Canada’s New Anti-Gay Senator

February 8th, 2010

The Liberal Party of Canada has posted some interesting bits of history about one of Canada’s latest senator appointments, Bob Runciman, on their website.

Runciman is a former Conservative MPP from eastern Ontario, and has quite a track record opposing the most basic of human rights for gay people, including opposition to workplace and housing discrimination.

While an MPP, Runciman routinely compared being gay to child molestation and bestiality. He called gay people “a class of people linked together through behaviour, not unchangeable status,” saying that the gay community “exacts huge costs from society.” “The law,” Runciman announced in legislature, “has every right to discourage people from entering into paths that are demonstratively destructive, physically and psychologically, first to the homosexuals and to society itself.” After sexual orientation was brought into the provincial human rights code, Runciman worked three times to repeal it.

Basically, all the traits that our prime minister looks for when appointing our representatives for the senate.

Churches Want Involvement In Marriage Commissioner Case

February 5th, 2010

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will consider and rule on whether or not civil marriage commissioners can deny their otherwise public services to gay couples. The case is in response to a request from the provincial government, which is seeking information on the constitutionality of a proposed legislation to allow just that sort of thing.

In addition to the usual suspects—unions, rights groups, and some individuals—several church organizations have sought intervener status so that they can speak on the case. Most will argue that presiding over a gay marriage violates the religious freedoms of the individuals doing the presiding.

Churches are already exempt from Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore do not need to serve everyone equally regardless of their gender, race, or sexual orientation. That does not, however, apply to individuals. At least not yet—and that includes civil marriage commissioners, who are, after all, just people who perform the legal duties at non-religious wedding ceremonies for people who do not wish to get married by a priest in a church. They’re not, nor are they supposed to be, representatives of their personal religion.

Nevertheless, the Canadian Fellowship of Churches and Ministers, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the Chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Saskatoon, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and the Christian Legal Fellowship are all seeking to influence this public ruling. (I shall assume that they all pay taxes, then…)

Here’s my thoughts. Much in the same way that a vegetarian mustn’t deny a carnivore a boating license (lest the carnivore go fishing in violation of the vegetarian’s personal beliefs), a marriage commissioner  cannot deny a marriage license to a gay couple; and that’s the way it should stay.

I mean, where did this idea come from that you can just avoid the duties that you’re expected to do? (cough, cough)

Pope Condemns British Equality Legislation

February 3rd, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI issued a strong condemnation against Britain on Monday for enacting legislation protecting gays from workplace and housing discrimination.

After a confirmation that he would be visiting Britain later this year (the first such visit in 28 years), Benedict XVI seemed to imply that he wasn’t terrifically happy about it, announcing that the country’s equality laws had imposed “unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”

Religions, incidentally, are exempt from Britain’s anti-discrimination legislation, granting Churches the ability to fire gay employees, or pass them over for promotion with impunity.

But this is an argument I hear time and time again—the idea that gay people are actually the intolerant ones, and equality legislation is all basically an attempt to limit religious freedom.

I’m not sure why it can’t go without saying, but that argument is dumb. Really, super dumb. The premise is essentially that tolerance means tolerating intolerance. We gay people, they imply, should submit ourselves to being treated as inferior, turn an accepting cheek to lobbying efforts to have us fired from our jobs, evicted from our homes, denied the equal right to civil marriage, and worse. Otherwise, it follows, we gays are restricting religious freedoms.

If there were gay lobby groups seeking constitutional amendments to ban religious marriage, attempting to gain the right to fire and evict religious people from their jobs, or seeking to deny religious people civil services, well, then these kooks can speak of intolerant gays trying to limit religious freedoms, but until then—they can apply their own standards of freedom and see who’s intolerant of whom.

Gay Youth At Greater Risk Of Bullying

February 1st, 2010

Gay teens are nearly twice as likely to be bullied as straight ones, according to a new study conducted out of the Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

The study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, is based on a survey of 7,559 teens and young adults. While the number of out teens in the sample was relatively small, the results still re-confirm that GLBT youth are at a higher risk of being bullied, likely because bullies tend to target anyone perceived as being different.

Bullying is a huge problem—a problem with lasting, negative effects, and one that will not disappear on its own. Schools must train their staff to recognize and put a stop to it, or the problem will only continue.

eHarmony Settles Lawsuit Over Gay Matches

January 29th, 2010

eHarmony, a popular online matchmaking service, has settled a lawsuit regarding their refusal to match same-sex couples. The California-based company was taken to court two years ago over its heterosexual-only policy, with the company steadfastly refusing to have any part in matching gay couples throughout most of the suit.

Neil Clark Warren, an evangelical Christian and eHarmony’s founder, said that the company was not discriminating against gays, but that their patented compatibility formulae were based exclusively on heterosexual married couples and therefore not applicable to same-sex partners. (Apparently, we gays prefer that our partners dislike all our goals, hobbies, and personal tastes; life’s more difficult that way!)

Despite the mysteriousness of us gay couples, the company ultimately agreed to open a second website, called Compatible Partners, which offers same-sex matchmaking. Under the terms of the settlement, the eHarmony website will now automatically direct gay singles to their separate, but equivalent site and state that it’s “brought to you by eHarmony.”

Well, that’s great news for everyone seeking a same-sex partner! Now you too can be begrudgingly accepted by a service that thinks your pursuit for love is so different from heterosexuals that they probably shouldn’t bother at all.

Politician Accuses State of Selling Children to Gays

January 27th, 2010

Alfred Baldasaro, a Republican State Representative for New Hampshire, went on a bizarre rant this week, starting with the accusation that the state government was selling children to gay couples for $10,000 a pop.

The statement was made in reference to same-sex adoption, which has been legal in New Hampshire since 1999. When asked to rescind the offensive remark, Baldasaro simply repeated it: “I wanted to make sure everyone understood here, that this legislature sold the rights of $10,000 per kid under title four, when they said that homosexual couples, not married, can adopt.”

This was only the start of the rant, mind you. Baldasaro then directly compared gay couples to incestuous ones, asking “aren’t we discriminating against all them?”

“What about the Muslims?”, he continued. “Everyone’s praising the Muslims. They’re killing us. What about them, they want three, four wives. We’re discriminating against them!”

…

Well, that was a masterpiece of crazy.

Baldasaro’s statements were made in support of a bill that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, demonstrating exactly the type of people that are typically behind those types of bills.

Older Posts »