A Canadian Hero Emerges


Patrick Craine reports from Canada about Sportsnet firing Damian Goddard after he used his personal twitter account to express his views on marriage:

One of Canada’s leading TV sports broadcasters fired one of its anchors Wednesday after he voiced support for true marriage on Twitter.

Damian Goddard, the now-former host of “Connected” on Rogers Sportsnet, had tweeted his support of Burlington hockey agent Todd Reynolds, who created a stir this week when he criticized New York Rangers hockey star Sean Avery for shooting a TV ad backing gay “marriage.”

Sportsnet had distanced themselves from the comments on their own Twitter account.  They announced Wednesday that Goddard had been fired and did not specify the reasons.

... Nevertheless, Goddard is standing by the comments.  “In terms of what I said, I stand by it,” he told the Toronto Star. “I’m a devout Roman Catholic. It’s not about hate at all.”


  1. marriageequality=oneman+onewoman
    Posted May 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Good for him, and may he soon find new employment with an employer who practices tolerance instead of just preaching it.

  2. JT1962
    Posted May 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    They had the right to fire him and they did. Good for them and I wish him the best in finding a new job with a company that suits his beliefs.

  3. Sean
    Posted May 13, 2011 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    I applaud his former employer's intolerance of intolerance! I hope this gentleman finds a new job soon.

  4. John Noe
    Posted May 13, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Just read the report on the above blog. Can you believe it? All of the above comments were in support of the sportscaster and against the network. Nice to know there are people of principal that are standing up.
    I love the part of this is not about hate. Of course it is about hate. The SSM advocates and hatefull left cannot defend their position from the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman.
    Hence: We see more intolerance from the left as they wish to silence any opposition. Comply or lose your job. They are the ones preaching hate and paracticing hate not us.
    I loved the part also about the sign in the window of a tenant in the apartment that read marriage is one man and one woman. The intolerant left demanded that the sign be removed.

  5. Eric
    Posted May 13, 2011 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Let's say you're a woman and the boss of someone who walks around the office making sexist comments. tweeting about how women are leser than men, etc.? Should he be fired, or would the right thing be to let him keep his job (and therefore practice this so-called "tolerance"?)

  6. Carry wood
    Posted May 13, 2011 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    Eric, what is intolerant about protecting the institution of marriage, protecting children, our religious freedoms and liberties? Hardly a valid or logical comparison to sexist comments and workplace discrimination.

  7. Eric
    Posted May 14, 2011 at 12:35 am | Permalink

    It's intolerant because you're saying that gay people and their relationships are lesser than straight relationships. You're saying that gay people are not capable or worthy of being viewed by the law as equal. You are saying that one group of human beings is worse than another, based on an unchangeable trait. It is discrimination, and it is the same.

  8. ConservativeNY
    Posted May 14, 2011 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    People can be treated equally, but not relationships and behavior. Otherwise, all laws would be unconstitutional and discriminatory. And the claim that being gay is an "unchangeable trait" is a religious tenant based on faith, not fact.

    Each year thousands of men, women and teens with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality. Consequently, formerly gay persons are reviled and scorned for being living proof that homosexuality is not a universal constant!

  9. Mike Brooks
    Posted May 14, 2011 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Hey Conservative -

    Interesting, I had just visited the pfxo site the other day, trying to determine how prevalent ex-gays are in society. I found not only that site, but the Exodus site, which is apparently the largest ex-gay organization, a whole Wiki article devoted to the subject, as well as a couple of other sites including NARTH, which I had already known about.

    Ex-gays apparently have their own coming-out issues for several reasons, including: fear of attacks on them by homosexuals who resen/deny their existence, as well as the fact that many of them are ashamed of their previous homosexual lives and just want to live their normal lives.

    The existence of ex-gays is a powerful counter-argument to the "born that way," "not a choice," "who I am," nonsense of homosexuals. But there is not much incentive for these people to reveal themselves and advocate against homosexuals. I suspect that there is a huge group who we might never hear from, especially if the homosexual radicals have any say about it..

  10. Eric
    Posted May 14, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Forgot to mention that one of the founding members of Exodus International has since defected, is living in a stable relationship with another man, and has since denounced the idea of "ex-gay" therapy...

    What a farce. In fact, the APA has recommended that “ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.”

  11. ConservativeNY
    Posted May 14, 2011 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Eric, even the American Psychological Association has renounced the notion that homosexuality is genetic. Their new statement is:

    "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

    The claim that people are "born that way" is a lie.

  12. Mike Brooks
    Posted May 14, 2011 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    Eric -

    Thousands upon thousands of ex-gays and you're telling me about the founder going back to the lifestyle? Powerful argument there.

    APA is infiltrated with homosexuals; it has no credibility anymore with respect to homsexuality since it yanked homosexuality off the dsm in 1973.

  13. marriageequality=oneman+onewoman
    Posted May 15, 2011 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    "It's intolerant because you're saying that gay people and their relationships are lesser than straight relationships. You're saying that gay people are not capable or worthy of being viewed by the law as equal. You are saying that one group of human beings is worse than another, based on an unchangeable trait. It is discrimination, and it is the same."

    Actually, it is people with a same-sex sexual attraction who are saying they are incapable of entering into a marriage relationship, with a member of the opposite sex. Such people are saying they are unable to comply with the law. They are implying that they are incapable of being treated equally by the law, which makes no stipulation on sexual identity. The only people who think "gays" (which is a political identity) are lesser than everyone else, are gays. Marriage between a man and a woman is neither gay, nor straight. It is opposite-sexed. Marriage between a man and a woman does not prohibit a gay person from enjoying and creating the relationship of their choice. Those with a same-sex sexual attraction are looking to neuter the marriage relationship so that society will be forced to validate the homosexual lifestyle choice, even though neither marriage between a man and a woman nor same-sex "marriage" make any stipulations as to sexual identity. Bottom line: redefining marriage to suit a homosexual identity lifestyle choice will not gain "gay" persons the social approval they seek, but will weaken the value society places on marriage and its ability to tie men and women, not only to each other, but to their own biological offspring. Redefining marriage is too high a price for society to pay simply to bolster low self-esteem.

  14. Eric
    Posted May 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    So the APA states that no one knows if it's genetic or not. True. It still does not change the fact that it's not a choice, and it still doesn't change the fact that it cannot truly be changed. The outcomes of most "ex-gay" therapies is that a person learns to deny his or her own sexual orientation, choosing to remain celibate for the rest of their lives.

    And yes, I do think that it speaks volumes to the legitimacy of an organization that claims to be able to create "ex-gays" when even the founder of such an ideal denies its effectiveness. And of course, every organization that regards homosexuality as normal is obviously INFILTRATED by gay people. Only gay people ever accept other gay people.

  15. ConservativeNY
    Posted May 16, 2011 at 1:42 am | Permalink

    There have been thousands of people who have switched their sexual behavior from gay to straight or from straight to gay throughout their lives. Not to mention the fact that there are thousands of identical twins in which one twin is gay and the other is straight. If homosexuality were determined by DNA, that would be impossible.

    Thousands of ex-homosexuals not only testify of their change, but have married and had children with members of the opposite sex. Renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, documented those changes. His studies shows that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from gay to straight through reorientation therapy.

    And Spitzer is no propagandist for the religious right. In fact, he was considered a hero by gay activists for getting homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder in 1973.

    The insistence that being gay is not a choice is a claim based on religious faith, not fact.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.