(1) Boy Scouts of America ends ban on Gay troop leaders (2) After Boy Scouts welcome Gays, some churches start alternative group (3) Catholic Diocese in North Dakota severs all ties with Boy Scouts over Gay adult Troop Leaders (4) Schulman: 'Gay Rights movement is Jewish' (1) Boy Scouts of America ends ban on Gay troop leaders http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/boy-scouts-gay-troop-leaders-ban-gay-marriage Boy Scouts of America ends ban on gay and lesbian troop leaders On the heels of gay marriage legalization, the organization’s new policy allows local units to select their leaders to appease both liberal and religious groups Alan Yuhas in New York @alanyuhas Tuesday 28 July 2015 16.33 AEST Last modified on Wednesday 29 July 2015 09.26 AEST The national governing body of the Boy Scouts of America has ended a blanket ban on gay adult leaders while allowing church-sponsored Scout units to maintain the exclusion because of their faith. The new policy, aimed at easing a controversy that embroiled the Boy Scouts for years and threatened the organization with lawsuits, takes effect immediately. It was approved on Monday night by the BSA’s 80-member national executive board in a teleconference. The ban pitted leaders and members of the 105-year-old organization against each other, often fragmenting according to faith. The new policy seeks a compromise between more liberal groups, such as the New York City scouting group, and regions whose groups are run by staunchly conservative faiths, such as the Mormon church. Under the new policy, local units will be able to select their own leaders according to their own standards, meaning church-run groups can “choose adult leaders whose beliefs are consistent with their own”, according to a statement from organization executives. “It is not a victory but it certainly is progress,” said Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and executive director of Scouts for Equality, told the Guardian earlier on Monday. “I think this is the most progressive resolution we could’ve expected from the Boy Scouts.” Wahls noted that the organization had banned gay people since 1978, and that its decentralized structure – religious organizations charter about 70% of Boy Scout troops – means some prejudices have deep roots. “What really has to happen is change in the sponsoring organizations,” he said, adding that his concern was not with specific religious groups but for full inclusion. “I’m not worried about Mormon units not allowing gay leaders as there aren’t a lot of openly gay Mormons anywhere,” he said. “But discrimination sends a harmful message to gay youths and straight youths, and it has no place in scouting.” Scouting law says that a boy scout is cheerful, so we’ll be OKZach Wahls, Scouts for Equality On 13 July, the organization’s executive committee, headed by president and former defense secretary Robert Gates, unanimously approved the resolution, saying there had been a “sea change in the law with respect to gay rights”. “The BSA national policy that prohibits gay adults from serving as leaders is no longer legally defensible,” the organization said in a statement earlier this month. “However, the BSA’s commitment to duty to God and the rights of religious chartered organizations to select their leaders is unwavering.” The vote took place only a month and a day after the US supreme court legalized same-sex marriage throughout the US, striking down state bans and punctuating the swift progress of gay rights with its 5-4 vote. The board’s vote also follows only two years after a long and bitter debate at the organization’s 2013 meeting in Texas, where 60% of some 1,400 scout leaders voted to end the ban. The organization said at the time that it had no intentions of revisiting the issue. But earlier this year the New York City chapter hired a gay camp counsellor, and said it would force the issue in court if necessary to keep the counsellor employed. The Boy Scouts has about 2.5 million members between the ages of seven and 21, as well as 960,000 volunteers in local units, according to the organization. Membership has steadily declined about 4-6% each year for several years, contributing to the internal crisis over what to do. John Stemberger, chairman of the breakaway Christian youth outdoor program Trail Life USA, told Reuters on Friday that lifting the ban was an affront to Christian morals and would make it “even more challenging for a church to integrate a [Boy Scouts] unit as part of a church’s ministry offerings”. But major Catholic and Mormon supporters appeared to approve of the new policy. On its site, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting said that the Boy Scouts did not endorse homosexuality. The committee then wrote: “Any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting.” The Mormon church meanwhile reasserted itself earlier this month, saying in a statement that it has “always had the right to select Scout leaders who adhere to moral and religious principles that are consistent with our doctrines and beliefs”. (2) After Boy Scouts welcome Gays, some churches start alternative group http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2015/08/after_boy_scouts_welcome_gays.html By Greg Garrison | ggarrison@al.com on August 05, 2015 at 6:47 AM, updated August 05, 2015 at 10:44 AM Trail Life USA now has 21 troops in Alabama sponsored by churches, and 554 troops nationwide. Texas has 73 troops, North Carolina has 52 and Virginia has 33. Florida, where it started, has 31 troops. Trail Life USA A new scouting organization started in 2013 - after the Boy Scouts of America changed its policy to accept openly gay scouts - has grown quickly across the country. Trail Life USA now has 21 troops in Alabama sponsored by churches, and 554 troops nationwide. Texas has 73 troops, North Carolina has 52 and Virginia has 33. Florida, where it started, has 31 troops. Last week, the Boy Scouts of America announced another policy change to allow openly gay scout masters. Those who dropped out of Boy Scouts two years ago say that's why they left. "We knew that was coming," said Steve McGill, a former leader of Boy Scout Troop 404, which formerly met at First Baptist Church of Pelham and now meets at St. Francis of Assisi Episcopal Church in Indian Springs. McGill now leads a scouting troop at First Baptist of Pelham that's affiliated with Trail Life USA. "We made our statement two years ago when we pulled away." Trail Life USA is an outdoors scouting organization that emphasizes Christian principles, he said. "The day scouting went to allowing gay youth into the organization is basically when the leaders of Trail Life starting working," in May 2013, McGill said. "They unveiled it in September. January (2014) is when they opened it up for charters. It's still a work in progress." Briarwood Presbyterian Church, which severed ties with Boy Scouts in 2013, now hosts a Trail Life troop. Hunter Street Baptist Church in Hoover, First Baptist Church of Pelham, Evangel Church in Alabaster, Whitesburg Baptist Church in Huntsville and First Baptist Church in Sylacauga are among the sponsors of Trail Life USA troops. Trail Life USA is careful about not infringing on the copyrights or patents of Boy Scouts, although they both take part in outdoors activities such as camping, McGill said. "We teach life lessons," McGill said. "Trail Life is a faith-based organization. We teach outdoors skills. That's what Trail Life is about, growing Christian boys into Christian men and teaching them outdoors skills along the way." Adult leaders of the group sign a statement of faith and must assert their belief that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman, McGill said. Trail Life USA was started by former Boy Scout leaders in Orlando and it doesn't have a headquarters building, McGill said. "The main headquarters is in every church that has a charter," McGill said. The organization offers principles and guidelines, he said. If youth are openly gay, they can be turned away, McGill said. "If he mentions that he might be gay, I don't have to let him join," he said. "They left it up to the church. If the church charters the program, it's your program. They just give you guidelines. It's your program, do what you think is right. We don't approve of that type behavior. I would probably ask them to leave as nicely as I could. I don't want that problem around my campfire." Some of the Boy Scouts who formerly met at First Baptist Pelham went to Troop 2 in Helena, which is sponsored by a Kiwanis Club, McGill said. "It created a lot of hard feelings in the troop," McGill said. "The boys and their families, they either stayed with Boy Scouts, went with Trail Life, or quit altogether," McGill said. "There are some who were close to making Eagle that just quit." That includes McGill's son, who needed to complete a project to become an Eagle Scout, he said. Although it was a difficult transition, some pastors said they couldn't in good conscience continue supporting the Boy Scouts. "We had supported them for 33 years," said the Rev. Mike Shaw, former pastor of First Baptist Church of Pelham, who made the decision to discontinue the Boy Scout troop and affiliate with Trail Life USA. "We didn't want to leave the boys without something to replace that," Shaw said. Shaw said it was not an effort to hurt the Boy Scouts. "I don't wish them anything but well," he said. "I was a scout myself." The Boy Scouts of America won a U.S. Supreme Court decision more than a decade ago that allowed them to turn away openly gay scouts because it violated their charter, but decided to change the policy anyway, Shaw noted. Last week's decision by the Boy Scouts to welcome openly gay scout masters reinforced the decision to leave and find another group to affiliate with, Shaw said. "This does not surprise me," Shaw said. "Some big companies who were strong financial backers of Boy Scouts wanted them to change their policy." It goes against biblical standards, Shaw said. "It's something we Baptists have a hard time dealing with," said Shaw, who retired but is serving as interim pastor of Riverside Baptist Church in Helena. "We still preach what the Bible teaches. We don't hate anybody. We just preach the truth." Joey Kiker, a regional spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America Greater Alabama Council, which covers 22 counties in Alabama and has its headquarters in Birmingham, said after the Boy Scout policy change on homosexuality that regional affiliates are required to abide by the new policies. "We are chartered by the Boy Scouts of America," he said. "It's a condition of our charter that we follow the national policies. We would encourage all churches to do what they feel is right. We appreciate the service they've given to scouting. We hope that any churches that discontinue scouting, before the last scout walks out the door, to think about what they can continue to do to serve youth." Mormons review affiliation with Boy Scouts One of the largest church sponsors of Boy Scout troops, the Mormons, announced it is reconsidering its backing of Boy Scouts. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement last week after the latest change in policy by the Boy Scouts: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply troubled by today's vote by the Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board. In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church's governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet. When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined. The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation. However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America. "As a global organization with members in 170 countries, the Church has long been evaluating the limitations that fully one-half of its youth face where Scouting is not available. Those worldwide needs combined with this vote by the BSA National Executive Board will be carefully reviewed by the leaders of the Church in the weeks ahead." http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/catholic-diocese-north-dakota-severs-all-ties-boy-scouts-over-gay (3) Catholic Diocese in North Dakota severs all ties with Boy Scouts over Gay adult Troop Leaders By Michael W. Chapman | August 5, 2015 | 12:44 PM EDT (CNSNews.com) – The Catholic Diocese of Bismark, North Dakota, is “formally” severing its churches, schools, and other institutions from the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) because of the latter’s decision to allow openly homosexual adults and employees to work in the Boy Scouts. The BSA’s executive committee voted to lift its century-old national restriction on “openly gay adult leaders and employees” on July 27. The Catholic Diocese of Bismark, headed by Bishop David Kagan moved swiftly to disassociate itself from the now pro-gay BSA. “[E]ffective immediately, the Catholic Church of the Diocese of Bismarck and each and every one of its parishes, schools and other institutions, is formally disaffiliated with and from the Boy Scouts of America,” said Bishop Kagan in an August 3 letter. “If your parish sponsors a troop, your priest has been asked to inform those persons associated with the BSA of this action and to inform the BSA itself of this decision,” he said. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons are “called to chastity” and that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” because they violate the natural law, the teaching from Scripture, and they “close the sexual act to the gift of life.” The Church, in its Catechism, further states that “under no circumstances” can homosexual acts “be approved.” “I regret my decision but, in conscience as the Chief Shepherd of the Diocese of Bismarck, I cannot permit our Catholic institutions to accept and participate directly or indirectly in any organization, which has policies and methods, which contradict the authoritative moral teachings of the Catholic Church,” said Bishop Kagan. In his Aug. 3 letter, Bishop Kagan listed several “acceptable alternatives” to the Boy Scouts and to the Girl Scouts. These include American Heritage Girls; the Little Flowers’ Girls Clubs; the Federation of North American Explorers; the Columbian Squires; and Trail Life USA. The Diocese of Bismark was established in 1909 and serves about 66,400 Catholics in 23 counties in western North Dakota. Bishop Kagan was selected to head the Bismark Diocese by then-Pope Benedict XVI in October 2011. (4) Schulman: 'Gay Rights movement is Jewish' http://abundanthope.net/pages/True_US_History_108/Schulman-Gay-Rights-movement-is-Jewish_printer.shtml TRUE US HISTORY Schulman: 'Gay Rights movement is Jewish' http://rehmat1.com/2013/08/09/schulman-gay-rights-movement-is-jewish/ By Rehmat Aug 11, 2013 - 3:32:39 AM Schulman: 'Gay Rights movement is Jewish' Posted on August 9, 2013 Professor Sarah Schulman (College of Staten Island, New York) is author of 17 books. She is a recipient of Fulbright award and Guggenheim Fellowship. She is an open lesbian and leaders of feminist group within the Gay Rights movement. And to top that all – Schulman is among the 7,000 Jews, who are declared “Self-Hating Israel-Threatening (S.H.I.T)” by the Israel Hasbara Committee. Schulman in her latest book, 'Israel/Palestine and the Queer International' claims that gay rights movement is mainly funded by Israel and the Jewish multi-billionaire George Soros. Behind all her anti-Zionist exterior, Schulman shows her real Zionist agenda in ''Israel/Palestine and the Queer International'; Palestinians should stop military resistance against Israel and adopt a Gandhian-style non-violent protests – and support the 'lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgenders (LGBT)' groups. She believes this will enhance Hamas image like Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah among the western powers. On July 15, 2013, American writer, John Friend, said at the American Free Press: “Virtually every single homosexual rights organization is American history has been organized and run by Jewish individual“. You may like to visit Friend's blog here. Canadian Jewish writer, Eric Walberg, who used to run a blog under the pen-name Simon Jones, in an article in 2006, entitled 'Jews and gays - birds of a feather?' {title corrected by PGM; Eric Walberg says he is NOT Jewish}, wrote that Muslim societies are more tolerant towards gays than the West. He claimed that Muslims don't hate gays as long as they carry-on their activities in their own backyard. However, they do want gays to get involved in the normal human activities; get married with opposite gender and raise a good family. He said that Muslims don't misuse gay communities as a political PR as Israel does. [...] ---- (1) Businesses fined under anti-discrimination law for not servicing same-sex weddings (2) Don’t Mess with Marriage booklet could breach Anti-Discrimination Act (3) Same Sex Marriage: Who will be prosecuted? (4) Canada: basic freedoms lost since same-sex marriage came to town (5) UNITED STATES: "first same-sex marriage, now The Equality Act" (6) The same-sex marriage debate and the right to religious belief (1) Businesses fined under anti-discrimination law for not servicing same-sex weddings http://www.family.org.au/marriage/fined/Businesses_are_being_fined_over_same-gender_weddings.pdf Businesses Are being fined for not servicing same-sex weddings Professional photographers, wedding reception agencies and others are being prosecuted for not providing their services/facilities for same-sex weddings. Ashers family bakery, owned by the McArthur family in Northern Ireland, has been found guilty under anti-discrimination law for declining to decorate a cake with a pro-same sex marriage slogan. They were fined £500. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283 Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes in Oregon, USA, say that the US$135,000 fine they are facing under anti-discrimination law would “definitely” be enough to bankrupt them and their five children. They declined to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/sweet-cakes-by- melissa-bankrupt-_n_5916226.html Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, of Lakewood Colorado, USA, was told by a judge either to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding or face fines under anti-discrimination law. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/colorado-baker-cakes- gay-weddings-panel-rules-article-1.1811676 The parliament is the defender of free enterprise and freedom of speech. So why would the parliament support legislation that will see bakers, photographers, wedding planners, wedding reception venues, restaurants, accommodation places prosecuted because these business people declined to provide their services for same-sex weddings? (2) Don’t Mess with Marriage booklet could breach Anti-Discrimination Act http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/tasmania/don-t-mess-with-marriage-booklet-could-breach-anti-discrimination-act-18069.html by Cec Busby LAST UPDATED // Wednesday, 24 June 2015 15:14 1000s of school children have been distributed copies of a booklet – Don't Mess With Marriage – which demeans children with same-sex parents and encourages homophobic behaviour. LGBTI and marriage equality advocates have warned Tasmanian Catholic school principals and teachers that distribution of the booklet is likely to breach the Anti-Discrimination Act. The booklet was launched at The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and presents the church's opposition to same-sex unions. Its last page urges Catholics to lobby local MPs to oppose changes to Australia's Marriage Act and nd urges Catholic families to stand up for the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It is being distributed at schools, churches and Catholic community group's across the nation. Australian Marriage Equality national director, Rodney Croome, described the booklet as denigrating and demeaning of same-sex relationships and suggested it was harmful to children with same sex parents or young people who identified as LGBT. "The booklet likely breaches the Anti-Discrimination Act and I urge everyone who finds it offensive and inappropriate, including teachers, parents and students, to complain to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Robin Banks." Croome said he has received several complaints from teachers in Catholic schools who were horrified to learn at staff room meetings that the booklet will be distributed. "The Catholic Church has every right to express its views from the pulpit but it is completely inappropriate to enlist young people as the couriers of its prejudice." "The booklet says to gay students in Catholic schools that their sexuality is wrong and that their aspiration to marry is a danger to marriage, religion and society." "Any principal or teacher who exposes vulnerable children to such damaging messages not only violates their duty of care, but is a danger to students,” Croome concluded. (3) Same Sex Marriage: Who will be prosecuted? http://www.family.org.au/marriage/Who_Will_Be_Prosecuted.pdf http://www.family.org.au/national-campaigns/446-ssm-who-will-be-prosecuted (4) Canada: basic freedoms lost since same-sex marriage came to town http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=57042 by Terri M. Kelleher News Weekly, August 29, 2015 Canadians have faced disciplinary action, termination of employment or prosecution by government tribunals since same-sex marriage was legalised in 2005 and protected attribute status was granted to sexual orientation and gender identity in anti-discrimination laws. 1,2 Since being made legal, same-sex marriage has been treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life. A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and hostility toward gays and lesbians. Any reasoned explanation – for example, that conjugal marriage is best for children because it preserves their biological relationships with their mother, father, siblings, grandparents – is dismissed as a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group.3 Such dissent is now deemed intolerable. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human-rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Civil marriage celebrants were the first to feel the hard edge of the new legal system. Several Canadian provinces refused to allow celebrants a right of conscience not to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations.4 The Catholic Church’s Knights of Columbus were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.5 Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets – anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly. Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again.6 Targets have included: Individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers;7 Ministers of small congregations of Christians;8 A Catholic bishop who faced two complaints – both eventually withdrawn – prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.9 To engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin, costing money and time. Although the Parliament of Canada did revoke the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech”, in reality similar legislation remains in place in several Canadian provinces. Professional governing bodies – such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like – have used statutory powers to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession.10 Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalising same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure. Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action. Even if they only make public statements criticising same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students.11 Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalised this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.12 Parental rights gone Parental rights in public education since the legalisation of same-sex marriage have subtly but pervasively changed. Same-sex relationships must be treated like natural marriage. Same-sex marriage and parenting must be treated in the classroom the same as heterosexual marriage; and this permeates all areas of the curriculum. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices.13 Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections and parental attempts to remove their children from the public school system. Parents are forced to accept conflicting views from home and school over same-sex marriage, and sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). Same-sex marriage/SOGI ideology has been put into the curriculum under the guise of anti-bullying programs.14 This has proved to be a gross violation of the rights of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a concept of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what many parents understand to be in their children’s best interests. It teaches children that the underlying rationale of marriage is nothing other than the satisfaction of changeable adult desires for companionship. Religious institutions have been particularly vulnerable, despite so-called protections. The grand bargain of the same-sex marriage lobby was that houses of worship were supposed to exempt from same-sex marriage law.15 This protection has proved to be very narrow. It only prevents clergy from being coerced into performing marriage ceremonies. It does not shield sermons or pastoral letters from the scrutiny of human-rights commissions. It leaves congregations vulnerable to legal challenges if they refuse to rent their auxiliary facilities to same-sex couples for their ceremony or reception, or to any other organisation that will use the facility to promote a view of sexuality at odds with their own. Provincial and municipal governments can withhold benefits from religious congregations because of their marriage doctrine. For example, Bill 13, the same Ontario statute that compels Catholic schools to host “gay-straight alliance” clubs (and to use that particular name), also prohibits public schools from renting their facilities to organisations that will not agree to a code of conduct premised on the new orthodoxy.16 Given that many small Christian congregations rent school auditoriums to conduct their worship services, they are vulnerable. Media: Under the Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission, any media airing content considered “discriminatory” can have its broadcasting licence revoked. Human-rights agencies can charge fines and restrict future programs/publications.17 Is this how they think of the children? Children’s rights compromised: When same-sex marriage was legalised, parenting was immediately redefined to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. By legally erasing biological parenthood, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know their biological parents.18 Wedding planners, rental hall and bed-and-breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled. In fact anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and gender identity anti-discrimination laws. This means that the state basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.19 Freedom to assemble and speak publicly about man-woman marriage, family, and sexuality is now restricted. If a person’s beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from those of the state, they risk losing their professional licence, job, or business. Canada’s imposition of same-sex marriage, gender identity and sexual orientation laws in the cause of “sexual autonomy” has trampled freedom of speech, association and religion and the rights of parents to educate and raise their children as they choose. _____________________ [1] Bradly Miller, “Same-sex marriage ten years on: lessons from Canada”, The Public Discourse, November 5, 2012. Miller is an associate professor of law at the University of Western Ontario and a 2012-2013 Visiting Fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. [2] Dawn Stefanowicz, “A warning from Canada: same-sex marriage erodes fundamental rights”, The Public Discourse, April 24, 2015. Dawn Stefanowicz was raised by a gay father and is now married with children. [3] See, for example, the comments of Justice LaForme in Halpern v. Canada (AG), 2002 CanLII 49633 (On SC), paras. 242-43. [4] See, for example, Saskatchewan: Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under the Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3. [5] Smith and Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus and others, 2005 BCHRT 544. [6] See the remedy ordered by the Alberta Human Rights tribunal (later overturned on judicial review) in Lund v. Boissoin, 2012 ABCA 300. [7] Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2005 BCCA 327 (CanLII); [8] Lund v. Boissoin, 2012 ABCA 300. [9]Fred Henry, Bishop of Calgary, Alberta, “Bishop Henry calls for overhaul of human-rights commissions”; note also the experience of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, editor of Catholic Insight, who spent $20,000 defending a human rights complaint that was eventually dismissed. [10] For example, Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2005 BCCA 327 (CanLII). [11] Ibid. [12] For example, the dismissal of Ontario sportscaster Damian Goddard by Rogers Sportsnet for tweeting his support of traditional marriage: “Broadcaster fired after controversial tweet files human rights complaint”, National Post, June 23, 2011. [13]Glen Hansman, “Parents cannot ‘opt out’ of provincial curriculum: clarifying alternative delivery”, BC Teachers’ Federation Teacher Newsmagazine, vol. 19, no.2, October 2006. [14]See the legislative preamble to Ontario’s Accepting Schools Act, S.O. 2012 C.5. See also Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710. The same fault lines are visible in S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chenes, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 235. [15] Civil Marriage Act, S.C. 2005 c. 33, ss. 3 – 3.1. [16] Accepting Schools Act, S.O. 2012 C.5. [17]Dawn Stefanowicz, op. cit. [18] Ibid. [19] Ibid. (5) UNITED STATES: "first same-sex marriage, now The Equality Act" http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=57042 Only weeks after the US Supreme Court legalised same- sex marriage in June, Democratic Party law makers have proposed a bill to introduce a new Equality Act to elevate sexual orientation and gender identity as “protected attributes”. The Equality Act combined with same-sex marriage would take the US down a similar path to Canada. The Equality Act aims to place sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) into the 1964 Civil Rights Act as protected attributes alongside race, colour and national origin.20 In Australia in 2013, the federal Sex Discrimination Act was amended to include SOGI as protected attributes. States and territories variously cover SOGI to some extent. In those laws sexual orientation is generally defined as heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality. Gender identity applies equally to: males who identify as female; females who identify as male, and intersex people (i.e. people born of indeterminate sex) who identify as male or female.21 However, some SOGI advocates are now claiming that there are 56 different forms of sexual identity.22 [...] The law enshrines protections for man+woman marriage, because it provides many protections to the next generation of the state’s children/citizens – it defines the identity of children and their inheritance rights. The US Equality Act would: • elevate SOGI to protected class status in all schools; • shut down debate by treating SOGI protected attributes as topics beyond debate; • require all entities receiving federal funding not to consider SOGI as a factor in their programs; • require withdrawing any public funds from institutions that believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman or that question SOGI protected attributes.20 (6) The same-sex marriage debate and the right to religious belief http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/the-same-sex-marriage-debate-and-the-right-to-religious-belief/story-e6frg74x-1227437429587 Paul Kelly The Australian July 11, 2015 12:00AM The central issue in any Australian recognition of same-sex marriage remains almost invisible — whether the state’s re-definition of civil marriage will authorise an assault on churches, institutions and individuals who retain their belief in the traditional view of marriage. It seems to this point that none of the proposals for same-sex marriage or related policy prescriptions are satisfactory laws for passage by the Australian parliament. The real issue is conceptually simple — it is whether same-sex marriage will deny conscience rights to much of the population. The alternative is a new spirit of tolerance guaranteed by law where same-sex marriage sits in parallel with undiminished -religious liberty. The omens are not good. As the years advance there has been -virtually no debate about the real issues surrounding same-sex -marriage. The campaign for change is strong and tactically brilliant based on the ideological slogan “marriage equality”, one of the most effective slogans in many decades. The collapse of the moral authority of the churches, especially the Catholic Church, driven above all by the child sexual abuse phenomenon across a range of nations, has seen a depleted and often unchristian response by the churches as they singularly fail to meet the demand of same-sex marriage advocates. Yet the majority media reaction to this situation — “let’s get on with the change” — is ignorant and irresponsible. The real debate is probably just starting. It poses an unprecedented challenge for our law-makers. There has never been an issue like this, as the US -Supreme Court decision made clear. This week in The Australian and in an interview with Inquirer, Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, began to confront the choice our society faces. Wilson advanced two propositions that shatter the haze of misinformation and emotion that surrounds this issue. First, that none of the bills on same-sex -marriage offers anything like the essential protection of religious freedom and individual conscience. And second, that individual belief and religious freedom must be seen as “equally important” as the right to same-sex -marriage. These principles have not been accepted in the debate. Indeed, they are largely denied and fought. This is the reason Wilson has raised them. The politicians will protest but their protests are worthless. Only one thing counts — the policy and legislative stand the politicians take and, so far, the protections of religion freedom are only tokenism. “The primary problem is that people think of religious protection just in terms of a minister of religion solemnising a marriage,” Wilson tells Inquirer. “But this is a superficial analysis of the issue. The question of religious freedom has not been taken seriously. It is treated as an afterthought. We cannot allow a situation where the law is telling people they have to act against their conscience and beliefs. We cannot protect the rights of one group of people by denying the rights of another group.” If the Australian parliament intends to create a legal regime with this consequence then the law-makers must justify this to the -people and explain how such -calculated intolerance leads to a better society. The legalisation of same-sex marriage means the laws of the state and the laws of the church will be in conflict over the meaning of the most important institution in society. This conflict between the civil and religious meaning of marriage will probably be untenable and marked by litigation, attempts to use anti-discrimination law and entrenched bitterness. But an effort ought to be made to make it tenable on the basis of mutual tolerance. The Amici brief to the US -Supreme Court of four distinguished legal scholars* who support same-sex marriage offers the best statement we are likely to see on the method of reconciliation between these competing rights. “The proper response to the mostly avoidable conflict between gay rights and religious liberty is to protect the liberty of both sides,” the Amici brief argues. “Both sexual minorities and religious minorities make essentially parallel claims on the larger society. “Both sexual orientation and religious faith, and the conduct that follows from each, are fundamental to human identity. Both same-sex couples and religious organisations and believers committed to traditional understandings of marriage, face hostile regulation that condemns their most cherished commitments as evil. “Legislative bargaining is critical to protecting religious liberty in the growing number of states where religious objections to same-sex marriage have become unpopular.” If same-sex marriage is authorised in Australia, this is the approach that should prevail. If Coalition MPs who support traditional marriage were prudent they would begin preparing the legal conditions under which freedom of conscience can exist with same-sex marriage. If pro-same-sex marriage MPs were prudent they would do the same, as Wilson advocates, and if they are serious and convince traditionalists then they may find more MPs joining their ranks. There should be no doubt, however, about the bottom line: the Australian parliament should not legislate the right to same-sex marriage on the altar of denying institutions and individuals the right to their conscience. The Amici brief begins with a core proposition: the issue of religious liberty cannot be used to deny same-sex marriage. But this leads to the next proposition: the legalisation of same-sex marriage cannot be used to deploy state power against religious organisation and believers. This spirit can prevail only if churches respect same-sex couples and if same-sex couples respect religious discretion. That requires the removal of hate and malice from the -debate. The -essence of the moral liberation required is put in these terms: “The gain for human liberty will be greatly undermined if same-sex couples now force religious dissenters to violate their conscience in the same way that those dissenters, when they had the power to do so, forced same-sex couples to hide in the closet.” This raises the question about the real ideology of the same-sex marriage campaign. Is it merely to allow gays to marry? Or is its ultimate purpose to impose “marriage equality” across the entire society, civil and religious. Ideologies do not normally stop at the halfway mark. Is “marriage equality”, as designed and evolving by its advocates, an ideology that can live with two different concepts of marriage, civil and religious? The Amici brief makes clear that limiting religious exemptions to just pastors performing wedding ceremonies is completely inadequate. There is a wide range of other issues to be considered. Must religious colleges provide married housing to same-sex couples? Must churches and synagogues employ spouses in same-sex marriages even though this flouts their religious teaching? Must religious social-service agencies place children for adoption with same-sex couples? Will religious institutions be penalised by losing government contracts, tax exemptions and access to public facilities? Will religious institutions and schools be penalised if they teach their own beliefs about marriage, thereby contradicting the state’s view of marriage? Or will the state laws via anti-discrimination legislation be mobilised to force the state’s view on to religious institutions? What of the provision of ser-vices? In much of the US a gay publicist can refuse to provide services for an anti-gay event. That is acceptable under the law. Can a person decline to provide services for a gay marriage, not because the person discriminates against gays but because they see the marriage as a religious event and therefore it defies their religious beliefs? The Amici brief argues that it is essential to distinguish the two relationships — protecting the right of same-sex couples to civil marriage and protecting religious actors’ right to uphold their view of religious marriage. The US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges is flawed for two reasons. First, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in dissent: “The court is not a legislator. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” This decision is an arrogant denial of US democracy and law-making even though it follows a US tradition of law creation by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pre-empted the process by which state legislature after state legislature was voting on same-sex marriage. Justice Antonin Scalia said in dissent: “Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best.” The second problem, as Australian lawyer and priest Frank Brennan argues, is that the upshot in the US will be “years of litigation” about the rights of religious bodies that is sure to be “nasty and hard fought”. The reason is because a court decision will now replace legislative decisions. The consequence is writ large: where marriage equality is delivered by court decision, religious liberty is not protected. Where marriage equality in the US is delivered by the legislature there tends to be a political bargain, with religious liberty provisions of varying extents. The applause in this country for the US Supreme Court decision, while understandable, is a disappointing and bad omen. It suggests the public grasp of this issue in Australia is far distant from the debate that is needed. “I have accepted the inevitability that civil marriage in Australia will be redefined to include same-sex couples,” Brennan told Inquirer. But Brennan warned it was “another thing” to require “all persons, regardless of their religious beliefs, to treat same-sex couples even in the life and activities of the church as if they were married in the eyes of the church”. He poses a series of questions. Will religious institutions in Australia be able to follow current policy on shared accommodation on a church site? Will religious schools be able to limit employment to teachers who follow church teaching on sexual relations? Will faith- based adoptive agencies be able to prefer placement with a traditional family unit? Brennan said these and related issues “should now be squarely on the table”. In truth, this is long overdue. Brennan finished, however, on an ominous note: “Some of us support the state recognition of both same-sex marriage AND (his emphasis) religious freedom exercised in speech, actions and institutional arrangements. Sadly, many who advocate same-sex marriage have no time for those of us who espouse religious freedom as well.” Brennan’s fears are well placed given the debate in Australia in recent times. The politicians are not serious about this issue and neither is the media. It is reduced to a footnote of minor import yet rolled out to justify their same-sex marriage policy. As Wilson knows, this is not the way to proceed. It only guarantees institutional division and rancour. The core question remains: what is the real ideological objective of the same-sex marriage campaign? * Brief of Douglas Laycock, Thomas C. Berg, David Blankenhorn, Marie A. Failinger and Edward McGlynn Gaffney. -- Peter Myers Australia website: http://mailstar.net/index.html |
Archives >