toronto members Bonnie and Michelle
Crawford-Bewley attempts to change and hyphenate their family
names in recognition of their spousal relationship.
Bonnie Bewley and Michelle Crawford became partners ten years
ago, and had their union blessed in a ceremony at Toronto's
Christos Metropolitan Community Church (an Anglican service not
being available to them). They wanted to combine their names
into "Crawford-Bewley" to indicate their relationship. When
traditional couples are legally married, a name change comes as
part of the package, with the only additional fee being $25 for a
birth certificate showing the new name; common-law heterosexual
couples also have the option of making a name change at a nominal
fee. But when Bonnie and Michelle tried to do the same thing more
than eight years ago, the Registrar-General refused to comply,
insisting they would have to go through the process by which
single individuals make name changes, at a cost of $150 each.
Believing this to be discrimination based on sexual orientation,
they made a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It
took several years, but a Commission Board of Inquiry heard the
case in mid-1997. Several months later, the Board ruled in their
favour, both ordering the name change, and awarding some damages.
As was anticipated when we last reported on this story, the Board
ruling was appealed by the Ontario government. The appeal was put
to one side, as were many other governmental appeals of same-sex
court decisions, pending the outcome of the *M vs H* case in the
Supreme Court of Canada. That case was decided in May 1999, and
as mentioned above, Ontario legislation (including the *Change of
Name Act*) now recognises "same- sex partnerships".
*M vs H* was the vanguard of the many legal challenges to
discriminatory legislation. Here follow some of the arguments
made by Bonnie in her case, prefaced by a few clarifying notes
of her own.
---------------
This is my statement, made to the Human Rights Commission Board
of Inquiry on 30 April 1997. It may be helpful for you to know
that the government lawyer, Peter Landman, spent a lot of time in
the cross examination of my evidence trying to ascertain if I was
involved in gay/lesbian political activism and if I had been
encouraged to pursue this action. He also repeatedly asked if it
was more important to me to win the case than to change my name.
Under the Human Rights Code I can ask for up to $10,000 in
general damages for suffering (ie mental pain and anguish). I
chose, until very shortly before the hearing, to ask for nothing.
At that point I changed my mind and asked for $1,000 in damages.
It took several months, but in the end the decision came back in
my favour. The Board of Inquiry instructed the Registrar-General
to change my name, and the Commission awarded me $500 in general
damages. The government lawyers exercised their right to keep an
appeal open, pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Canada's
ruling on *M vs H*. As you know the Ontario government in October
1999 chose to add a "domestic partnership" definition to
legislation that included spousal rights to comply with the
Supreme Court's ruling on *M vs H*. As I write this (January 2000)
I'm still waiting for my name to be changed and for the
government to pay the damages I was awarded.
-- Bonnie Crawford-Bewley
+ + + +
STATEMENT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BOARD OF INQUIRY
Mr Landman keeps referring to this as a dry legal issue and I am
sure that to him this is the case, but to me it is not the case
at all. What is at issue for me is the validity and relevance of
my relationship and the lengths that the government will go to,
to avoid having to acknowledge that my relationship has any
validity or relevance.
Regardless of what society in general thinks (what ever that may
be) and regardless of what legislators may think is politically
expedient to say about what conjugal relationships are supposed
to look like, Michelle and I have formed a conjugal relationship.
Our lives have been forever linked together, we are each other's
primary emotional support, we share a home and a mortgage, all
our bank accounts are joint, we are each other's beneficiaries,
her picture is on my desk at work, we alternate which of our
families we spend the holidays with, and we always wear the rings
we exchanged at our wedding. These are all the practical everyday
things that indicate to society that we have a conjugal
relationship. These are the same kind of things that indicate the
existence of a heterosexual conjugal relationship.
Because of our relationship we decided to change our names to a
shared, hyphenated last name. We applied to do this under Section 3
[of the *Change of Name Act*] because this is the section that
deals with people in our situation. We did not apply under
Section 4 because that section is set up to deal with individuals
who decide, for whatever reason, to change their names. As an
*individual* I would have no reason to suddenly decide to change my
name to Crawford-Bewley. The only reason I want to change my name
to Crawford- Bewley is because I am in a conjugal relationship
with a person who's last name is Crawford. For this reason
telling us to apply under Section 4 is not an acceptable answer.
It is saying that our relationship is totally irrelevant to our
changing our names, when it is the *only* reason we want to change
our names.
It is very important to me that our relationship be acknowledged
and accepted by the Government in the same way that it
acknowledges and accepts all heterosexual couples who file a
declaration of conjugal relationship so that they can change
their names. This is why I filed this appeal with the Human
Rights Commission and why we have not taken the option of
changing our names under Section 4 but preferred to wait for the
outcome of this process.
The reason I went to the Human Rights Commission is that my
understanding through all of this has been that I was protected
from being discriminated against because I am a lesbian. In other
words, that I am entitled to be treated the same as any other
Ontarian who find themselves in the same situation, without my
sexual orientation becoming an issue. In this case the situation
I found myself in was the very pleasant one of having found a
wonderful person that I wanted to share the rest of my life with
and who wanted to share her life with me. Because of this
relationship we wanted to hyphenate our last names to indicate to
society that we were now a unit. Any heterosexual in this
situation can file a declaration of conjugal relationship and
without question the government will, without charge, change
their names. In my case I was told that the legislation only
applies to heterosexual couples and that I can only change my
name as an individual under a different section of the Act, and
for a fee. The only thing that makes me a lesbian and therefore
protected from discrimination is that the primary relationship I
formed is with a member of the same gender: that is what my
sexual orientation means. I do not see how it is possible to say
I am protected from discrimination as a lesbian but only as an
individual when it is only the relationship I formed that makes
me a lesbian.
Now I want to address why I changed, my position on wanting
General Damages. Until recently I have felt like I was part of a
process. I have been led to understand from the communications
between the Registrar General's office and the Human Rights
Commission that everyone was expecting things [*ie* the
legislation] to change and I felt that I was trying to make sure
that the government understood how important it was to me and
people like me who wanted to change their names, to have this
legislation fixed.
The existence of legislation to let people in a conjugal
relationship change their names for free is an implicit
acknowledgement that there is a benefit to society from people
forming these relationships. If this were not the case people
would be charged a fee to change their names whether they applied
as an individual or as part of a couple. What I, perhaps naively,
have only recently understood is just how adamant this particular
government is about resisting for as long as possible, regardless
of the cost, any possibility that they will have to acknowledge,
even implicitly, that my relationship has the same benefit to
society as the common law heterosexual relationships that it
currently does acknowledge.
When we were doing the pre-hearing [teleconference] Mr Landman
indicated that he expected to win the *M vs H* and *Dwyer & Sims*
cases and that on that basis, he planned to move to have our case
dismissed. When he lost both these cases [at the Ontario appeal
court level] I honestly expected that our case would be settled.
Instead the Government has made it very clear that not only will
it incur the great legal-fees expense that Mr Landman is always
reminding us of, to continue to fight me on this issue; but that
they will appeal this decision if they lose. How can I take it
*other* than personally, to be told that the government will go to
any expense, even in the face of losses in cases that they said
were relevant to our case, to avoid having to accept and
acknowledge our relationship?
Lastly, I would like to make something absolutely clear. It was
obvious from the questions I was asked by the Government on
cross-examination that they expected to find that I was a
political activist and that bringing this case is a political
act. I would like to point out that I do not have my own counsel
and have not gotten any independent legal or political advise on
this case; that I have not asked for intervener status for any of
the gay and lesbian legal groups, and that I have not talked to
the press -- gay or mainstream. This case is not part of some
politically motivated litigation attack on the government. No, I
do not care more about winning this case than about changing my
name but I do care about what my name means. I want to be Bonnie
Jean Crawford-Bewley because I am part of a couple. If I am
forced to change my name as an individual that invalidates the
*very reason* for the name change. The Government gets to continue
to maintain that my relationship is total irrelevant. Well, it is
not irrelevant to me and if I am truly protected from
discrimination by the Human Rights Code then it is not irrelevant
to the society in which I live.
========
[2000-1-6]
NEW BEGINNINGS FOR INTEGRITY/TORONTO
Annual General Meeting Report
January 2000 has been a time of new beginnings -- from a
different way of writing the date to a new venue and meeting
night for Integrity/ Toronto worship services. Our first in the
new pattern (third *Monday* of the month) was also our first
meeting at the Church of the Redeemer. A dozen people sat in a
semicircle around the altar, and the Eucharist was presided over
by the Rev Michael Burgess. Our new home is very comfortable,
and we look forward to a long and happy association with
Redeemer. If Wednesday nights were always impossible for you,
good news! Plan to come and join our worship on the third
Monday; and if Mondays are impossible, our monthly social
meetings continue on the first Wednesday of the month (phone for
details).
January 17 was also our Annual General Meeting. Chris Ambidge
reviewed the last year: Integrity hosted thirteen worship
services, with celebrants including Bishop Ann Tottenham,
Archbishop Michael Peers, and Canon Paul Feheley of Fidelity.
Our retreat in the spring drew a record (and convent-capacity)
sized group. In 1998, we were feeling a little fragmented
meeting only once a month, so an extra monthly social meeting was
instituted last January. We get an appreciable number of
contacts through our website, and thanks to Keith Nunn who is our
generous host and web-master. *Integrator* continues to grow, with
625 copies in circulation for the December issue, and an unknown
number of people reading via the website. For the ninth year, we
had a display at Diocesan Synod and made more friends there as
well.
The future as well as the past comes up for discussion at AGMs:
there will be another retreat (May 26 - 28) with Sister Thelma-
Anne, and we will again be at Diocesan Synod. While General
Synod is eighteen months away, planning ahead is important, so we
will start thinking seriously about that in September, in co-
operation with the other Canadian chapters. This year is our
25th anniversary (good heavens! A silver jubilee!), and we'll be
having a special observation of that in the autumn.
Our annual elections returned Bonnie Crawford-Bewley and Chris
Ambidge to the positions of Co- Convener; Brian MacIntyre as
Treasurer; and Don Uttley as Secretary. After many years on and
off the Integrity/Toronto executive, John Gartshore has decided
to retire from those chores, and continue "in the pew". Thanks
were expressed to John for his many years of service (wearing
many different hats) to the chapter; and to the continuing
members of the executive for their work past and future.
========
[2000-1-7]
STEPS FOR PEACE
Ways of Prayer by Sister Thelma-Anne SSJD
"Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time." I have
always liked to walk. As a child, I walked miles on my own to
explore, to find the solitude to be my own person, to get away
from the shoulds and mustn'ts of a strict upbringing. As an
adolescent, I loved to walk across the prairies, drinking in the
sunlight, or through the small wooded areas, or bluffs, as we
called them, enjoying the soothing and mysterious shade. When I
grew up and lived in various cities, it was my delight to
explore, sometimes with map in hand and sometimes just where my
feet led me. During over forty years in a religious community,
my love of walking has continued. I have found long walks a good
opportunity to think, to process feelings, to pray, or to take
"thanksgiving walks" times of simply giving thanks to God for
the sunlight, the trees, the glistening snow whatever beauty I
encounter but so often don't notice.
Recently I rediscovered a book, *A Guide to Walking Meditation*,
by the Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh (Nyack, NY:
Fellowship Publications, 1985). I had read it a few years ago,
but this time it seemed to address areas of my life which needed
healing.
The first thing that struck me was the way that walking
meditation alters the pace of life. Like so many others in our
culture, I find it all too easy to live in a constant state of
hurry and agitation, both outwardly and inwardly. Thoughts race,
breathing is shallow and hurried, frustration and anxiety
increase. Even in times off, I find myself going at the same
frantic pace, and when my body is quiet, I can still be obsessed
with projects and plans.
Walking meditation is basically a way of centre-ing, which
relates it to the whole tradition of contemplative prayer. It is
an expression of "mindfulness", a focused awareness of the
present moment. This way of being present to the now, to oneself
body as well as mind to others and to God, is a common thread
in many faith traditions. We find it in our own: "Be still and
know that I am God", "I still my soul and make it quiet, like a
child upon its mother's breast". The practice of mindfulness
brings wonder, gratefulness, peace, and wholeness to our
fragmented lives. In bringing together mind and heart, body and
soul, it contributes to the healing of the dualism which lies at
the root of so much of the conflict within and around us.
The method is simple but not necessarily easy, for, like any
transformative practice it takes time and meets with resistance.
"Take short steps in complete relaxation;" Thich Nhat Hanh
writes, "go slowly with a smile on your lips, with your heart
open to an experience of peace." Decide to let worry and sorrow
fall away. That in itself requires a willingness to change. Our
sorrow about the past and anxiety about the future are familiar
companions to whom we are reluctant to bid farewell!
Concentrate on your steps. Be aware of your breathing. Breathe
normally, and do not try to control your breathing. Walk along
in this way for a few minutes. Then notice how many steps you
take as your lungs fill, and how many as they empty. You may,
for example, find a pattern of two steps while inhaling and three
exhaling. Simply count as you go (1 -2, in and 1, 2, 3 out). If
the breaths and the steps don't quite match, adjust your pace or
your breathing accordingly. After a while, you will find that
the breath, the counting, the steps and the half-smile blend
together to bring you a sense of peace and balance. Later, when
you have established your rhythm, you can substitute words for
numbers. For a 1, 2 1, 2, 3 pattern, I have tried, "God's gift
- breath of life."
The regular practice of walking meditation has a calming effect
on the whole of our lives but, Thich Nhat Hanh tells us, its
benefits extend far beyond ourselves. For example, in helping us
to deal with strong emotions like anger it creates a peaceful
environment around us and reduces the psychological pollution
that anger creates.
Thich Nhat Hanh makes still greater claims. "The future of human
beings depends upon your steps." "Each step leaves the imprint of
peace, joy and innocence on the surface of the earth." "When you
practise regularly, your life will gradually be transformed ...
All beings, from the near to the far -- from the moon and the
stars to the leaves and the caterpillars will become peaceful
as you take your steps."
Do these claims sound extravagant? If chaos theory tells us that
weather patterns on one continent can be changed by the movement
of a butterfly's wings on another, why not the peaceful steps of
a meditation walker? We often feel we can do so little to change
our violent world, to heal the earth, or even to promote
understanding between people with divergent views on human
sexuality in the Anglican church! Practices like mindfulness and
walking meditation are not a quick fix; however they can, over
time, and with dedication and perseverance on our part, create
the atmosphere of peace within and around us which enables
compassion and understanding to grow, transforming fear and anger
into the power to love and forgive.
Walking meditation can become a powerful prayer on behalf of a
broken world. Why not try it this Lent?
=== end of text ===
End of volume 2000-1 of Integrator, the newsletter of Integrity/Toronto
copyright 2000 Integrity/Toronto
comments please to Chris Ambidge, Editor
chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca OR
Integrity/Toronto Box 873 Stn F Toronto ON Canada M4Y 2N9
-- --
Chris Ambidge chris.ambidge@utoronto.ca
Integrity/Toronto http://www.whirlwind.ca/integrity
Integrity is a member of the Alliance of Lesbian & Gay Anglicans
http://www.alga.org