Catholic schools, in Ontario, are publicly funded. They are not private institutions. Taxpayers pay for those schools, as well as public schools. IMHO, if a school is publicly funded by non-Catholics, it surrenders its right to enforce its doctine, and must adhere to the set-out rights and freedoms of the Province.
If they want to do this shit, they can get their own damned funding. Be private, do as you wish, fine. But as long as you’re collecting money from the Province, fucking adhere to their rights and freedoms charter (or whatever it’s called, I forget).
There was a huge debate, years ago, on whether Catholic schools in Ontario should be funded by the government. In the end, it was decided they should. Now, it seems, in spite of Catholic docgma - I mean doctrine - they are biting the hand that feeds them.
Interesting that a church that pays out money to victims of sexual abuse by their priests - and has come forward with those details - does this kind of thing.
It would be a more equitable comparison, but only if the school endorsed religious doctrines which prohibited interracial dating as well. That is, after all, why this school has censured this boy – because his actions violate their doctrinal views, and because admitting his same-sex date would reflect poorly on the school’s doctrinal resolve.
The Catholic Church, and thereby Catholic schools, do not “provide services” to their students (or teachers). It is a private organization (the school) which he (or his parents) chose. After choosing this organization, he now insists that they change their rules because they don’t suit his sexual preference. Now that is wrong.
Notice that he is still allowed to attend the prom.
He is not allowed to bring his “date” to the prom because it breaks the rules of the “organization” he is a part of. That, I think is only reasonable. Imagine an atheist deciding to join a church, then demanding that they remove the cross from the alter because he doesn’t like it or believe in what it represents. Or imagine a Christian joining an atheist club of some sort and getting all up-in-arms about the lack of litergy or hymns. I would place this gay young chap in the same kind of category; that is, people who chose an organization they disagree with and then demand that it conforms to fit their own preferences. Seem unreasonable?
Also note that he is not being discriminated against. No one has been homophobic enough to say “no gay’s are allowed to attend this prom.” He can still go, so long as he does not break the rules intentionally. They don’t hate him, they don’t think he’s going to Hell. They are telling him that he is not permited to willfully do something they believe is wrong at a function they are holding.
I didn’t say he was going to have sex with his partner at the prom. By practicing in that case I mean going on a same sex date. I think we can agree that relationships are not just about sex? Other elements exist, expressions of love, romantic stuff, intelligent converstations, hanging out as a couple… sex is just a small part of it. Therefore practicing a homosexual relationship can be anything from sexual relations to the things I’ve just mentioned. Going to the prom with his “buddy” is an act of homosexuality. Going to the prom with my girlfriend would be an act of heterosexuality.
But it’s not, Blanche, it’s not. Didn’t you read scott evil’s post (posted nine hours before yours, I might add) that dealt with this? The Catholic schools in Ontario are publicly funded. If they insist on their right to violate public policy (non-discrimination based on sexual orientation), they should not be getting public money for so doing.
(Also, I’m not entirely sure that they would have the legal right to discriminate even if they were private. I’m fairly sure that a landlord/lady, for example, cannot refuse to rent to a gay couple if s/he’d rent to a straight couple, under the nondiscrimination clause of the Charter. I know you’re Canadian, but even we sometimes need reminding that things work differently here. Of course, IANAL.)
I’m sorta like you. I hate people who participate in activities I despise — drinking near beer, wearing sandals with socks, posting on message boards. And like you, I avoid them pretty easily.
The last thing I want to do is be like that damn Jesus guy, associating with whores, criminals, and bigots.
Ah. The old “special rights” gimmick. May I point out that the straight students are entitled to bring a date of their choice and he is not? If a state decided to prohibit church attendance, would they be protected by the stance that both believers and atheists are equally prohibited from attending the church of their choice, so no discrimination against believers is occurring?
I didn’t want to let this pass by without comment.
pkbites, it’s worse to be a bigot than a phony. On the scale of characters flaws, bigotry is far worse than hypocrisy. Bigotry justifies violence. Bigotry justifies segregation and marginalization. Bigotry justifies hatred.
What we’ve seen here is the classic defense of the bigot: “at least I’m honest about who I hate, so that makes it okay. Not like those other non-bigoted people, who are really bigots but won’t say so.” Here’s a window into pkbites’ soul: he thinks everyone hates homosexuality, he’s just the only one brave enough to admit it.
LEVITICUS 19:18 NKJ
18 `You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
MATTHEW 19:19 NKJ
19 Honor your father and your mother,' and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ "
MATTHEW 22:39 NKJ
39 “And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' MARK 12:31 NKJ 31 "And the second, like it, is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
LUKE 10:27 NKJ
27 So he answered and said, " You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and your neighbor as yourself.’ "
Nowhere does it say unless they are homosexual.
Let me say it one more time: Catholic schools in Ontario are public institutions, funded by taxpayers’ money, and financially supported by the Provincial Government.
If this were to happen at an Ontario public school (which I attended), all hell would break loose. Oh, but because they’re supposedly Catholic, this kind of thing is wrong.
I didn’t go to my own prom (afraid of being bashed, check posts above) even though I was out. My sense is that this guy has the support of other students. He doesn’t have to run. Now, dogma not only forces him to go public (which I never would have done at that age), but be subject to this kind of scrutiny. I don’t know if he’s aware that he’s being debated to death on message boards everywhere.
But I admire him for being up for the possibility. That’s what we need, as queers.
Were a similar thing to happen to me - anything warranting public attention - the first thing I’d do (after calling a lawyer, if necessary) - would to be on the news.
If we (as queers and those who are queer-positive) don’t show our vitriol - and support - in this case, we haven’t learned anything, have we?
As others have pointed out, they won’t be bonking at the ball, and they may not be bonking each other at all.
So if a man goes to a social function with a male friend, is that “dating” and therefore sinful even if they’re both straight? Presumably not. Presumably, it only sinful for same sex pairs to attend social functions together if they have wicked designs on one another (even if unfulfilled). So how do the school authorities decide?
Presumably, they should issue a questionnaire to all same sex attendees at any school function (if you bring a friend along to a school football game, say) asking whether you lust after your companion or something.
Aahh, the distinctive odour of muddleheaded hypocrisy.
Matt, as has already been posted several DAYS before scott evil’s post (thanks, Northern Piper) the Constitution makes SPECIFIC reference to Catholic school boards in stating that nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes away from the rights and privileges enjoyed by separate schools. Please refer to Section 29 of the Charter. This has been challenged before, Matt, in the Supreme Court, and the Court’s rulings have always held that separate school boards are afforded special privileges by Section 29, even when those rights may trump conflicting individual rights as enumerated in the Charter. See Casagrande v. Hinton Roman Catholic Separate School No. 155 (1987)
The fact that separate schools are exempt from some parts of the Charter is, uh, sort of obvious, isn’t it? After all, Catholic schools provide CATHOLIC religious instruction. That wouldn’t be allowed in a public school. It should be further pointed out that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does NOT specifically list sexual orientation as a forbidden type of discrimination in Section 15, although for some purposes it has been assumed to be there anyway… but not with respect to separate schools.
I appreciate that the Catholic boards are publicly funded, but you’re the one who said we sometimes “needed to be reminded that things work differently here” and yet both you and Scott seem to be under the impression things DON’T work differently here. This wouldn’t be allowed in the USA, but it is quite specifically permitted in Canada, and specifically Ontario. Canada does not and has never had a Constitution that would have prohibited this sort of thing. Canada is designed to give special privileges to religious and linguistic minorities that override individual rights. As you said, things work differently here. As the law in Canada stands today, the Durham board is clearly within its rights.
I must stress that I don’t support their decision. It was stupid, mean, and un-Christian. But they were legally entitled to make it.
Oh, look! It’s the “gays are allowed to marry just like straights…as long as it’s to members of the opposite sex” argument disguised as a high school prom situation!
As Poly has posted before, this is roughly equivalent to the “Judaism is outlawed, but it’s not discriminatory because Christians aren’t allowed to celebrate Purim the same as the Jews aren’t” argument. Or perhaps the “the law forbidding sleeping under bridges is fair because rich people aren’t allowed to do so just like poor people aren’t” argument.
For a decision to be fair and just, it has to go beyond the superficial details and lift the underlying assumptions to the light. Your reply doesn’t meet that criterion.
