Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

That's what I've tried explaining as well. Let's put it this way Gnarf, if somehow the state decides that all churches regardless of doctrine must marry gay couples, I'll be first one in line to back you on that fight.

Well, back you in spirit anyway. You live in Canada, and thus, I have no right to protest.

 

Gah! I can't believe this is actually official!

To quote the Bible:
"Sinners will rot in Hell. And zealots too. Not to mention creators of 'reality' T.V. shows. But as for gays - well, they always dress nicely, and heaven knows we could use a properly stylish dress code up here. And two heads are better than one, so what the heck."
(Taken from the unoffical version.)

 

Well, this thread has surpassed my other one -- I seem to have a recent talent for causing trouble and then vanishing for a while -- sorry!

What concerns me is that the rights of certain groups to conscientiously object to engaging in particular behaviour is being eroded. As the law currently stands, a civil servant who administers marriages (a Justice of the Peace, for example) is now obligated to perform a marriage between two homosexuals. If he refuses to perform said marriage, he could lose his job. Why? Because he is "discriminating" against the gays.

But here's the problem -- he has serious moral problems with marrying gays. If goes against everything he believes in. Note that he is not standing in front of the courthouse with a shotgun stopping the gay marriage, he is merely stating that for reasons of personal belief, he does not wish to be the one officiating at that ceremony.

There are plenty of people willing to perform these ceremonies, so why is it that those who do not wish to risk losing their jobs? The answer is that the cycle of history has been turned upside down. In ages past, failure to acknowledge a particular religious belief system could result in loss of government employment. Now, failure to repudiate a religious belief system (as symbolized by forcing someone to do something repugnant to their belief system) can result in loss of government employment.

The Gays and their supporters, in this scenario, are using the Charter to club people into buying their belief system. If it's wrong for religions to do it, it's wrong for other belief systems to do it. If the Gays wish to marry, fine (they've had civil unions here for ages) but don't force someone who does not share your views to be a part of it. There are plenty of other pastors and JPs willing to perform the ceremony.

 

Now that would be a problem. Couldn't he just pass it off to another Justice?

>"Hey, Bill. You wanna take this one?"
>"Yeah, sure. I know you don't agree with that kind of thing. I am pretty loaded down at the moment, though. Do you think you could take this other thing for me so I got time?"
>"Oh, of course. I'd be glad to. Thanks."
>"You too, Jim."

Is this not permitted in Canada?

 

Oh, believe me, it has. I'd share the highlights of it but I'd wear out the following keys real fast:

c,b,n,a,s,d,f,g,h,k,l,e,r,m,h,t,y,u,i,o,p.

I think that's all the letters involved in George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on television in all their various grammatical forms...

Damn! I was so worried about some homosexual with an axe to grind against Religion that I forgot about the poor civil servants that may be forced perform such ceremonies under the law...

 

That doesn't leave a lot. You missed out Q, I'm sure Queers would have been used fairly a lot, probably preceeded by f*ckin'. That leaves J, V, W, X and Z (you repeated H btw)

Prizes for anyone who can come with a decent swearword including one or more of these letters

 

Felinoid, what you suggest would make sense, so of course it's not possible!!

I've heard some rumbling that they want to approach it like an employee failing to do his duty -- he can't just pass it off to someone else, according to this framework. I understand that at least one marriage commissioner has already been fired, though I hesitate to say too much as I have yet to see all the facts in that particular case.

 

So what determines which justice gets which duties? I can't imagine any one person would be allowed to manipulate justices by deliberately giving them duties that they would refuse to perform, and thereby being able to fire a specific justice for no good reason.

Right?

 

Well, first of all LKD, you´re right. This topic does belong in the Alley of Dangerous Angles.
Did you really expect that this would not turn into a discussion about religion. We´re talking gaymarriages here. This is a forum about politics. And you should know that whenever people mix politics and religion, the... ehmmm.... feces hit the fan.

That being said, I support gaymarriages. Perhaps I find it a little odd, but I would never deny two people the same rights that I have, even a couple of the same sex. But hey, I´m probably not a whole lot better, since I base my personal opinion on my own scientific/evolutionary point of view, which perhaps could be seen as a religion of sorts. Even from that point of view it doesn´t make a whole lot of sence. Basically, two men are going to have to be rather optimistic if they plan on having offspring. VERY optimistic indeed!

But I´m still not going to deny a minority of the public the same rights as the majority, no matter how odd I might find it. Simple as that.

 

I really don't think you'll find much disagreement on this point. If nobody seems to have a big problem with authorising civil unions for homosexual couples, and if no-one is forced against their beliefs or religion to perform a marriage service for a homosexual couple, then where is the problem?

Surely there would be some form of register or booking in advance for celebrants - this isn't Vegas, it's Canada. Obviously, an authorised celebrant who is personally opposed to uniting two men or two women should put their hand up for heterosexual marriages and offer to pick up the numbers for those who are not so opposed. Everybody wins (unless they have a zealous opposition to gay civil unions and see it as another step down a slippery slope, but they probably wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a public burning).

If someone has an axe to grind against homosexuality or religion, fine - let them. They have as much right to that expression as anyone. If they start trying to impose their views over their perceived opponents, they should be put back into line very sharply, since no-one should have any legal authority to dictate belief or dogma (religious or otherwise) to anybody. In short: sh*t in your own nest, not someone else's.

I'm guessing "Shazbot!" doesn't count?

 

On the local news tonight the Premier of Alberta stated that legally there is little they can do right now -- a law is a law and people are obligated to follow it. He did say that politically he will continue to lobby against this sort of thing.

The report also stated that a law is currently in the works that will ensure that any Commissioner or other person who is opposed to this sort of thing is not forced to be involved. The report did not say whether or not that law was a Federal one or a Provincial one, though I'd bet it's Alberta working on the draft and not Ottawa.

 

I don't think this is really a problem for bigger cities since in those I'd imagine the work could be delegated to those who have no problem performing it. On the other hand there are plenty of small towns in Canada where there are not that many persons who have the authority to perform civil marriages. In those towns it may become a problem. I'd suggest a system we have in here in the issue of abortion.

A doctor has the right of refusing to do an abortion but the hospital itself has the responsibility to offer that "service" for someone seeking it. Meaning that they are forced to temporeraly get someone from somewhere else to do it if the doctors in that town refuse it. So if it becomes a major problem for a significant part of the civil servants then this would be the way to solve it.

 

But Our politicians aren't that Smart...

 

@Gnarf:
Bush ain't zactly a genius neither.

 

I'm just saying that our elected officials are idiots. But then again, I have a low regard for the people that keep voting them in, and the opposition that can't sway these sheep away fromt heir chosen fools...

 

Kudos to Canada. I honestly cant say that I care much about who can marry whom, I find the entire institution of marriage kinda obsolete but anything that riles up the religious right gets applauds from me.