OSHAWA, ONTARIO - A gay Toronto-area high school student will not be allowed to take his boyfriend to his prom after a Catholic school board rejected his request Monday.*
This is the same school that allowed a pregnant girl to attend her prom. Um, when I last checked, premarital sex was also against Catholic doctrine.
There’s a little something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada has one, and each province has their own version. Ontario’s explicitly forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (as does that of Quebec).
If I were the boy, I’d go to the prom with my boyfriend anyway, then sue the school board for emotional distress & humiliation.
Does no one remember the case of Aaron Fricke in the 70s? (He went on to write Reflections of a Rock Lobster.) Same deal, but he won. I actually got to meet one of his homophobic high school tormentors, who himself ended up gay. (Imagine that.)
This kind of thing is just sickening. When I went to my ten-year HS reunion, I made a point of being as gay as gay can be, just to show everyone that nothing they ever did or said changed my conviction. I ended up being the belle of the ball…
s.e.
[Shortened copyrighted material and added link to story. – MEB]
I’m not sure that the legal position is as clear-cut as you make it seem. Yes, the Charter and the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but they also protect the exercise of religion.
So, for example, two provisions of the Code prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and association, which are relevant to the student’s complaint:
However, you have to read those provisions against section 19 of the Code, which specifically speaks to the issue of separate schools:
Since the separate school is basing their refusal to allow him to attend with a male date on their religious values, I assume that they will base their legal defence on these provisions. I’m curious to see how it plays out in the courts.
Note: the above is a discussion of the legal issues. Yes, I agree with you: let him bring his guy along; or else exclude all the expectant mums as well.
P.S. - Welcome to the SDMB! one point, though - the administration frowns on wholesale cut and paste of copyright material, so don’t be surprised if the text of the article gets snipped out of your post by a mod.
The Durham board is clearly within their legal rights to deny Hall his request. Hall isn’t being forced to attend Catholic school, after all; it’s rather absurd of him to now claim he has a legal case against the board because they’re enforcing Catholic doctrine.
They are, however, behaving in a rather un-Christian manner, and are frankly making themselves looks like jerks and fools. But there’s no law against making yourself look like a jerk and a fool.
Having said that, it seems to me the student government of Hall’s school dropped the ball on this one. They should have held their formal (it’s usually called a “Formal” here, not a “Prom.”) on their own, and kept school administration out of it. We always did ay my high school; the school and the school board weren’t involved at all.
I can see why this would get have you upset Scott, I think people should be allowed freedom. That being said my idea of freedom allows Catholics to decide what kind of environment to raise their kids in, even if it’s one I don’t agree with. If people want to be free to live as they choose, they should afford others the same luxury. As for the pregnant girl, that seems stupid to me as well, but apparently they’re hypocrites (which is not illegal.)
IMO this would be an entirely different subject if this was a PUBLIC School. No one is forced to hang out in Catholic institutions.
I never really thought about it in a different way - that is, a way that defies my queer politics. I appreciate your comments.
Nonetheless, there’s a massive email campaign going on directed to the school board, and the Canadian Minister of Justice, Alan Rock, sent a letter of support to the board.
Anyway, I boycotted my prom. The Queer Club - we were just too cool to go.
Also, I was afraid of getting beaten up by drunken jocks.
Age of consent laws vary from province to province, state to state, etc. I believe in general, Canadian provincial age of consent laws are lower than those in the US. IIRC, in Quebec, the age of consent for sex between two males is 16. So basically I could go boink a 16-year-old if I wanted. (I don’t, though.)
PK, you rush to a conclusion nowhere supported in the document. What you have is a 17-year-old student who wants to bring a 21-year-old same-sex date to his prom. There was no reference to sexual activity.
And I think I know you better than to believe you buy into the “all those gays want is to get laid” glurge of the Religious Right (which, of course, are neither).
That said, I’m wondering if one of our wandering Catholics would address the Catholic Church’s stance on same-sex dating (as opposed to sexual relations) – I have little doubt that someone in authority has had a comment to make on the issue, and it would be directly applicable to the question of what a Catholic school might be expected to do.
There’s no law that says you can’t be a hypocrite. Maybe they were rewarding the pregnant girl for not getting an abortion. :rolleyes:
I went to a Catholic high school. A priest who had bullied his way onto the school board tried to stop a yoga class from being offered at our school because he decided it was “Satanic.” (Whatever the hell that means.) He also insisted all schools in the board should fly their flags at half mast in honor of all the unborn children the abotionists were murdering. Later he went to prison for his fourth DUI charge, and was transferred out of the area when rumours arose that he was screwing teenaged boys. That trumps PromGate for Catholic school board hypocrisy, I’d say.
Thing 1-God loves all His children, regardless of sexual orientation. Gay, straight, whatever, as long as nobody hurting anybody else He doesn’t care. Phelps and the rest always say “the Bible says” because they can’t hear the voice of God.
Thing2- Sadly, the school has a defensible position.
a-From a legal viewpoint-, they are free to practice their religion and to enforce its rules on the students.
b-From a religious viewpoint- A unwed, pregnant girl has committed a sin. But, once she confesses, does pennance and vows to sin no more, she is accepted back into Church. The Church can not someone of a sin and then hold it against them. She's vowed to be a good girl. They must accept that vow.
OTOH The Church holds homosexuality to be a sin. Since the student wants to bring his boyfriend, the Church sees him as an unrepentant sinner. He hasn't confessed or sought absolution. Indeed, he wants to continue the behavior. An unrepentant sinner can be shunned, and punished.
If the pregnant girl had said "I had sex outside of marriage. I'm not sorry, and I plan to do it again." she would also be viewed as an unrepentant sinner and banned as well.
Ah but now here is the fun irony of the whole situation.
The Catholic Schoolboard has the right to teach its religion and practice it within the schools, however because they are a publically funded institution (In Ontario) they cannot just disregard the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I honestly think this is a cake and eat it situation. Either give up the public funding and do as you please as a private school or realize suck it up take your tax money and realize you can not infringe on a students rights just because his sexual orientation does not fit in church doctrine.
Mind you is there church doctrine to prohibit homosexuals from taking part in the church life? I understand they consider it a sin but do they isolate sinners as part of their internal laws?
Sorry, but I am terribly bigoted towards homosexuality. In my personal life I choose not to have anything to do with them, this includes some relatives I have. I am also against people who always want to force institutions to change their rules to benefit a small minority.
We want the rules changed not to “benefit” from them per se, but to be on equal standing with the overwhelmingly breeder population.
Anyway, people like you used to piss me off, but I am so beyond that now. I don’t care what you think. And I live in a province and country where things are changing in ways you wouldn’t approve of. Well, no one needs your approval.
Like people of color? Where did I mention any bigotry twards race? Being a different color than I is not an actvity one can refrain from. Being a pervert is.
I was simply being honest about my morals. What pisses you off more, honesty or the fact that someone doesn’t think like you?
So you don’t like what I say. Good for you! But would you defend my right to say it? Or would you rather engage in forced though control?
So what’s worse than being a bigot? Being a phony. Like some liberals I know who blow smoke up every minorities ass they meet, yet in private use words like nigger and fag. They’re worse than bigots. They’re hypocrites.
As for no one needing my approval, that isn’t true. If someone wants me to asociate with them on a personal level, they most certainly do need my approval. I don’t associate with people who participate in activities I disaprove of…hard drugs, crime, homosexuality. In my personal life it’s rather easy to avoid such people. It’s not like I have to go much out of my way to do it.
Institutions, especially private/religious institutions, are allowed to discriminate in some ways, and they are allowed selective enforcement of those discriminatory rules. If they don’t want 2 homosexuals there, that’s their choice, their rules!
PK-You’ve got guts. You’ve expressed, and defended views in a place you’ll know they’ll be unpopular. Forcing you off the SDMB in the name of “tolerance” would be hypocritical at the very least.
That was only one time. Fatima and I had been smoking her hookah and one thing led to another…
Besides, it was a step toward peace in the Middle East!
We proved that Jews and Muslims can some together.
