The Prom is On

May 10, 2002 11:51 AM

The Prom is On for a gay teen who wants to take his boyfriend to his prom at a Roman Catholic school, as ordered by the court. This dispute has been making news in Canada for a few weeks. I thought it an interesting story because it touches on sexuality, morality, law, the church and education all at once. I wasn't out when my prom came around, so I went with a friend who knew about me. We had a blast, but a more romantic date would have been nice too.
posted by holycola (31 comments total)

Interesting. I wonder how it would have played out in the US rather than Canada.

I disagree with the decision in this instance. If it were a public school I'd agree with it, but to force a religious-based school to accept something counter to their teachings seems to me to be wrong.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:14 PM on May 10, 2002

Good! I thought that this would be the likely outcome, and I'm very pleased — and relieved. Canadian Press coverage via the Globe and Mail web site here.
posted by mcwetboy at 12:16 PM on May 10, 2002

How rediculous.

(And why would a gay person to go a catholic school anyway?)
posted by delmoi at 12:20 PM on May 10, 2002

(And why would a gay person to go a catholic school anyway?)

Maybe because they're Catholic? Is this a trick question?
posted by kindall at 12:25 PM on May 10, 2002

If I understood it correctly, this Catholic school was receiving state funding, and therefore was considered subject to the antidiscrimination laws.
posted by thomas j wise at 12:32 PM on May 10, 2002

That's a silly question, delmoi. He's Catholic. Beyond that, it's secondary school, so the choice is probably much more his parent's than his own.

I am really surprised by this ruling, though (but I'm a U.S. citizen who is only moderately familiar with Canadian government, and not the least bit familiar with Canadian jurisprudence)... how can the court justify forcing a religious institution to in essence condone a practice that runs counter to the institution's religious principles?

Any Canadian lawyers out there?
posted by silusGROK at 12:32 PM on May 10, 2002

If it were a public school I'd agree with it, but to force a religious-based school to accept something counter to their teachings seems to me to be wrong.

You may not be aware of this, but in Ontario, while Catholic schools are seperate, they still receive public funding.

And. I finished my high-school in Catholic Ontario school system, and didn't recieve an OUNCE of religious instruction. It's not mandatory.
posted by jkaczor at 12:33 PM on May 10, 2002

So is the Catholic school system in Ontario analogous to a charter school system in the U.S.? If so, it certainly would explain the ruling.
posted by silusGROK at 12:34 PM on May 10, 2002

delmoi..

I understand ( i think) that you are saying " why would he put up with the abuse (in all forms, including the sanctioned religious variety)?"

i don't know, maybe he is trying to prove some kind of point??? like women trying to attend the citadel? like blacks trying to ride in the front of the bus or eat at the counter at a diner? maybe he likes getting catholics all worked up?(not trying to be shitty, i really don't know, and I am offering (possible?) reasons)
posted by das_2099 at 12:34 PM on May 10, 2002

The relevant section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is section 15, the equality rights provision. While sexual orientation is not explicity set out in this provision, equality rights are not limited to what is set out "in particular", and I believe Canadian courts have been reading sexual orientation into this provision for some time. (See also Nyx's post on the 20th anniversary of the Charter.) PS: IANAL.
posted by mcwetboy at 12:35 PM on May 10, 2002

(And why would a gay person to go a catholic school anyway?)

Because the arts and sports programs are better than a regular public school. Because the quality of instruction was "supposedly" better.

In my experience, having attended both Ontario's catholic school system, and Alberta's public school system, the catholic school was lagging behind the public by about a year... but that probably had more to do with systems that had 13 versus 12 years of education."
posted by jkaczor at 12:35 PM on May 10, 2002

"..in Ontario, while Catholic schools are seperate, they still receive public funding."

You're correct, I was not aware of that. That would change my opinion.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:42 PM on May 10, 2002

(And why would a gay person to go a catholic school anyway?)

If his parents chose the school, it's not his fault or problem.

Besides, even if he actively chose the school, I think the charter of rights applies to all citizens, including minors. Discrimination is still discrimination, if I started a religion that excluded others based on skin color, it would not be legal, would it?
posted by jkaczor at 12:45 PM on May 10, 2002

(And why would a gay person to go a catholic school anyway?)

To become a preist, of course.

(flame away)
posted by jeff-o-matic at 1:03 PM on May 10, 2002

To become a preist, of course.

hooo hooo haa, the first to post what many where thinking. At least then he'd be able to play his "one strike" card, eh?

The Catholic church has really gotta pull it's head outta it's ass. (Bad turn of phrase in this case, butt appropriate, damn there I go again)
posted by jkaczor at 1:08 PM on May 10, 2002

Why should a Catholic school be forced to either accept or support behavior diametrically opposed to the religious beliefs upon which the school was founded? This is akin to a student at an all-Jewish school demanding the cafeteria serve pork products, a Mormon student lobbying for caffeinated beverages, or a Scientologist asking the Operating Thetans to stop exploding people's heads with mere thought.

If the answer to this question is, "Because they're receiving public funding", then the school's course of action is clear, assuming they want control of their own school.
posted by Danelope at 2:36 PM on May 10, 2002

this kid rocks the fuck out. i remember when senoir prom came around for my boyfriend and i, we weren't allowed to go as a couple (tennessee, 1987). so we teamed up with some friends - a lesbian couple - and posed as a double straight-date. we switched at the prom. worked like a charm.
posted by patricking at 3:02 PM on May 10, 2002

(danelope... while I appreciate the mention, caffeinated drinks are not proscribed by the faith, though some hedge the law--sorry, I just want to nip that idea in the bud. Perhaps it would be more akin to a kid at a mormon school demanding a smoking zone.)
posted by silusGROK at 3:08 PM on May 10, 2002

If the answer to this question is, "Because they're receiving public funding", then the school's course of action is clear, assuming they want control of their own school.

There has been a publicly supported system of separate Catholic school boards in Ontario since 1930. Here is a list of those boards.

I would say the chance of any of these school boards deciding to go without public funding is about the same as a that of a church volunteering to pay taxes.
posted by timeistight at 3:13 PM on May 10, 2002

this kid rocks the fuck out. i remember when senoir prom came around for my boyfriend and i, we weren't allowed to go as a couple (tennessee, 1987). so we teamed up with some friends - a lesbian couple - and posed as a double straight-date. we switched at the prom. worked like a charm.
posted by patricking at 3:14 PM on May 10, 2002

If the answer to this question is, "Because they're receiving public funding"...

That's precisely the answer to the question. You can't tell someone what to believe, but if you want public money, you have to obey the Charter.
posted by transient at 3:32 PM on May 10, 2002

Discrimination is still discrimination, if I started a religion that excluded others based on skin color, it would not be legal, would it?
Actually it is legal, you can join if you are black. Its the Nation of Islam.
And lots of other kinds of discrimination are legal and decent.
posted by Keen at 3:38 PM on May 10, 2002

Didn't want to post, but felt compelled to after reading Keen's post:

Its the Nation of Islam.

Of course, singling out a black racist group without pointing to white racist churches, like the World Church of the Creator (whose motto is "Racial Holy War") or the KKK (who light crosses in recognition of the fact that "Jesus is the true light of the world"), would be racist.

PS -- congratulations to this boy and to Canada for this decision.
posted by robcorr at 8:12 PM on May 10, 2002

The year before I graduated a bisexual friend of mine wasn't allowed to take another girl to the prom. The next year a straight girl was allowed to take another girl to the prom. I'm wondering if the sexual orientation of the first girl was known and had anything to do with the decision, or the school just changed its regulations (or they're inconsistant).
posted by ODiV at 8:42 PM on May 10, 2002

patricking: Love that story, and I like your style.
posted by holycola at 8:44 PM on May 10, 2002

Margaret Wente (The Globe and Mail) gets the last word on the Marc Hall story: "I don't suppose that many Catholics will be scandalized by Marc Hall's prom date. They're much more scandalized by the scandals in their own church. Most of them believe that if anyone's disordered, it's a church hierarchy that's even more incapable of dealing with criminal sex acts than it is with legal ones. Top church officials have zero tolerance for homosexuals with a romantic life, for priestly marriage, or for ordaining women, but they're not so sure about zero tolerance for their own sex offenders."
posted by mcwetboy at 6:26 AM on May 11, 2002

Most excellent story, and more power to Marc Hall. Kid's got intestinal fortitude (I would have said balls, but, you know...). Bet he'll go far in life.

Others upstream have referred to the exact correct answer about taking public money and having to obey the laws. Living in the hometown of the Citadel, it amazed me how obvious the answer was when they went through their little issues a few years ago - if you don't want to admit someone, and that doesn't violate the laws, then more power to you (however right or wrong your decision may be morally.)

But take public money, and your right to be cliquish evaporates, as well it should.
posted by ebarker at 10:21 AM on May 11, 2002

Of course, singling out a black racist group without pointing to white racist churches, ...would be racist.

THAT'S your definition of racist? Does it apply in reverse?
posted by HTuttle at 10:45 AM on May 11, 2002

I thought that a prom was supposed to be a fun evening of dinner and social dancing, designed to help teenagers become more comfortable with dancing and mingling in mixed company. Prom isn't a Rite of Spring fertility ritual, it's just a dance. Why can't students just come with a friend, of either gender?
posted by sheauga at 4:17 PM on May 11, 2002

No, that's not a definition of racism. It's an example of racism.
posted by robcorr at 12:25 AM on May 12, 2002

Somebody explain to me exactly why an irrational belief, with undesirable consequences, is respected if it is labelled 'religious', but the same belief labelled 'political' is given the contempt it deserves?

Q: Why should a Catholic school be forced to either accept or support behavior diametrically opposed to the religious beliefs upon which the school was founded?

A: Because the religious beliefs on which the school was founded are provably irrational, provably harmful, and overwhelmingly likely to be completely untrue.

Beliefs deserve respect by virtue of their content, not their age.

Ash.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:34 PM on May 12, 2002