Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:53:27 -0500 From: Chris Ambidge 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