🚀 go-pugleaf

Being as since I _am_ bisexual, I suppose it's fair for me to comment on 
this...

In article 
<Pine.A41.3.95.980402125511.30972D-100000@fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
, Socred <socred@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:

>THE ALBERTA SOCIAL CREDIT PARTY - OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE
>April 2, 1998
>
>"It's time for moral leadership, not political correctness, invoke
>the notwithstanding clause"
>

I AGREE.

>Randy Thorsteinson, Leader of the Alberta Social Credit Party extended
>a challenge to Premier Ralph Klein.
>
>"With today's decision in the Delwin Vriend case by the Supreme Court
>a major test of moral leadership has been placed before Premier Ralph
>Klein. It is time for Mr. Klein to display moral leadership by rejecting
>the decision of the Supreme Court and invoke the notwithstanding clause
>of the Constitution. The Court's decision is a fundamental attack on
>the moral fabric of our society and will certainly lead to a radical shift
>in our rights."
>

I agree but for (I think) different reasons.

>"There are basically five major areas of concern that will come about
>as a result of this decision."
>
>1.) Redefinition of the Family
>
>I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God
>and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal
>destiny of His children. This ruling will lead to a new definition
>of the family by ultimately recognizing homosexual marriage and adoption.
>

I don't...I'm an atheist. I don't think it's the governments place to decide 
what is or isn't a family. I think it is a *family's* right to define 
themselves--BUT I DO NOT think it is correct to force others to accept my 
definition. The government should be neutral on this--granting special favours 
and priviledges to _no-one_.

>2.) Eventual recognition of Paedophilia
>
>Nothing is more repulsive than the sexual exploitation and desecration
>of children. This decision will eventually legitimize paedophiles. Their
>argument will rest on this decision, they will argue that they cannot be 
>discriminated against because of their "sexual orientation". Eventually 
>they will be successful in this challenge.
>

I hope and think not. Minors are a special case. Be a paedophile--I don't care 
who you adore--but ACT on it with someone under the age of consent and you 
should be subject to penalties. Sexual preference here is irrelevant.

>3.) Erosion of Parental Rights
>
>This decision will remove a Parent's right to choose who works with
>their children. Parents will not be allowed to refuse a homosexual
>hockey coach or scout leader. Parents will not be allowed to
>"discriminate" against homosexual predators such as the infamous Graham
>James, coach of the Calgary Hitmen.
>

That is a problem for the public schools etc that supercedes the strict issue 
of homosexuality. I don't particularly like socialists or religious zealots 
teaching my children, either--but that is a problem of a collectivized and 
compulsory state-run school system. I agree with and support parental rights 
over the directives of the State. Let gay hockey coaches provide their 
services on the open market, and let those who _choose_ them for coach 
positions send _their_ kids. James was not wrong because he was gay; he was 
wrong because he was a sexual predator.

>4.) Erosion of Religious Freedom
>
>The decision should send shivers down the backs of people of all faiths.
>Churches will no longer be allowed to "discriminate" against people for
>their sexual orientation. Churches will eventually be forced to accept
>homosexual clergy and homosexual marriage. The government will be
>redefining what is politically correct and acceptable. We will eventually
>shift from religious freedom to state mandated religious beliefs and
>practices.
>

Churches should have the full right to act according to their conscience--as 
should _all_ private organizations and individuals. That means the Scouts 
should be able to say *no* to gay leaders, landlords should have the right to 
refuse to rent to people because they are gay or straight and churches should 
be able to decide for themselves whether they will or will not accept gay or 
bisexual leaders--at that point, the parishoners can decide whether they wish 
to continue to attend or not. The real issue is who_does_the_thing 
/organization /apartment building / business_belong_to! The essential problem 
here is the erosion of _property_ rights.

>5.) Unselected judges should not make law
>
>The laws of the land should be made by the people of Alberta through
>their elected representatives, not through an unelected body in Ottawa.
> 

The majority can be as equally misguided as any given party in power. The real 
issue is more essential than that: The real issue is...what is the proper 
concern of the state and what is not. 

>"It is time for Mr. Klein to demonstrate some courage and moral
>leadership. The notwithstanding clause should be used in only rare,
>extremely critical circumstances. This is such a situation, as the
>very moral foundation of our society is at stake."
>
>"Those of us who oppose this decision will be branded as homophobic.

As you can see, I do not share that view.

>The reality is that we are not homophobic but rather our critics are
>moralphobic."
> 

No--they are not moralphobic--if anything they are so certain of their 
morality that they feel they have the right to impose their decision on all 
and sundry.

>CONTACT:
>
>Randy Thorsteinson 
>Party Leader
>
>The Alberta Social Credit Party
>Toll Free: 1-888-SOCRED-1
>http://www.bridgecom.net/socred/ 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Ron