Canada's 'Three-Parent' Ruling Opens Can of Worms, Says Activist
by Chad Groening and Fred Jackson
January 5, 2007
(AgapePress) - - A Canadian pro-family activist says a recent ruling by the highest court in Ontario could prove to be more harmful to Canadian society than even legalized same-sex "marriage."
Pro-family groups in Canada are vowing to fight the appeals court ruling which says three-parent families must be legalized. The highest court in the province of Ontario issued a unanimous ruling earlier this week that gives legal parental status to the lesbian partner of a biological mother, essentially giving a five-year-old boy three parents. The court also declared that the Children's Law Reform Act does not reflect current society and does not provide for the best interests of the child who is raised by the lesbian women and visited by his father twice a week.
Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, says he is absolutely appalled by the ruling, which he fears could eventually spread to all of Canada. He contends the judges now think they can redefine biology.
"I think [the] ruling ... is actually going to be more destructive to our social fabric than allowing homosexuals to be married," Rushfeldt laments, "because what we've just done is ... legalize using children as pawns for adults' own agendas."
The family advocate explains that the ruling came about simply because of the desires of three adults.
"The whole thing was driven by two lesbians and a professor who inseminated one of them artificially, I guess," he says. "And this whole ruling was based on one particular case -- these three people deciding that somehow they wanted to all be considered the parents."
He also contends that another driving factor was the agenda of the two lesbians. "[They] don't like the law the way it is, and they wanted it altered -- and consequently they found a judge finally who would do it," he says.
Rushfeldt says the ruling will undoubtedly open a "can of worms" as three or more people may be claiming to be the parents of a child for economic or other selfish reasons. His concern echoes earlier comments by Joseph Ben-Ami, executive director of the Institute for Canadian Values, who referred to the ruling as "naked judicial activism" and said the courts have no business making decisions as to what constitutes societal norms.
Like Rushfeldt, Ben-Ami also fears the decision will have even more far-reaching consequences, including demands from step-parents and grandparents for full parental rights over children.
Chad Groening and Fred Jackson, a regular contributor to AgapePress, report for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
