Perhaps a more intelligent reasoned response to the Mass. Sup. Ct., other than from those who you refer to as "naysaying simpletons", can be found at: <a href="www.cccb.ca/MediaReleases.htm?CD=&ID=1460">www.cccb.ca/MediaReleases.htm?CD=&ID=1460</a>.<p>In particular, check out (ie. read - it'll take a few minutes) the Notice of Motion for leave by the CCCB to intervene in the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of the constitutionality of the proposed Federal "same-sex" marriage legislation ( at: <a href="www.cccb.ca/Files/application_to_intervene.pdf">www.cccb.ca/Files/application_to_intervene.pdf</a>)<p>But if you prefer not to engage in any debate on the issue, then go to
<a href="www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/reference.htm">www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/reference.htm</a> where you can find a poster that has individuals(presumably gays and lesbians) being burned at the stake with the caption: "The Inquisition targets same-sex marriage. Rome is where the hate is" . Since this type of poster and statement only promulgates hatred against Roman Catholics who support what has been the "traditional" definition of marriage, I suppose it is permitted free speech, as this "new moral orthodoxy" now states that people who hold this "traditional" view (would that be "naysaying simpletons"?)can not possibly have any rights like freedom of expression, speech or conscience on this issue, and they all just better shut up and get used to it.

Well, there is an aspect of shutting up and getting used to it. But thanks for the links which I will go into and make live links.<p>I suppose, like the use of "Christian" which excludes liberals protestants like me and pretty much all of Catholicism and Othodoxy is like the use of "traditional". Whose tradition are we talking about. I understand that in Scotland until just a few years ago there were 4 ways to get married: church record, bans, self-declaration and another I can't recall off the top of my head. Islam and Mormon allow for bigamy in some circumstance, a crime here in Canada. Some religions allow for the marriage of children. Further, there is no scanctity of civil heterosexual marriages anymore as something like have end up in divorce.<p>Given that no one is advocating religious communities be forced to marry gays and given, certainly here in Canada, the clear and pervasive recognition of the equality of individuals, negative response by people and organizations which wish the world were simpler than it is, is just what I said: the voices of "naysaying simpletons". That being said, anyone is fully within their right to dream they live in a simple world and advocate for inequality. Just as long as the Courts are not hand-tied by this prejudice anymore than the prejudices against inter-racial love or Catholics wanting to marry outside the faith

In reality, the "simple" view of this issue, is the one you espouse, which is that same-sex marriage is somehow an issue about "Charter protected" equality. It's as if the mere making of this statement ends any and all debate.

If, however, you are advocating "opening the door" to all forms of marriage, then that's another thing, and a more logically consistent argument than the one that "draws the line" on these so-called "equality rights" at same-sex marriage. If it is argued (as it is) that the state has an interest promoting the "love, happiness, self-esteem, self-fulfilment of individuals" by extending marriage to same-sex couples, then why draw the line with these unions? What about those who wish to marry their siblings, or those engaged in polygamus or bigamus relationships? What about their "love, happiness, self-esteem, self-fulfilment"?

As the CCCB submission states, "...this is because there is no compelling state interest to protect and promote sexual relationships based on the sexual orientation, sexual preferences, personal preferences, individual tastes, cultural practices or religious beliefs of the individuals involved...,however, there may be a state interest in recognizing these relationships for the purpose of regulating them but there is no state interest in institutionalizing them.”

There is a state interest in promoting heterosexual unions of one man, one woman, which has as it goal the procreation of the next generation of state citizens. Call it the "traditional" view of marriage or the view of marriage as a pre-political, natural "institution"

The Charter test for s.15 equality belies your claim of simplicity. It is a complex multi-tiered investigation of the issue in the context of principles of law, societal intolerence and, when we move to s. 1, what is fair in a free and democratic society. Your refererences to statements within submissions outside of the context of the test poses the difficulty of knowing where the statements fit. Bare claims to "tradition" in themselves are hardly compelling as I indicated above.<p>You do raise an interesting point on where to draw the line. The line is not now clear with first cousins being barred in some jurisdictions and not in others. I think that my gut reaction to polygamy is that it is a different thing but, as common sense tells us, there are many effectively bigamous relationships where on of the participants is not aware of the fact.

It may be that the test (as to whether an individual or identifiable group is the subject of some government sponsored discrimination contrary to s. 15 of the Charter) is a “complex” one, but that doesn’t mean that those who advocate same-sex marriage actually engage themselves the examination or discussion of this test. These supporters simply state it’s all about “equality” and point to court decisions, such as the Halpern case in Ontario, for instance, and say “there you are - now just shut up about all this”.

There has been an attempt to “turn off” this debate to the point that those who even wish now to engage in the discussion and question the logic of these court decisions such as Halpern , are simply labeled as “bigots” ( ie. “Rome is where the hate is”) and compared to white racists in the American South ( “advocates of inequality” - to use your turn of phrase). This continuing reference by the supporters of same-sex marriage, equating their “cause” to the black struggle against racism in America, must be insulting to the victims of racism everywhere. Gays and lesbians, by my experience, are mostly white, affluent, well-educated, well-employed, well-traveled, well-read and comfortable(by the way, where is the rush to the altar following Halpern?. There is not applied to them the same stereotypical assumptions used by racists against people of color (which was used, for instance, in preventing blacks from voting in the South).

The point the CCCB is making is what gays and lesbians seek now, by Charter recognition, is a stamp of legitimacy on their “relationships” to allow them to legally marry, which must be, by definition, a forced recognition of the “social value” of their sexual conduct which underlies these relationships (equating these relationships to those of heterosexual couples who meet the legal requirements allowing them to marry - for as we know, there are currently many, many heterosexual couples who are excluded from the legal institution of marriage, because, among other things, they may be lacking in some currently required legal capacity ).

The point is, many committed relationships between adults, sexual or otherwise, are excluded from the definition of marriage, and such exclusion is not viewed as somehow “discriminatory” in a free and democratic society. Until we really engage in this type of discussion – why gay and lesbian couples, and heterosexual couples who wish to marry, should now be the only groups included in the definition of marriage, to the exclusion of all other committed loving relationships between consenting adults - we have not really engaged in any discussion at all. The reason this debate is not entered into, as alluded to by the CCCB, is the fact that we then start talking about “sex” and the underlying “sexual relations” which consummate these relationships (which might take you for surprise coming from the CCCB) and this immediately shows the faulty logic employed by those who say that the current definition of marriage is discriminatory against this only other comparable group within the class (ie. two consenting adults involved in committed, loving relationship) namely, gays and lesbians. In fact, there are many other “comparable groups” within this class definition who are not allowed to marry (ie. two consenting adults who might be siblings) Again, as the CCCB points out, the definition of the “class” becomes important in this debate. It is the CCCB’c point is that the definition of the “comparables within the class” should be limited to heterosexual couples as the sexual conduct underlying this relationship is different in nature and in kind (ie. with a view to procreation or out of which procreation might arise) to that of any other kind of sexual relationship (ie. self or mutual gratification). The limitation of this right to marry within this class to unrelated, unmarried, adult heterosexual couples becomes a “reasonable limit” under s.1 of the Charter. Further, the state has an interest in protecting and promoting this type of relationship (one man, one woman) as this is the only natural way the state has in ensuring the procreation of its next generation of citizens, and has proven itself to be the best way of protecting and nurturing the children produced there from.

Now, if we all just want to say “we’re extending marriage rights to same-sex couples because they obviously love each other, and let’s all just forget about the “one man, one woman thing”, or any other group that opposes this, or wants marriage for their group that’s not included in this new definition” then fine, just say that, but don’t call it a “rights” or “equality” issue, and you can’t “draw the rights line” at same-sex couples. If this is what you support, then take “marriage”, its definition and regulation away from the state altogether. Let every adult who wants to enter into a “civil union” with another adult, do so, no questions asked. Let religions regulate “marriage” according to their respective beliefs. Let the state get out of the “marriage business” altogether, and only regulate these “civil unions” on their dissolution. The result: social chaos

That is the trouble with your thinking. There would be no "social chaos". There has been none since inter-racial marriage became socially acceptable, since living together outside of marriage became commonplace or since inter-faith marriage lost its shame two generations ago in my family. The fear you have is your real starting point - the rest just window dressing. What do you care if my child's pal's parents who are gay have the right to marry? They do have that right and my marriage has not been altered in anyway. Your point "this is the only natural way the state has in ensuring the procreation of its next generation of citizens" simply is not true. Gay parents raise their children as well if not better than anyone else and straight parents are - on a simple statistical basis - the greatest source of child abuse. The latter fact does not affect the legitimacy of marriage in anyway so why would your unfounded point tht somehow children raised by straight birth parents in marriage make the best citizens? Like much of "tradition" this is the stuff of whispy dreams.

How do these social changes affect you or anyone else at all except raise the spectre of "fear" and "chaos". You could pour out the same basic argument against any recognition of right under the equality protections of the Charter and that's why that argument loses over and over - because it is just empty fear. How does this differ to you from aboriginal land claims, protection for religious minorities or freedom from enforced early retirements? None of these things have any effect of "social chaos", just change. And that is why fighting against them is just naysaying.

Unfortunately, you miss my point or you simply don’t want to deal with it. The examples you give refer to one man, one woman relationships. The “social chaos” reference was to what would ensue if marriage was a “free for all”, and why the state sees the obvious need for rules and regulations. For instance, think of trying to decide property rights, custody, access and support issues arising out of a polygamous “marriage”: chaos.

Everyone seems to accept as a given that there must be limits, rules and regulations on the “right” to marry, but no one on your side of this argument feels the need to articulate why these rules are still needed or indeed whether such regulation continues to be legal (ie. to exclude other types of “relationships”), now that “marriage” is to include same-sex couples. What are the state objectives or interests in the continued regulation of the institution of marriage, if it now includes same-sex couples? To say that same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are in exactly the same “class” is to ignore biological reality. So, if the state no longer has an interest in protecting the “traditional” (and that, by the way, is not a “dirty” word) definition of the institution of marriage which requires as a starting point that there be one man, one woman who form a relationship from which there may be the natural pro-creation of children, what continuing interest does the state have in protecting, regulating or even defining, that institution? And if same-sex couples have a “right” to be included in the definition, again, where does one, or can one, “draw the line” on the “rights” of other relationships to be so recognized? These are not questions that we all can simply “duck”, as the courts often do, and have done in this case (ie. “?these issues are not before us and we need not consider them at this time? etc?.” - all of the power of legislators and none of the heat).

As usual, when we get to this point in the debate on this issue, your side trots out the tired “what is your fear of gays getting married and how does this effect you anyway?” argument, which is really meant to be interpreted as “you’re a homophobe and the fact that your even asking these questions proves it”. Again, this allows you to “duck” the hard questions, and is akin to playing the “race card”. It suggests that people who ask these questions are intolerant, which is meant to end all debate.

I am also saddened by your reference to what I assume was your loving, stable childhood, with (I assume, again) Mom and Dad, a “traditional” family life, as nothing more than a “wispy dream” to you, a fantasy. So much of a “wispy dream”, I suppose, that you have chosen to bring up your own children in such a “traditional” family structure? I wonder why? It could be because, as a matter of fact, all studies have shown (and look at yourself and around you) that children raised in “traditional” (ie. two parent, Mom and Dad) stable homes, do better in life, than those from broken or single parent homes. I suspect that there would be too small of a group on which to do a similar study of children raised by same-sex partners.

But I am not on a side and never raised homophobia. I said what is wrong with gay couple marrying which you really have not addressed except to say things like "tradition" and ... well what else do you really rely on? I just can't agree with your arguments because you are not expressing anything I find compelling as an argument.<p>Look, it is clear you and I disagree and - as I am not a member of anything other than my club of one - we can leave it there. Unless you can somehow link "tradition" to a legal principle or even a factual state, I just can't buy it. I like the Charter of Rights and think it expresses the heart of a good, strong and free democracy where no clique is able to define how others have to live. I don't know that you believe that but whatever you believe is your right. <p>So, why don't you come back - well, come back whenever you want - but come back after the SCC ruling and we can write about what happens.

You’re right,life won’t change appreciably, if gays are allowed to marry, if and only if priests, ministers, imans, rabbis, etc, and all the other "naysayers" who hold "traditional" views on the issue, shut up about it, at least in public or within the ear shot of someone who might turn any of them in for continuing to voice dissent (eg. "If you believe and say things like that, we can't possibly allow you teach in public schools" etc. - you get the picture).

What do you say to this:

One of the big problems the “naysayers” have is that they see the members of this society, which includes all the members of all religions, being forced to accept and publicly acknowledge (through the extension of this so-called “right”) that the underlying sexual activity which forms the basis of these “married” gay couples is moral, as it is now on an equal footing with married heterosexual intercourse.

The argument goes something like this: if gays now have the “right” to “marry”, sodomy (let’s call it what it is) must now be seen as moral, or, at the very least, it must not be immoral. If these gay marriages are now “equal”, how can the sexual activity which is a the heart of their relationship be viewed, or be treated differently by any public institution than married heterosexual intercourse?

This is this new "moral orthodoxy” referred to by the CCCB. If you continue to believe and state publicly that this sexual activity is immoral, then you must be promulgating hatred against these relationships -because, how can anyone in a society that permits gays to marry, say sodomy is immoral when it’s a fundamental part of the legally married gay relationship.

Oh, you might have freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion, to believe what you want, but just shut up about it, because you cannot have freedom of speech, not on this issue, not if you’re going to talk about this activity being immoral when it’s a fundamental part of the legally married gay relationship. And, as a corollary, if you continue to hold this belief, or belong to religious organizations that hold this belief, then you are unfit to hold any type of public office in this society. Oh, and by the way, why do we continue to allow charitable status to organizations, religious or otherwise, who continue to voice the dissent on this issue and refuse to recognize the "legal rights" of others.

This is part of the "naysayers" problem. What say you?

Really, all I can say is there is much done sexually by heterosexuals in and out of marriage and outside marriage by the married - I can't hold it as some kind of a standard. If that is something you or someone wants to talk about that is still fair game and I have no problem having anyone advocating against any practice. Naysaying is important as it is free speech. But taking that voice - especially when it is a majority voice - and making law and culture homogenize to its demands is unacceptable to me. There are few universal standards of morality outside the criminal code that I want to see enforced against. I don't need to. It's none of my business.

Well, maybe you think “it’s still fair game” for anyone who wishes to talk about it and maybe you “have no problem with anyone advocating against its practice”, but you may be missing the whole point of the activists who have, so far, successfully pushed for the recognition of this right. That point being, their establishment as part of this new code of conduct, the inability of anyone who wishes to hold any responsible public position in this society, to speak out against gay marriage, or to be found out to eve believe that this conduct is immoral.

You may have heard of the case of Chris Kempling, the teacher in British Columbia. Now, Kempling is a self-professed “Christian” and people who need to wear this moniker on their sleeve, and constantly remind you about it by interspersing references to the greatness of the Jesus in all normal conversation, make me uncomfortable, but what happened to him, I think, was meant to send a warning shot over the bow of all those, Christian or otherwise, who might share Kempling’s view on gay marriage. Kempling was suspended by the BCTC from his teaching position, for writing a couple of letters to the local editor about the “immorality” of the gay or lesbian relationship. There was never any suggestion that he “preached” this view to his students. The BC Supreme Court upheld that suspension, finding his comments were “discriminatory” (stating, as we know, discriminatory speech can not be free speech as it is not meant to “lead to the truth” on the issue) and as a teacher in a public school he should not be seen to be making these discriminatory statements in public.

Now, you may say “that’s just those wacky BCers at it again”, but the BC Supreme Court has basically equated Kempling’s views on this issue, which were voiced outside of the classroom, to those of Keegstra on the Jews and the Holocaust, which were taught by him in his classroom. By doing so, it has made it clear, in BC at least, public employees and officials will not be able to speak out on this issue if such speech is contrary to this new secular moral orthodoxy which accepts gay marriage as a “legal, equality rights, issue” – anything said to the contrary of this secular moral orthodoxy is discriminatory, plain and simple, and no further examination of the issue is required or justified.

I ask you, would the result for Kempling not have been the same if he had been invited to speak on this issue at a prayer meeting of those who share his Christian beliefs, and handed out copies of his speech, one copy of which found its way into the hands of someone at the BCTC?

Now, don't go off the rails in answering that question by comparing Kempling to a Southern preacher who speaks out against interracial marriage as immoral. What Kempling and others, such as the CCCB are talking about is personal, private conduct that now seeks public approbation - not the color of one's skin.

[I tend not to go off rails, but thank you for your concern.]

I see this as potentially very different. If someone is speaking about their beliefs <i>in the private realm</i> that is one thing and should be protected. If, however, it is a state school and, say the so-called Christian doctrain of "creationism" (something most Christians reject) is being propounded as the equivalent of science in a science class it is another. To abstract on that point, consider the recent PEI appeal case Morin v. Board of Trustees... on freedom of expression and a teacher where the teacher was teaching about the fundamentalist movement in the States. All things being equal his right to show a movie about the movement which might be thought critical should be balanced by the right to show its positive side.<p>But if the view that is being shared in a public venue as a public official under the guise of "Christian Truth" is a message of intolerance [and also, by the way, not a universally accepted truth among Christians] should there not be a limit on that if only for the mischaracterization of the faith let alone the use of state resources for private intolerant matters? I reverse the question to you. What if the basis for making the same statements was not Christian but Islamic, libertarian or a principle from the boy scout movement or, say, chiropractic? Does the basis upon which you are making a claim become less intolerant based on the integrity of grounds used to justify the position?

I appreciate your question, but the fact that you phrased it the way you did suggests that maybe I did not make my last point clear enough. Let me try to make this point again:

1.Kempling made the remarks as a private citizen in a couple of letters to the editor of the local newspaper;

2. The paper published the letters as they were not seen to be defamatory or libelous or otherwise actionable, and the letters were an attempt by Kempling to advance his privately held beliefs on these issues;

3. Kempling’s professional body (the BCTC) took action against him for writing the letters and expressing these views, even though the public forum in which they were expressed was unrelated to his professional duties;

4. The BC Supreme Court dismissed Kempling’s application for review and upheld the suspension. In his Reasons for Judgment, Justice Holmes wrote, in part: " [T]he appellant's publicly discriminatory writings undermine the ability of members of the targeted group, homosexuals, to attain individual self-fulfilment... Anything less restrictive than the sanction chosen by the BCCT (e.g. by issuing a reprimand only or no penalty at all) would not be an effective measure and might reasonably give rise to the perception that both the school system and the teaching profession condone the appellant's publicly discriminatory conduct, or think little of it."

5. Kempling, in obviously objecting to the ruling has stated: “...Yesterday, Justice Ronald Holmes of the BC Supreme Court ruled that the BC College of Teachers was correct in suspending me for one month for letters to the editor written on my own time in my off the job capacity...(Justice Holmes) stated that my comments were discriminatory and could reasonably cause disruption to the school system. He implied that homosexual students would be unwilling to speak to me in my role as a school counsellor (sic). Justice Holmes asserted that my published comments reduced my credibility as a teacher in the eyes of students, and the public. There was no evidence presented that this was true. No evidence of a disrupted school environment was found. There were no complaints from students, parents, or my supervisors. All of my former administrators wrote letters stating that my public comments had no discernible impact on the operation of the school...”. Kempling is appealing to the BC C of A.

So, apparently without anything more than his beliefs expressed in the contents of the letters, the court found that Kempling engaged in “publicly discriminatory conduct”. Kempling did not use any “state resources” to express this belief. He was not using a “public venue as a public official”. He wrote the newspaper as a private citizen, and the newspaper thought his ideas worthy of publication.

What conclusion can you draw from the court decision except that because his privately held beliefs were made public, he could be disciplined by a disapproving professional body. I suggest that if newspaper had refused to publish the letters and instead sent them to the BCTC, the court’s reasoning would be the same. Or if Kempling spoke at a “Christian” meeting where the public was invited to attend, or even if (as I pointed out before) a copy of this letters or speech was sent to the BCTC, I suggest the result would be the same.

My question for you is: Should Teachers Colleges be allowed to discipline a member where that professional body can prove that member has publicly stated that gay marriage is “immoral”?

Lemme think about that. I am literally running out the door. But good question - though you evaded mine.

The answer to your question is, unfortunately, another question: to what extent should we limit (ie. punish) what you have termed as “messages of intolerance”, and who decides, and on what criteria, what kind of speech amounts to a “message of intolerance”?

I think the US Constitution has it right on this question, dealing with Freedom of Expression (you know, the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")
In Brandenberg v. Ohio, (1969) the US Supreme Court (in striking down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member) established a the current standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the court also has stated: “...freedom of speech is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom...”.

The ACLU in its submission to Congress on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, recognized the importance of maintaining freedom of speech, even hate speech, stating:

“...The ACLU has a long record of support for stronger protection of both free speech and civil rights. Those positions are not inconsistent. In fact, vigilant protection of free speech rights historically has opened the doors to effective advocacy for expanded civil rights protections...

The American Civil Liberties Union respectfully submits this statement to urge the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to respond by legislation to the continuing problem of an inadequate state and local response to criminal civil rights violations, but also to request that the Committee amend S. 622, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, to limit its potential chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech. The ACLU believes that the Congress can and should expand federal jurisdiction to prosecute criminal civil rights violations when state and local governments are unwilling or unable to prosecute, while also precluding evidence of mere abstract beliefs or mere membership in an organization from becoming a basis for such prosecutions....”
See http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=6939&c=102

The ACLU understands that once you start making exceptions to the First Amendment it's a very steep slippery slope and ultimately the restrictions won't be limited to hate speech, just generally unpopular speech and it is shortsighted people who advocate for weakening the traditional rule that the government cannot censor speech based on dislike of its viewpoint.

Like you, gotta run. More, later.

But you are confusing crime with civil actions. Criminal stanards are so harsh because the penalties are so severe. Your last post is irrelevant to the question of a professional misconduct herein based on freedom of expression of a religious belief. I think first you have to figure out how the idea that a statement that homosexuality is wrong is, in fact, a religious one at all? First, most Christians do not believe it to be the case and in the ranges of things referenced as wrong homosexuality falls well behind, say, currency exchange bureaus. [I may be wrong on this but the assertion either way is unproven so I can deem it in accordance with my understanding as those agaist it do.] Further, even if something is a sin, presuming to speak out in judgement against it is an error before God as well - itself a great sin or at least a heresy. Just because you claim something is a principle of the Christian faith does not make it so. Your case seems to fall on its own facts before the law is even touched.<p>So can a person be held to be free to say the silly and wrong and be protected against his or her uninformed impulses. I think you can have the protection of the freedom to do so but, at a certain point, the ramifications of bad thought and bad personal judgement start to play a point in relation to continuation of employment - especially as a guidance counsellor. Reverse the question - if a state-funded Bible College (were one to exist) fires a person for saying the opposite, that homosexuality is accepted and gays loved by God as he made them so, would you be as adamantly in favour of the freedom?<p>The person involved, however, has done the right thing by appealing. These cases are good ones which must be brought to appellate review. I just trust that the case is well financed and represented to ensure the question is answered for its broader implications which will set a standard in law of the limits of civil intolerance and the freedom of expression. One would hope that the opposing counsel has the guts to enter into an evaluation of the validity of the statements internal to the faith as well as the right to make them as there is nothing so annoying as a part of the Church deeming its own particular views not universally held "Christian".

A few points in response:

1. There was no confusion of crime with civil actions, when I indicated that the US has it right on the issue of “messages of intolerance” and freedom of speech. I thought you would have drawn the inference from my reference to the ACLU and its support for freedom of speech in the US, which is: that freedom of speech is sacrosanct in America (which as an aside, is a “free and democratic society”), and if hate speech (which may incite violence and which might be “criminal” in other jurisdictions) is worthy of protection under the First Amendment, then merely “intolerant” or “discriminatory” speech (that which Kempling was found by the BC court to have engaged in) is certainly protected, from any and all government interference including the imposition of “civil” sanctions.

2. It is interesting that you refer to this, as you seem to be suggesting that the BC court has applied a “lower threshold” to determine the correctness of the BCCT finding of a “ professional misconduct” against Kempling. The court refers to Kempling’s writings, not as involving “hate” (“criminal”?), but as being “discriminatory”(“civil”?) and perhaps you’re suggesting that as such, a lesser “civil” sanction was appropriate. And although it may not be relevant to respond on this point, a “civil” sanction can be much harsher than any “criminal” sanction - such as removing the putative offender’s right to practice in his or her chosen profession, as with the suspension meted out to Kempling - and who’s to say what he might get the next go round;

3. In this debate it should not matter one iota what the basis or source of Kempling’s belief is (it doesn’t matter that some “Christians” agree or disagree with his views); the issue is whether, right or wrong, he has the right to express such beliefs in a way that might allow the public to be aware of his beliefs. The BCCT and the BC court say no, he has no such right to express such beliefs in the public realm, as he is a teacher and guidance counselor, and such beliefs expressed publicly can and will lead to sanctions (and here’s the important point) without the necessity of providing any proof that such beliefs were acted upon by him in execution of his duties as a teacher or guidance counselor.

4. I’ll give you a better example than the state funded Bible College. How about a state funded Ontario Roman Catholic High School? The Catholics are a good example, because there is no doubt that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are morally wrong, as against God’s natural law. Teachers who apply for positions in Catholic schools are required to obtain a letter of reference from a priest with respect to their “Catholic standing”, and agree to support Catholic principles and beliefs. The Church’s position on this issue has not stopped or stifled discussion or debate on gay marriage and “gay rights” in Catholic schools in the context of the Church’s teaching on morality versus the “human rights” argument, nor has it stifled a desire to make Catholic high schools more “gay friendly”, much to the concern of many in the Church hierarchy (see for instance, www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/aug/030807a.html ). It would be difficult, in light of what happened to Kempling, to see such a similar “free and open” debate on all of these issues, including religious views on the “morality” of the gay relationship, occurring in the so-called “open” public school system in BC. Rather ironic, isn’t it, that a so-called “parochial” school system, would be more open to discuss ideas on both sides of this issue, than a so-called “public” school system. Again, in answer to your question, if and only if there was proof such beliefs were acted upon by the Bible College teacher in execution of his or her duties as a teacher, to the extent that his or her ability to continue as a teacher in that College was irreparably compromised, would there exist grounds to consider the possibility of his or her dismissal.

What you are describing is close to the Vriend case were there was an Alberta gay employee dismissed by a school who then proved that the lack of sexual orientation protection under provincial human rights statute, regulating private discrimination, was in breach of <i>The Charter</i> as it failed to recognize sexual orientation. He was right. The Charter and the values it holds are the primary law of the land. The problem your man Kempling faces is the values he was espousing were, as I said, at best tangentially religious but, more importantly, contradictory to Charter values. So does the Charter protect people for nutty statements on their private time? I am inclined to say it should not for any of the reasons you state but because I like to protect the idle and the nutty. But these statements were not subjectively stated in that I take it he was serious and aimed the statements at other people with the intention to condemn, judge, single out and encourage discrimination. Is this not like someone saying that they should have the right to shout "FIRE" in a movie theatre?

Again, the point I was trying to convey, and the point of the ACLU in defending free speech, is, to “..seek (laws) that will punish the act of discrimination, but not bigoted beliefs...”.

We are not talking about speech which “... is intended, and likely to produce, imminent lawless action...” (eg. the shout of “fire” in the crowded theater, likely to produce a stampede, with resulting physical injury or death).

In the “market place” of ideas, is it not better to have “the nutty” exposed for who they are, by letting them make their “nutty statements”, out in the open, even if it hurts and offends someone, so that all “right-thinking” people can expose them for who they are, and point out the obvious errors of their beliefs. Is this not what is necessary in a “free and democratic society” - the free discussion of ideas, however reprehensible one group or the other may find those ideas to be. The dissenting opinion in Keegstra (of which C.J. McLaughlin was a part) had it right on this point.

Are you suggesting that Kempling’s remarks are not “in good faith” nor “an opinion on a religious subject”? Because if you are, then Kempling’s case may be a portent of the future classification of any speech which characterizes the activity of sodomy as immoral, as “hate propaganda”, since it is the primary sexual activity at the heart of gay marriage, with no exemption under s.319(3)(b) of the CCC (which is: “...if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject”). Even if we don’t get that far, the other troubling part of your position is that if Kempling couldn’t be convicted of a criminal charge, he should still be the subject of some sort of “civil’ sanction, by his governing professional body who doesn’t like his public expression of his religious views. Boy, that’s a cold wind a blowing. This is what religious groups, such as the CCCB, are, in part, concerned about.

I’m not a big fan either of religious zealots like Kempling, but you dance around the issue by stating Kempling’s views were “tangentially religious” when in fact, almost every major religion teaches that gay activity is immoral or “against the natural order”, and in saying so Kempling would be supported by these religious groups - for a rather fair summary of the various religions views on the issue of gay sex go to: the article linked here.

So if Kempling was not free to express his views on the subject publicly, without sanction, why should the rabbi, priest, minister or iman be free to do so? What if Kempling’s letters to the editor had said: “I am a member of x religious group, and here is our minister’s statement of our group position on gay marriage:...etc”? Should he still be the subject of sancitons?

I think that that is your problem: every major religion does not teach that gay activity is immoral or “against the natural order”. By far the greatest content of religious organizations is on other topics. Sexual practices are miniscule matters in all faiths. The taking of these issues and making them a cornerstone of Christianity or any other faith is a falsification of the values of the faith. If they are discussed in any religious text, they are but a single footnote. Were the big issues of social justice - you know, the stuff Christ actually spoke about - given the focus that this nothing of a worry gets.<p>So you still have me with the nutty guy talking right. I do agree that free speech exposes dumb speech and is inherently good for that alone. That being said, you have not explained how his role as a guidance counsellor is not undermined by his public statements which mis-characterize the faith, discredit followers of the faith, indicate intolerance in a multi-cultural world and also indicate simple poor judgement. Aside from the content of the subject matter, can this never be a matter for review in employment? We can go back and forth but at least we know that the Court of Appeal will have its ruling to advise us.

I agree, I think we may have reached the point where we end up going round and round. But let me say this:

Kempling and those who share is beliefs might say your sweeping statement, that “..the taking of these issues and making them a cornerstone of Christianity or any other faith is a falsification of the values of the faith...” contains a moral arrogance of belief in your view of the what “Christianity” should be, a complaint which is so ironically similar to your complaint about his views, which are at the other end of the spectrum. The Gospel according to Alan v. the Gospel according to Kempling. Can you demonstrate empirically that Christ’s teachings prove your view is right, and Kempling’s wrong? Maybe this is why we have a many, many different “Christian” religions and sects in the world, and not just “one holy and apostolic faith”. And may this is why we have those other few rights, now, what are they called again? oh yeah! Freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

Furthermore, Kempling and his supporters might say your statement that “by far the greatest content of religious organizations is on other topics... sexual practices are minuscule matters in all faiths”, is, quite frankly, so astonishingly wrong it the approaches the kind of mischaracterization that you accuse Kempling of engaging in. For instance, marriage between a man and a woman is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. The “family ” (wife, husband and children) is the building block of the Catholic Church. What is the focus on Catholic family life, “procreation” and its importance to “heterosexual marriage”, but a discussion of their view of proper sexual conduct and practice within marriage? For your information the following are some of the “Christian” and other, organizations and religions that sought and obtained status on the SCC reference with respect to the proposed same-sex marriage legislation (and that's 'cause they all wanna be talking about that "minuscule, small foot note topic, that "sexual practices” thingy):
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
The Islamic Society of North America ,
The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops ,
The Catholic Civil Rights League,
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada which includes:

The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada
Apostolic Church of Pentecost of Canada Inc.
Associated Gospel Churches
Association of Vineyard Churches of Canada
Baptist Convention of Ontario & Quebec
Baptist General Conference of Canada
Baptist Union of Western Canada
Canadian Conference of the Brethren in Christ Church
Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches
Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists
Canadian Evangelical Christian Churches
Canadian Fellowship of Churches & Ministers
The Christian & Missionary Alliance in Canada
Christian Reformed Church in North America
Church of God in Canada (Anderson)
Church of God in Canada (Cleveland)
Church of the Nazarene CanadaCongregational Christian Churches in Canada
Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches
Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada
Evangelical Free Church of Canada
Evangelical Mennonite Conference
Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference, Canada
The Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada
Fellowship of Christian Assemblies of Canada
Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches
The Free Methodist Church in Canada
Foursquare Gospel Church of Canada
North American Baptists--Canada [alt. site]
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland
Regional Synod of Canada Inc., Reformed Church in America [alt. site]
The Salvation Army
United Brethren Church in Canada
Union d'Eglises Baptistes Francaises
Vision Ministries Canada
The Wesleyan Church of Canada [alt. site]
Worldwide Church of God, Canada

Can I have an "amen"? I said,"Can I have an AMEN!!"?

See - you made it a cornerstone of you faith, so it is to you. If you really think Christ had as a major tenant the stopping of homosexuality, go right ahead and set out where it is stated in his words. Is it 1% of the message? 0.0001%? What is the message of Christ? Making hateful his followers? Your links, for example, find passing reference to one lesson touching masterbation as justification. Why is it so important to focus on this small thing in life to the detriment of all else? Have you shod the shoeless or fed the hungry? Or just isolated the different? You can trust that I am not astonished by you.

Look, don’t read too much into the “astonishingly wrong” comment. The points I was trying to make, again, were these:

1. With reference to Kempling (and we seem to have gone off on this discussion) your position is that his beliefs have no foundation in Christianity, and as a result, his views are not merely intolerant, they are just plain wrong. My point was that your position may be seen as right by you and many others who think “true” Christianity has no place for Kempling’s beliefs on this issue, but there is no evidence that your position is the universally accepted view of “true Christianity”. In fact, there is available evidence to show exactly the opposite, which is that many “Christian” religious organizations believe Kempling’s view is the correct one – the evidence being, in part, the large number of “Christian” religious organizations (as I pointed out) intervening in the SCC reference case for the purpose of supporting the “traditional” definition of marriage, or for the purpose of advocating for inequality, depending on your point of view.

2. This is why, I believe, your assertion that “?first you have to figure out how the idea that a statement that homosexuality is wrong is, in fact, a religious one at all?” is a non-starter. The idea is a religious statement in the context of this debate, because Kempling and those who share his beliefs say it is. You and many others may not share this belief, you may even believe it to be hateful, but can there be any doubt that Kempling and his supporters “honestly” (although you would say, misguidedly) hold this belief to be true as a “requirement of their religious faith”? The starting point has to be that Kempling’s speech therefore is protected under the freedom of expression and freedom of religion provisions of the Charter, unless it otherwise properly limited for some other overriding reason found to be necessary “in free and democratic society”. If Kempling’s speech is protected and that protection is not so limited, then any action against him would be an infringement of his Charter rights.

3. My point again was that if Kempling was not a school teacher, and had written the letters to the editor, would government action have been taken against him (eg. charging him with a spreading “hate propaganda” or seeking a s.24 remedy under the Charter to suspend his driver’s license or restrain him from writing other letters etc.)? This question is asked because there seemed to be no problem for the BCCT or the court, in limiting Kempling’s Charter protections on the basis that he held a so-called “public” position. Is Kempling, in making public statements as a private citizen, in a different “class” of the less protected for the sole reason he holds a public position? Burrrrrrrr.

4. All religions have moral codes. All moral codes require an examination of personal conduct. An examination of personal conduct requires an examination of personal sexual activity. All major religions discuss, provide direction on and dictate the morality or immorality of certain “sexual practices” including adultery, polygamy, pre-marital intercourse, and homosexual activity, as a significant and important part of their moral codes. To say the contrary is just a wrong statement of fact. Ask any Catholic, for instance, which “sexual practices” constitute “venal” or “mortal” sins. So, to dismiss the moral codes of these Religions as “minuscule matters” is wrong, and these organizations presenting their arguments to the SCC will tell you so.

I glad you wrote again because I was unhappy where the discussion was going. It is one of the saddest things about the faith that there are such deviations based on various paths of history. As a protestant, I take little guidance from Catholicism not out of personal hatred (but, sadly, you can go back two or three generations for that) but our of a sincere belief of that that Church has mistaken much of the message. Similarly evengelicals. And I take it similarly you for hwat I am expressing. That these movements are popular or centuries old is of little matter to me. So if these positions on sexuality are taken by Christians in good faith does not in anyway make them compelling for me as a matter of proper expression of the faith. That is different from the right to make the expression and have it protected by civil society as any expression of belief. But expressions of belief in what is taken in the secular realm as civil intolerance is a balancing act. Members of my family know at least three people murdered for their sexual orientation. If there were not message of intolerance, some may be alive. This certainly particularly colours my understanding but it only layers upon my understanding of the nature of Christ's message - which is tolerant, accepting of difference and counsels non-judgement. It also rightly colours the court's receptions of messages of intolerence under <i>The Charter</i>. So, as you say, such representations will be made. I just hope for both reasons they are not accepted.

I appreciate your comments. Don’t for a minute believe that I think you are “mistaken” in what you say, or that I accept that Kempling and his supporters are the purveyors of “truth”. This is a free, open and intellectual discussion that you and I can enjoy in this society - at least up to this point in time. And that is my concern: about the future of open discussions on this and other controversial issues that some group interest might find offensive. This lead to my reference to Kempling’s treatment as creating a “chill”.

The interpretation of the US Constitution on freedom of speech and freedom of religion would appear to be one way that a “balance” of these competing Charter rights can be achieved: punish the act of discrimination, but not bigoted speech or beliefs.

With “hate crime" legislation, the ACLU stated: “"We are deeply concerned that the... proponents (of the legislation)...have focused on 'combating hate' and fighting 'hate groups.'...The focus properly should be on punishing violent acts themselves when victims were selected only because of who they.”
So, again with the Kempling thing: to “punish” him the BCCT would have to show, applying the criminal standard (since it is in the nature of a quasi-criminal “charge”) “beyond a reasonable doubt” that such “discriminatory” beliefs were actually acted upon by him in execution of his duties as a teacher, or guidance counselor.

Look, if you guys are kicking me out of the house, I want back my share of the rent money - I'm paid up to the end of the month - I want all my albums and books back that you guys have lent out without my permission to your friends, and the stereo - you remember, its MY stereo - and I'm taking Mr. Jingles too, since I'm the only one who looks after him. That's right, Mr. Jingles is coming with me!

Not kicked out - just off the front page. I have a few long threads that are off "Active Conversations" but please post anywhere and when the BC CA ruling comes out make sure I know so we can pick it up.