Queers should keep the pressure on Obama
GODLESS WORLD / How about a protest of his inauguration?
Krishna Rau / National / Monday, January 05, 2009
Share |

He hasn't even taken office yet and already Barack Obama is turning on his gay and lesbian supporters.

Obama's decision to choose evangelical pastor Rick Warren — one of the leaders in California's anti-gay marriage fight — to deliver the inaugural invocation sends a clear message. And it's not the one of inclusion and diversity Obama keeps trying to paint it as.

The popular perception is that the Republicans are the party of religious conservatives, but the fact is that Obama won, in part, because he received considerable support from Catholics and Baptists, especially in the African-American and Hispanic communities. And in California, those forces came down solidly against gay marriage.

Warren called gay marriage "a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.

"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion — not just Christianity — has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren wrote in a newsletter to his congregation. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease two percent of our population."

So Obama's choice of Warren makes it apparent that he's playing the numbers game, choosing to placate his anti-gay supporters from the very start rather than reach out to queer voters who vociferously fought for him. As an added bonus, by using a Christian conservative who opposed gay marriage, Obama will also be able to please conservative Muslims, Mormons and other religious types.

Obama is no doubt assuming that queer voters have nowhere else to turn. And while his administration continues to oppose gay marriage, Obama will throw gays a bone, probably overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allowing gays and lesbians to be killed in Iraq or Afghanistan like everybody else.

Angry, and mostly young, queers and their supporters took to the streets across the US after the passage of Proposition Eight. They wanted to send the message to churches and religious leaders that they weren't going to take the attacks any more.

Hopefully that attitude will extend to Obama as well. If Obama is made to realize that by betraying his queer supporters, he will invite four years of protests and risk a large chunk of his backing in 2012, he may reconsider which side his bread is buttered on.

It's probably not easy to mount a high-profile protest of an inauguration. But it sure would be nice to see.

***



Christian Horizons' appeal of an Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) decision from April will be heard in the new year by the Ontario Divisional Court.

Christian Horizons (CH), a Kitchener-based evangelical organization providing care for developmentally disabled people in group homes, was found by the OHRC to have violated the province's human rights code by firing an employee because she is a lesbian.

The OHRC also ordered CH to stop requiring employees to sign a lifestyle and morality contract that, among other things, prohibits homosexual relationships.

The OHRC tribunal ruled that because CH accepted clients of all backgrounds and because sexual orientation was not relevant to the job, the organization could not discriminate against Connie Heintz.

A number of religious groups — including the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Canadian Council of Christian Charities, and the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops — are seeking intervener status in support of CH. These groups will argue that the "special employment" provisions of the Human Rights Code permits certain organizations to restrict hiring.

If the appeal is successful, religious charities will be free to hire only those who share their beliefs and to fire those who don't, like gays.

So what, you might say. Who wants to work for a bunch of homophobes anyway? Well, it's not that simple. More and more, governments are downloading social services to religious groups. Which means that if you're gay and you want to work for a charity, it may very well involve working for a church.

More importantly, if the appeal is successful, it's not hard to guess what the next step will be. Not only will they fire any queers on staff, these charities are likely to take it as a green light to go to the next level and stop accepting queers as clients.

In the economic climate that we're facing today, it could be disastrous if religious-run shelters or soup kitchens are able to turn away gays.

Now the April OHRC decision did not address the fact that CH is funded almost entirely by the Ontario government or whether it would have made a difference if its clients were exclusively Christian evangelicals. And I'm not a lawyer, so hopefully I'm overreaching. Nonetheless, the implications are extremely worrying.

***



The Vatican unleashed the rhetoric over a non-binding UN declaration put forward by the European Union that condemned discrimination "based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

The Vatican said it opposes the declaration because it would force countries to "de-criminalize" same-sex unions.

Monsignor Celestino Migliore, the Vatican's permanent observer at the UN, said the church opposes "unjust discrimination" against homosexuals. But apparently the Vatican sees no choice but to put up with the imprisonment, torture and execution of gays around the world because heterosexual marriages are so fragile that millions of them will fall apart if such declarations pass.

The resolution attracted the signatures of only 66 out of 192 member nations. One was Canada's. Russia, China and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference all refused to sign. So did the US.

Think things would be different under Obama? I wouldn't bet on it.

***



It's a bit late to bring this up, but have you been to see Twilight? Or read any of Stephanie Meyer's bestselling books? Well, Meyer is a Mormon who donates 10 percent of her earnings to her church, which uses it to fund massive anti-gay marriage campaigns in California.

If you're looking for a good movie about vampires and adolescence, allow me to recommend instead the Swedish film Let the Right One In. It's wonderfully creepy and poignant, and its creators actually have a mature approach to sexuality.
 

 



Share |


Reader Comments


 
Heintz v Christian Horizons
Krishna, thank you for raising the Christian Horizons case in your column. 2 points that may be of assistance. First, please note that your point re turning away gays as clients is actually what might happen IF the decision of the OHRT is upheld. If the appeal is successful then religious organizations would be able to hire co-religionists in order to continue serving people on a non-discriminatory basis. Second, please don't label all religious people and organizations as homophobes. Your concern about gays and lesbians potentially losing the assistance these organizations provide is evidence that there can be disagreement on beliefs and practices without discrimination in assisting those in need. Don Hutchinson Vice-President & General Legal Counsel The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Don Hutchinson, Ottawa Ontario
01/06/09 10:01 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Re: Heintz v Christian Horizons
Thank you for posting your opinion on the matter, Don. While many may not agree with what you have to say, it is important for all sides to speak on this matter... AND now for my disagreement with your analysis. What you have suggested is a duality wherein the LGBT community can receive social services or can work to provide said services, something which goes against all sense of logic and egalatarianism. Why is it that an organization which is mostly funded by the provincial government can decide or even put forward the notion that it has the right to discriminate? Given that the group you represent has as its mission helping those with profound needs, how can you even suggest that you would turn away someone with Downs Syndrome because they might express homosexual or transgendered inklings? Is sexuality even relevant in the provision of social services? My answer would be no. Additionally, if this is the stance of yours and other similar organizations I would question their relevance to the modern world. Why should public monies go to organizations which see fit to draw arbitrary lines in those who they will and will not help? The right to discriminate in hiring practices is something that exists but it exists for those who do without the public purse or those who have very narrow community/faith-based mandates, neither of which apply to your organization. Ergo, if it is so important to maintain particular moral standards which exist outside the words of Jesus and in the backwards and sometimes genocidal Old Testament, my suggestion would be to not accept provincial funds so that they may go to a more inclusive, if "less godly", organization.
Chris Rowlinson, Mississauga Ontario
01/16/09 12:14 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Heintz v Christian Horizons
Chris, I appreciate your posting. Please note that governments across Canada have funded and worked cooperatively with religious and non-religious organizations in the provision of services for well over a century. Organizations like Christian Horizons (CH) provide their service on a non-discriminatory basis. The Human Rights Tribunal decision, if it stands, would require CH and other religious organizations to start discriminating in the provision of services by serving only co-religionists OR give up the religious identity that compels them to serve in a non-discriminatory fashion as an expression of their foundational faith beliefs. CH, and many faith-based organizations like it, is selective in hiring precisely because of their religious "orientation" - shared by all staff as their motivation for service. Service, by the way, that goes beyond what the public dollar pays for because of their religious motivation. As to the relevance of religious organizations in the modern world, there are over 6,000 Evangelical Christian organizations alone in the province of Ontario providing loving faith-based service on a non-discriminatory basis to the homeless, poor, developmentally disabled, emergency disaster relief, international humanitarian aid and development, etc. There are religious and non-religious organizations undertaking similar work precisely because we have different motivations for engaging to make a difference. There is room for all of us in our pluralist democracy.
Don Hutchinson, Ottawa Ontario
01/21/09 10:44 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Heintz v Christian Horizons
Don, having reviewed the decision it is clear that the major issue is not that your organization is religious but that it is using that religion to discriminate. I was actually quite amused at, having reviewed your lifestyle and morality statement and the hiring requirements for Ms. Heintz's position, neither actually require staff to BE Christian, just to accept it as the fundamental basis of the organization. So they don't have to be Christian, but they can't be queer. Is sexual orientation really such a deal breaker? In fact, this lifestyle and morality statement is itself a fairly recent innovation for CH. Previously it was good enough that employees testified to their faith and conducted themselves professionally. I am sure at other organizations where these sorts of statements are now employed, it was similar. There was no demand to be allowed institutionalized prejudice. If this is going to be the progression, if this will be the new standard, then yes, religious organizations do not belong in the modern social fabric. Discrimination is not ok. Discrimination to the using $75 million in government funding annually even more so.
Chris Rowlinson, Mississauga Ontario
01/25/09 10:00 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Queers against Obama
Of COURSE the only queer person out there in cyberspace who sees through Obama's carefully branded facade is a Canadian. I hope to become a resident of your great country myself in aboot 2 years. Not all American queers are delusional Obamaniacs who think he's the new messiah. The vast majority do though, and the self-proclaimed "progressives" down here in the States are so pathetically misinformed (or so deeply in denial) that they respond like rabid dogs to the slightest criticism of His Holiness. "Liberals" & "progressives" think Obama actually shares their values, while conservatives actually refer to the center-right bastard as a "socialist". God bless America. For an interesting take on one queer's perspective re: the Obama delusion, Rick Warren, etc check out: http://www.gaysagainstobama.org
Elian, acity usa
02/07/09 11:24 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.