Anti-gay organizations and politicians like Rick Santorum have long argued against marriage equality by saying it would create a slippery slope leading to the legalization of polygamy. It turns out they were wrong, as they tend to be about virtually everything.
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize marriage equality for same-sex couples. On Nov. 23, 2011, British Columbia’s highest court ruled that Canada’s 121-year-old criminal law banning polygamy is constitutional. Canada is significantly more liberal than the United States, and British Columbia is more liberal than most of Canada — yet the imagined slippery slope failed to materialize. If Vancouver isn’t buying it — it won’t happen in Kansas.
Wake up fundies — your arguments are baseless and useless.
Social conservatives are very dishonest about this topic. First, they conveniently fail to point out that the issue of polygamy has been around significantly longer than the the issue of marriage equality for same-sex couples. Indeed, the Mormon church had to officially abandon polygamy to pave the way for Utah statehood.
Clearly, this is a longstanding topic of debate that preexisted gay issues in a political context. Arguments for and against polygamy historically have, and will continue, to be fought on its own merit, irrelevant to and regardless of LGBT marriage equality. This point is factual and incontrovertible.
Social conservatives have once again failed to demonstrate the danger of allowing LGBT couples to wed. The Canadian ruling places one more of their flawed and felonious arguments in history’s dumpster. What bizarre talking point will their depraved imaginations come up with next?
National Post Staff Oct 25, 2011 – 7:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 24, 2011 11:44 PM ET
By Tamsin McMahon
A small-town Pentecostal pastor has formed an unlikely alliance with members of the gay and transgendered community who say he is being harassed and threatened by social activists who have staged a massive protest, after he complained to a coffee shop manager that a couple he thought was a young boy and girl, but turned out to be two women, were making out in front of his children.
According to Canada’s National Post: “A small-town Pentecostal pastor has formed an unlikely alliance with members of the gay and transgendered community who say he is being harassed and threatened by social activists who have staged a massive protest, after he complained to a coffee shop manager that a couple he thought was a young boy and girl, but turned out to be two women, were making out in front of his children.”
Original story:
Canada-based coffeehouse chain Tim Hortons is again facing criticism of its franchise practices, after a rural Ontario store threatened to call the police on a lesbian couple who were drinking coffee, cuddling, and occasionally kissing at the store three weeks ago.
Rev. Eric Revie, an assistant pastor at Glad Tidings Community Church in Blenheim (Ont.), said he had complained to the manager about the “sexual activities of a couple that he thought were male and female. …
The chain later issued a statement saying sexual orientation had nothing to do with the manager asking the couple to leave.
“The guests’ behaviour went beyond public displays of affection and was making other guests feel uncomfortable,” said the e-mail statement sent to The London Free Press.
“The management has apologized to (the couple) and invited them back to their restaurant. We apologize if (they) were offended by the misunderstanding that occurred at our Blenheim restaurant last month on behalf of the owners and management. It was not the manager’s intention to offend or target anyone based on their sexual orientation.”
In August 2009, Providence Daily Dose broke the news that the coffee chain’s Southern New England division (since disbanded) was sponsoring a Rhode Island antigay picnic and fund-raiser on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage. Truth Wins Out and Change.org quickly spread the word; 100 people protested the picnic; and thousands of Change.org petition signatures prompted Tim Hortons and a caterer, Blount Fine Foods, to withdraw sponsorship of the NOM event.
Most local Tim Hortons stores are owned by independent franchisees, however, Tim Hortons’ Standards of Business Practices require that local franchise owners and managers maintain the company’s ethical standards. That didn’t happen in 2009, and whether that happened in Blenheim depends upon one’s definition of acceptable public affection.
A protest, Occupy Timmies, is planned for this Thursday at Tim Hortons stores across North America.
Sometimes gay activists are dumb. Such is the case of a group of gays who decided to protest a Canadian florist who won’t provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. NOM is, of course, using this as a cry of victimhood:
Homosexual activists have protested outside the home of a Christian florist in Canada because she will not provide flowers for a lesbian wedding. The protestors dropped flowers tied with rainbow-coloured ribbons on the front lawn of the florist’s suburban home, and demanded that she be hauled before the courts. The intimidating protest was sparked when the lesbian couple’s ‘wedding planner’ wrote about the Christian florist’s stance on Twitter. Florist Kim Evans runs her business from her home in Moncton, New Brunswick. She previously told the lesbian couple by email: “As a born-again Christian, I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter.” Outside the florist’s home, protestors spoke to news reporters, claiming they were ‘spreading a message of tolerance’.
Okay, so, let’s break this down. The “Christian florist,” of course, needs to get a grip. Outside of the fact that she’s really not supposed to be denying people business based on her personal beliefs, she’s already in an uphill battle being a “Christian florist,” in a world where she has to compete with, um, gay florists. We already know that the Religious Right is going to turn this woman into a martyr for “standing up for her beliefs,” by not taking money for flowers at an event she doesn’t personally like. And yes, I realize that this woman runs her flower business out of her home, but it is still her home. So since they’re already going to turn her into a martyr, don’t help them.
As peaceful as this entirely legal protest was, I’m against making people feel uncomfortable or unsafe in their own homes. Even bigots. And staging protests outside people’s homes is a tactic usually employed by rightwing anti-abortion activists and the KKK back in the day. I don’t think this is a tactic that gay rights movement should endorse or adopt.
To bring this down to a personal level: I say a lot of shit that pisses off the religious right. I don’t want rightwing anti-gay haters turning up on the sidewalk outside my house, annoying my neighbors, and, most importantly, making my son feel unsafe in his own home. (Honestly sometimes I’m surprised that they haven’t; I’d even go so far to express my gratitude—yes, to the haters—that they haven’t.) Protesting outside people’s homes? I don’t think they should do that to us, any of us, and I don’t think we should do that to them, any of them. Not Tony, not Maggie, not these florists.
See, part of the reason that LGBT people and our allies are winning the battle for hearts and minds in the US, Canada and all kinds of other places, is that it’s fairly easy to look at the two sides and see who has the moral upper hand. Do we do lots of things that piss off the Religious Right? Hell yes. But the thing about it is that every time we do something, stage a protest, fight an unjust law, or whatever else, we need to be able to say “Not only were we right, but we fought it right.” And no, staging a protest at someone’s private residence is not cool, unless we’re talking about, say, The White House.
I mean, please, does this even look sensible? Imaging/messaging fail, guys.
This is one of those stories that makes me want to slam my head against the desk repeatedly. How do these people grow up in such a vacuum? If y’all think back to elementary, middle and high school, many of you probably will recall your schools having “Spirit Weeks” of some sort, usually leading up to Homecoming. Every school I attended did it, both public and Christian private, and one of the days was always some sort of “reverse day,” where boys would dress up like girls and girls would dress up like boys. It was done in a spirit of fun, and my god, it’s kids. They do not care about “gender politics” at that point. But some parents and an ignorant wingnut pastor north of Toronto saw the plans for a day of this sort and got their little Evangelical panties in quite the wad:
The student council at King City Public School thought a great way to celebrate “school spirit” day would be for the boys to dress like girls and the girls to dress like boys. But their attempt to have fun has turned into accusations that gender identity politics is being forced on young minds, and left the school’s principal distraught over how something generated by 11- and 12- and 13-year-olds became such a minefield.
“This has been a real eye-opening experience for both the students and staff of the school,” said Ross Virgo, manager of public affairs for the York Region District School Board, north of Toronto. “These children are not old enough to even know what ‘gender identity politics’ are.”
The school, which runs from junior kindergarten to Grade 8, decided to cancel the spirit day after several calls from parents who objected for reasons of family values, Mr. Virgo said.
“The last thing we wanted to do was offend any of the parents. The principal of the school has been deeply emotionally affected by the reaction.”
[...]
Reverend Charles McVety, a staunch social conservative who has expressed concerns in the past about a “homosexual agenda” in the school system, raised the issue Thursday after receiving an email that was sent from a parent to Ms. Goan.
The parent wrote:
“The psychological implications of cross-dressing can be a very sensitive issue. Have we thought about children who may be dealing with their own issues of sexual or gender identity and how they might feel? Or about the four year old who witnesses his peers dressing up as the opposite gender? What messages will be sent?”
For his part, Rev. McVety said he found it hard to believe the students came up with the idea on their own and thought the cross-dressing plan reflected a dangerous kind of political correctness that lacks any moral standards in our schools.
Oh, my god. Reverend McVety, were you home schooled or something? Grow up!
Every so often, a decision is made in another country with marriage equality, which the Religious Right in the United States then adds to its whining arsenal, which they use to frighten their followers about What Will Happen when marriage equality comes to this country. I predict that this will be one of those court cases. It’s actually a completely sensible ruling:
Saskatchewan’s top court has said marriage commissioners cannot use religion to say “no” to nuptials for same-sex couples.
The Appeal Court had been asked by the government to rule on a proposed provincial law that would have allowed commissioners to cite religious grounds in refusing to marry gays or lesbians.
The appeal panel’s unanimous decision released Monday said the law would be unconstitutional and would amount to discrimination.
[...]
[President of the Gay and Lesbian Community Cory] Oxelgren said marriage commissioners perform a civil service and are not supposed to discriminate.
“If the government allows that to go ahead, what’s there to stop another person in another department or another agency from saying, ‘Well, I don’t agree with this so I would like to opt out.’ The answer is you can’t. You are an agent of the government and you follow the laws.”
It really is that simple. Just as in the United States, religious congregations are pretty much able to do what they want within their churches, but don’t get to make up new rules when they act as part of secular society [see: Catholic charities, that pavilion in New Jersey, etc.], this court case isn’t infringing on what churches are able to do and believe. It’s simply saying to commissioners who work for the government, “You have a job you were hired to do, and these are the laws. Don’t like it? Get a new job.”
One of the judges made a really interesting point in her opinion:
Justice Gene Ann Smith said the religious objection was secondary.
“These marriage commissioners are not themselves compelled to engage in the sexual activity they consider objectionable. Their objection is that it is sinful for others to engage in such activity,” wrote Smith.
“It is therefore arguable that the interference with the right of marriage commissioners to act in accordance with their religious belief … is trivial or insubstantial, in that it is interference that does not threaten actual religious beliefs or conduct.”
Imagine that! The religious lives and practices of the Religious Right don’t automatically include the lives and practices of other people who don’t share their beliefs? It’s so sane…Tony Perkins will never accept it.
Well, they don’t allow Nazi groups either! Seriously, oh my god:
And while the Ontario Ministry of Education also thinks GSAs are pretty important too, the Halton Catholic District School Board (HCDSB) takes a different view.
The board feels the groups are harmful and has issued a ban on GSAs altogether.
“We don’t have Nazi groups either,” rationalizes board chair Alice Anne LeMay. “Gay-straight alliances are banned because they are not within the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
“If a gay student requests a gay-straight alliance they would be denied,” she says flatly.
“It’s not in accordance with the teachings of the church. If they wanted to have a club outside of school, fine, just not in school.”
Alice Anne LeMay should not be charged with overseeing anything where children are involved.
To their credit, when it was pointed out to the provinicial government in Alberta that homosexuality was still listed as a mental disorder, the health minister immediately recognized it as a relic of less civilized, less educated days and ordered it removed. Predictably, though, the Pro-Family Wingnuts of Alberta are not happy:
“It’s just a political decision based on avoidance of political pressure and has nothing to do with common sense, nothing to do with the well-being and welfare of homosexuals at all,” said Gwen Landolt, national vice president of REAL Women Canada.
[...]
The fact that the province’s diagnostic codes still included homosexuality shocked many, as the deviance had been removed by most jurisdictions and the major health bodies many years before – the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, the Canadian Psychological Association in 1982, and the World Health Organization in 1990.
It looks like it was more of an oversight than anything else.
However, Dr. Julie Harren Hamilton, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), told LifeSiteNews that many are “dissatisfied” with unwanted same-sex attractions and seek help from therapists to “avoid homosexual behaviors and increase their heterosexual potential.”
But with the removal of homosexuality by the APA in 1973, she said, “many therapists have come to incorrectly believe that growth and change for those experiencing these feelings is not possible. This is not true.”
Damn scientific/medical organizations and their facts that don’t jibe with fundamentalist Christian bigotry!
We’ll give the last word to the first wingnut quoted above:
Landolt stated: “Common sense says that homosexuality’s not natural.”
“It is a deviation from the normal and you cannot change that. You can put it down on paper, but everyone knows instinctively that it’s not acceptable.”
Reality disagrees with your “common sense” and your deeply imprinted, bigoted instincts, Gwendolyn.
Michael A. Jones has a sad story about a case currently before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal regarding a young student who has endured over two years of bullying for her perceived sexual orientation, as well as her disabilities, while her school sat on its hands and did nothing:
At the Erma Stephenson Elementary School, you can be taunted by classmates with anti-gay slurs for two years, and school officials will adamantly keep their heads buried in the sand. At least that’s the allegation being made by one family in British Columbia, who filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal arguing that administrators at Erma Stephenson helped foster a climate where their 12-year-old daughter was incessantly bullied and harassed.
The daughter, referred to as “T” in the official complaint, allegedly experienced more than two years worth of bullying, including harassment from several students who repeatedly called her a lesbian and made fun of her for her perceived sexual orientation. “T” also was targeted for her disability — she has cerebral palsy and a mental disability. The bullying became so bad that several students actually threw a music stand at “T” hitting her on the head.
Yet, according to “T’s” parents, school officials and teachers still did nothing to stop the harassment.
Now, here’s a shocker. The school district that Emma Stephenson Elementary School is in, Surrey School District? They’re one of only a handful of school districts in British Columbia with no set anti-bullying policy that includes addressing homophobia. So it doesn’t come as much of a surprise that an incident like this not only goes unpunished, but is allowed to persist for multiple years.
As Michael says in his piece, this sort of bullying knows no borders. The reason it’s important for EVERY school district to have comprehensive anti-bullying policies is that this sort of thing can happen anywhere — even in places we Americans think of as very, very liberal, nations where marriage equality is the law of the land. Some areas still slip through the cracks.
Here are a bunch of Canadian celebrities with their own It Gets Better message for Canadian kids:
In Northwest Territories, a landlord decided not to rent to a gay couple for the sole reason that they were gay, and he’s paying the price. Watch for the usual suspects to add this to their “We are oppressed victims!” file for e-mail blasts and whatnot:
A gay couple in Yellowknife have been awarded $13,400 in compensation because a landlord would not rent them an apartment on the basis of their sexual orientation.
In a written decision issued this month, Northwest Territories human-rights adjudicator James Posynick ruled that William Goertzen did not give a justifiable reason for refusing Scott Robertson and Richard Anthony when they tried to rent the main floor of his Yellowknife house in May 2009.
Of course, the landlord explained that his reasons for breaking the lease were entirely paranoid and delusional in nature:
Goertzen, a journeyman lineman who attends a local Baptist church, said he instead put the rental back on the market because he feared he would suffer “‘undue hardship’ by punishment administered by God” if he allowed gay people to live in his building, according to the decision.
Goertzen said he believed “that same-sex relationships are ‘unnatural and against nature’ and ‘the Bible warns against being associated with such wickedness,” the decision states in part.
Basically, he’s scared of the monster under the bed, in the closet, in the sky, or wherever he imagines his version of God is [all of those places!], and thus would be putting a giant target on himself, so that the next time his Deity was a-lookin’ fer a fight, he’d see Goetzen, and right underneath him, a gay couple cooking dinner, and that was just too big a risk to take, you know?
He, of course, argued, just like American fundamentalist Christians do, that his religious beliefs were being violated, because in fundamentalist wingnuttia, “religious freedom” means that you should be able to hurt anyone who doesn’t share your weird beliefs, lest you run the risk of said beliefs being challenged in any way.
“I’d have to ask where are my rights … why can I not stand on my beliefs and what I believe in?” Goertzen told CBC News in July.
“They might think it’s discrimination against them, but I’m losing my beliefs and there’s definitely my religious convictions.”
But in his decision, Posynick said the right to religious freedom “is not unlimited” and Goertzen cannot justify evicting the couple on the basis that he was “following God’s word.”
Precisely. Religious freedom ends when it starts infringing upon other people’s rights, and Canada is doing a better job living up to the ideals the United States espouses than we are.
After Exodus Global Alliance lost its application for charitable tax-exempt status in New Zealand, the blog Slap Upside the Head noticed that Exodus already enjoys fraudulent misuse of this status in Canada.
That prompted blogger Mark to ask a very simple question: How is it “charitable” for a U.S.-based religious organization to commit unprofessional acts of psychological abuse against Canadian gay people?
We’d like to know the answer to a similar question: How is it “charitable” for such organizations to charge hundreds of dollars per day for this abuse?
According to Mark:
Charitable status can be revoked for one of three reasons: Voluntary revocation (unlikely in this case), Revocation for failure to file taxes (also unlikely), or revocation for a cause other than a failure to file. The latter is complicated, but states that charitable status can be revoked for “a failure to comply with the requirements of registration,” which may include the “public benefit test.”
Mark has thus created an action page from which Canadians may contact the Canada Revenue Agency and request reconsideration of Exodus’ charitable status.
Mark adds:
We’re looking for experts in the medical and psychological community to sign a common letter to send to the CRA attesting that Exodus is doing demonstrable harm in Canada. If you are, or know an accredited doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist, please help us get in touch! Together, we’ll write a letter to send to both the press and the CRA.
We hope that some of our professional readers will contact Mark and offer to help with this common letter.
Anti-gay organizations and politicians like Rick Santorum have long argued against marriage equality by saying it would create a slippery slope leading to the legalization of polygamy. It turns out they were wrong, as they tend to be about virtually everything.
