While complaints about the declining performance of our educational institutions are widespread, in at least one area Canadian universities are taking the lead. A number of universities and their staff associations have concluded agreements that provide for accepting homosexual relationships on the same basis as ordinary marital relationships for the purpose of such items as medical insurance coverage.

The legal status of so-called same-sex partnerships is not yet entirely clear but the trend is obvious. Not satisfied with enjoying freedom from discrimination, the homosexual lobby continues to fight for wider acceptance of its lifestyle. It uses a host of pressure tactics including public demonstrations, pressuring school boards and textbook writers to depict its lifestyle as normative, portraying AIDS as society's problem rather than a result of certain sexual practices, and denouncing all who dare to question the morality of the homosexual lifestyle as hatemongers and bigots. Apparently these terror tactics work for few are the leaders in politics and elsewhere who dare to resist the homosexual lobby.

Some time ago the faculty of Dalhousie University concluded a collective agreement which stipulated that same-sex relationships would be considered the same as marital relationships for the purpose of insurance coverage. Now the faculties at the University of British Columbia and York University (Toronto) have followed suit. The York University agreement states that:

The parties agree that, except where statutory provisions of Ontario or Canada stipulate otherwise, employees in same-sex relationships shall be deemed to have the same marital and family status as employees who are married or in common-law relationships with respect to all matters covered by this agreement.

The University of British Columbia's new policy was initiated by a complaint from Dr. Mary Bryson, a psychology professor who was denied insurance coverage for her lesbian partner. When she appealed for support to her faculty association, it quickly pointed out to the university that denial of coverage to Dr. Bryson's partner conflicted with the university-faculty agreement, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is reported that the change was readily made. Explains Dr. Albert McClean, associate vice-president academic: "The association drew the matter to our attention, there were one or two discussions and the change was approved. It was not a matter of great controversy." (Rebecca Burnham, "Where Do You Draw the Line?," British Columbia Report, February 19, 1990, p.41)

It may not have been a matter of great controversy to the teachers of Canadian youth at the UBC, but their action will abet moral confusion and societal breakdown. No doubt the next step will be that homosexual "couples" will be entitled to the same privileges and rights as anyone else for the purposes of adoption, child custody and other matters. Predictably, there will be a clamour for affirmative action on behalf of homosexuals. In fact, a Human Rights Commission in Minneapolis, Minnesota has ruled that a local Big Brothers association was obligated to recruit gay volunteers. (An appeal court judge later reversed the ruling, but the handwriting is on the wall.) Expect Canadian homosexuals to demand that their rights be confirmed in the so-called Canada clause to be incorporated in a future constitutional amendment. Don't be surprised if there are very few Clyde Wellses who will dare to buck this "progressive" yet utterly destructive trend.