If you are a member of the clergy and don’t want to preside over a same sex marriage, no problem with me. However, if you are a civil servant (marriage comissioner)and object to it, perhaps you need to find another line of work.
Oh, come on, Jerry: “However, if you are a civil servant (marriage comissioner)and object to it, perhaps you need to find another line of work.” If you look at the number of same-sex couples coming forward to be married, which is miniscule, your line of reasoning doesn’t stand up at all. In addition, and perhaps far more important, EVERY Canadian has rights to expression and religion in this country. Why should the gay lobby–which, BTW, is a tiny number of very loud, activist gays–stomp all over others’ rights all in the name of their own rights. I find this lobby arrogant and mean-spirited in the extreme. If one commmissioner is unable to marry same-sex couples because of religious considerations, that should be his or her right in Canada, and there is always another commissioner that will do the “honours.”
This assault on others’ rights shows the true and hidden agenda of the gay lobby. They’re not really intersted in “human rights” for either them or others. They’re interested in obliterating any opposition to their lifestyle; they want to blow out of the water any group or institution that doesn’t fall in lockstep with their agenda–just like narcissistic teenagers who get in a rage when their ideas or plans are thwarted.
Scary agenda? You bet. Rights for the gays, as Kathy says, and fewer and fewer for anyone who dissents from their views. This lobby,BTW, is about 3 per cent of Canada’s population. Some democracy, eh, when they and a handful of Human Rights Commission activists can summarily shrug off other Canadians’ human rights to forward their less-than-universally-accepted agenda.
Oh Canada…strong and free?????????????????
What about freedom of choice, jerry? There are lots of commissioners who WILL marry homosexuals, so they’ll not lose out. Don’t you think the state forcing people to do something against their conscience, when they are causing no harm and there are alternatives for those who want the service they provide, is draconian?
I’d like to see less hypocrisy from the homosexual activists who scream for freedom of choice and from constraints for themselves, but seem only too happy to straightjacket those with whom they disagree. Not a pretty picture.
Hmmm…won’ttell and Lookout, I don’t disagree with your sentiments in relation to marriage commissioners, however, if you apply the same thinking to, say, a paramedic or nurse who is a Jehovah’s Witness, would it be okay for them to NOT give a blood transfusion to an injured person since their religion deems this to be wrong?
IF the marriage of same-sex partners is CLEARLY identified as a requirement of the job BEFORE they are hired, then they can obey their religious obligations by refusing to take the job. Those who were hired before any such edict regarding same-sex marriage is/was/may be implemented, should have their right to object to be “grandfathered” into the position…they should not lose their jobs or face any disciplinary action over this.
In summary, if you take a job and the job description requires this action to be undertaken, then you should be compelled to obey or you should refuse to take the job. If the job description that they were hired to do does NOT require this action, then they should have the right to refuse to perform the ceremony.
I think that’s about the fairest way of assessing the situation.
Seems this only allows the provincial commissioners of oats leway to exercise religious rights in not taking part in sodomite practices….perfectly constitutional as this is the provincial jurisdiction….I also suspect that these “commissioners” are not presiding over legitimate church marriages…all they can administer is the state-rended certificate of union…”marriage” cerimony in the Churches is still free of Gay lobby tyranny.
Hmmmmm – Didn’t all the Gay Marriage activists poo-poo the idea that the Gay Marriage bill would NEVER force anyone to marry Gays if they did not agree with it.
Mark my words – once they have the Marriage Commissioners forced to marry them, the churches will be next!
The Slippery Slope…….
“-groups have responded to the proposal with outrage
-It’s insulting —
-it represents a slap in the face “
Hmmm
That sounds familiar. What group is it that always responds with similar language?
“if you apply the same thinking to, say, a paramedic or nurse who is a Jehovah’s Witness, would it be okay for them to NOT give a blood transfusion to an injured person since their religion deems this to be wrong?”
No, and this is disingenuous on your part, to conflate the possibility of real pain & suffering that could result from the withholding of necessary medical treatment to the inconvenience of having to find someone else to perform a marriage ceremony.
Find another analogy.
to “won’ttell”
What if, back in the day, there were some say, some voter registration type people who wouldn’t register blacks to vote. I mean, most of them might have had no problem with it, but there were a few that, for religious reasons, refused to let the blacks register to vote.
How is that any different than what you are saying? Voting is a basic human right that was denied to the blacks, just as getting married has been denied to gay people. And please, I am not equating the gravity of the human rights movement to to the gay rights movement, just using it as an easy example.
As to those saying ‘oh, those lefties going on about freedom of choice then limiting ours’ … the thing is, we’re expanding choices with our freedom of choice. My desire to allow gays to marry is stopping an artificial limitation placed on what really amounts to ‘will you spend the rest of your life with me?’. However, your desired use of ‘freedom of choice’ limits the actions of others, based on your personal belief. You are telling people how to live their lives, while I am allowing people to live their lives how they want.
There is a basic difference between my and your use of the word “freedom”. I want to allow people to have freedom, and you want to control how people use freedom. freedom, by it’s nature, should have no limits or controls. “You’re free to do exactly as I tell you” isn’t exactly freedom, is it?
So when the developer doesn’t want to sell a new home to a gay man because he doesn’t want “that type” in his neighborhood, and when the hotel clerk doesn’t want to process the reservation so gays can do “stuff” in their rom, and the police man picks somone up he doesn’t like gay couples hanging out in the park, or when the child care center won’t process the child of that gay couple, that’s all just fine too if they are doing it for “religious” reasons?
Oh, I forget, wasn’t it Jesus who said, “Treat those different than you like shit!”?
Hiding behind so-called faith to justify your predjudices is pathetic.
They need to do their jobs or turn in their license, if their fragile egos can’t handle the stress of having to deal with the real world and the people in it.
“Hmmm…won’ttell and Lookout, I don’t disagree with your sentiments in relation to marriage commissioners, however, if you apply the same thinking to, say, a paramedic or nurse who is a Jehovah’s Witness, would it be okay for them to NOT give a blood transfusion to an injured person since their religion deems this to be wrong?”
You’re comparing a life or death matter to a minor inconvenience, doesn’t work.
What if the commissioner was a member of a visible minority (Islamic) whose religion forbade him from performing a homosexual marriage, then what is the PC position?
Equal rights mean exactly that, in an emergency, yes, the person should have no choice but to administer life saving care, but in matters of choice, everyone has equal rights, and you can’t decide in favor of the more politically correct.
Where do I apply for a marriage commissioners licence? I’ll hitch anything to anything for a price.
Borked-
What the hell kind of argument is that?
I’m supportive of gay marriage, but I certainly don’t support coercing an individual into performing a ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs.
That being said, I also happen to be an atheist, so it’s not my deeply rooted religious beliefs that drive me to support those who wish to abstain from performing a marriage ceremony.
You exhibit the typical sanctiminous attitude of a socialist, when you feel you can actually claim “I want to allow people to have freedom, and you want to control how people use freedom.”
Did anyone actually read the article – slanted as it is by the good folk at the LIfeSite “we hate gays” website?
This is NOT about a religious blessing of a union in a church. Where the big fear is that suddenly Hindus will have to marry Jews, or Catholics will have to marry Sikhs, or two drunk Protestant promgoers who wander by drunk off their asses. Oh, wait, they’ve never had to do that!!!!! Ever! No one has a church marry two people on any grounds, much less that they were of a different faith or belief.
This IS about a person licensed by the province to conduct civil ceremonies (that is, perform a civil function), no different than the person who works at the transit station, processes driver licenses, fishing licenses, you get the idea.
So please spare me the heart-wrenching angst you and they apparently feel. Especially when it is tempered with comments like “Where do I get my license?”
I’m sure there are many dyed-in-the-wool evangelicals out there today signing up for their licenses so they can cry out in agony when they take out the ad that says, “I don’t marry fags!” and then get sued.
Please move on – this topic has been beat to death for about 6 years now. I’m sick of seeing how many people keep finding ways to be mortified.
And another thing – since when do equal rights only apply “in emergencies”
I must have missed that clause in the Charter.
Please expand upon this new theory of civil justice, and where the chart is that explains the emergency rankings. You know, which rights can be granted or denied based uon the severity.
Their very weird and very dangerous these radical gays extremists and they run HANOI ON THE BAY
How come, if you have a right to do something, I don’t have a right not to do it. There are two groups in Canada that have done nothing but try to force their beliefs and lifestyle on the rest of us. Our rights not to follow them should have the same respect as theirs. Why do they go out of their way to find someone who disagrees with them, when there are many that do agree.
OT, but how many of you are tired of the word TORTURE whenever a story breaks of some problem a immigrant cdn has. Now we have some lawyer trying to get, a deported from canada family, out of detention in the US, who were trying to illegally re-enter Canada. They were tortured in their home country after being deported. Their son was born in Canada. What and where was he when his parents were detained and tortured in Iran. Bring the boy back to Canada, if he wants to come, but leave his parents in the US till they make a decision. Funny how none of these so called torture victims have any evidence of said torture. If you want to see the results of torture, look at the POWs and Holocost victims after WW11.
Message to the msm and lawyers, TORTURE IS MORE THAN A WORD TO EVOKE OUR SYMPATHY.
How about we exercise a little common sense and respect in this issue? The commissioner from Regina basically said I won’t do it, but I’ll find someone who will. And then went on to help them anyways, didn’t try to block their right to get married. They didn’t have to change their wedding date, etc and this was a very minor inconvenience that got totally blown out of proportion. You’ll notice it’s not that the commissioner called them hateful names or anything of that nature…he disagreed respectfully with them. It appears to be the fact that he disagreed with them that caused their feelings to be hurt.
There needs to be some recognition that we aren’t all going to agree on this….let’s just agree to disagree respectfully and use a little common sense in ensuring that people are afforded their legal rights. This having your feelings hurt because someone disagrees with you is silly – you are far too fragile a creature to survive in a free environment if someone else’s simple but respectful disagreement causes you to have a fit!
My religion says that I can marry up to six women (of any age) and four men (of any age) and any animal that speaks in tongues.
WHAT ABOUT MY HUMAN RIGHTS?!
Just waiting for the next step on the slippery slope, multimarriages as practiced in Bountiful.
there must be a gaggle of lawyers lining up on one side to fight a murder of lawyers on the other all on the public teat.
Any Immans being requested to do SSM? just a question.
The churches will be next – since almost all churches, synagogues,mosques, etc in Canada get $$ from a government in some form or another, they will be pressured to perform gay marriages. The ones that refuse will be in front of various human rights kangaroo courts (sorry, tribunals).
But this isn’t about the Regina case or someone’s hurt feelings, this post is about a law that is being considered that says civil servants don’t have to do their jobs if the person they have to administer the law to is Gay!
If we want to have a discussion about people’s feelings being hurt, and dealing with mixed company at parties, then Dead Animals should start a new topic.
I like how everyone gets all “reasonable” when the fallacies of their predjudiced arguments are exposed.
Ian
Find another analogy.
O.K. How about Muslim cabs that refuse to transport dogs or alcohol?
Kevin
no where did I say, or even imply, that we should cohere anyone in to doing it. There should be no cohersion at all. They can do what they are told, or they can find a job where they don’t have to do it.
What if I decided that filling out a timesheet was against my religious beliefs, and I wouldn’t do it? I’d get told to do it, and if I didn’t, I’d get fired. Civil servants work for the government, and the government has decided that they are going to offer the service of providing marriages. The law states that gays can be married, therefor civil servants should do the job.
I fully, 100% support churches not having to do it .. they are still a private enterprise and not controlled by the government (I wish I could say the opposite weren’t true, however) and are free to not do the ceremony as they wish.
Realistically, I think the only time a civil servant would be FORCED into doing it is if they were the only one in town. And frankly, you’re not too likely to find many gay couples living in a town small enough that there is only one person who could do it.
I don’t really think we should force people to perform the marriage who don’t want to, no fines for people who won’t, no prison time, no guns to their head. But, at the same time, it is their job. They are making a choice .. it’s a hard choice, but one people have been making for 1000s of years … do they do something at their job they don’t like, or do they stick to their beliefs and not do it? If they are a true believer, then maybe they should quit and stand up for their beliefs. If enough people did that, then no gays could get married, and the right would win. Hurrah!
As for being sanctimonious, meh. My argument is clear and holds up to logic. I contend that I, being a lefty type, while not necessarily agreeing with all the freedoms afforded and all the PC non-sense, will stand to uphold those freedoms because I believe everyone should be able to live as freely as they choose. The right, however, seems to want to dictate who gets what freedoms and when, and for how long, and at what cost. I say, let people do what they want as long as they don’t harm others. they say, “we know better than you about what you want” “you’re harming my the family” “you’re corrupting society” … I say … live and let live. If you want to go into the woods and form a cult that worships a small dead animal, I may not like what you believe in, I might not attend services, but you’re free to do it. The right says ‘no, you aren’t free to do it, because we don’t like it.’
so I ask you, who is sanctimonious here?
Are marriage commissioners allowed to decline to marry straight couples for any reason? If so, why not a _insert minority here_ couple?
And Joe, since you are up on the Charter of Rights and the Constitution, please show me chapter and verse where rights are granted based on sexual orientation. Last I remember, there where merely granted by a judge in Ontario who overstepped their authority.
Before you start name calling, I am not philosophically opposed to gay couples getting married, but don’t you think it should be discussed and considered somewhat more by representatives of the people with consideration for the consequences rather than a lucky judgment by a sympathetic judge? What is to stop roommates from suing for one another for spousal support?
The marriage commissioner issue comes down to the question of whether or not the state needs to force every employee to fulfill every mandate of the state in order to uphold the rights and privileges of the public.
I would argue that the responsibilities of the state can be fulfilled while affording employees the right to refuse certain duties based on religious rights.
In this case, are not the new found marriage rights of gays protected if the office of marriage commissioners can provide a commissioner to perform the ceremony? The answer is “yes”. Why then must every commissioner be willing, and if not, forced to marry gays?
Something else to consider is the concept of an “equal opportunity employer,” which the state prides itself on being. But if someone need only apply for or remain in a state job if their beliefs — religious or not — conform to the state definitions of marriage, as someone suggested earlier in this thread, can the state truly call itself an equal opportunity employer? Surely it is not; it presents equal opportunity only to those who do not hold religious beliefs contrary to the state “belief”.
borked – voting isn’t a ‘human right’. Marriage isn’t a ‘human right’. Your analogies are fallacious.
Both of these situations are social definitions and if the society says that voting is confined to, eg. Landowners (in ancient Greece); men only (in most of the West until recently); non-Indians (Canada until 1960); etc, etc – that’s up to the society to change its rules. It’s not a basic human right.
Same with marriage; it’s a social definition. In some societies, the man can have several wives; in others, a few, the woman can have several husbands. etc, etc. It’s not a basic human right.
Joe – Since the commissioner did not prevent their marriage but only excluded himself from the situation, then, no harm was done. For the couple to insist that he, and he alone, marry them, was an act of arrogance and domination on their part.
We need freedom from the FAGGOT agenda. 3% of the population telling the rest of us what we can say, think, do, etc is not my idea of freedom. All the FAGGOTS should be in doing jail time, just because that FAGGOT turdooh repealed the anti sodomite laws doesnt make it right.
It can successfully be argued that there are multiple laws and rights at play here – same sex marriage, religious freedom, employment law, etc. – not just one. The difficulty happens when the proponents of one view attempt to trump the rights of others. If this environment of rights, freedoms and democracy thing is going to work in practise, we need to have some balance and a little respect for the right of others to disagree.
ET
You are correct, my apologies. I was going for societal right. In the case of voting, a basic democratic right.
In the case of marriage, more of a right to a tradition.
I believe my point is still valid.
Cheers.
Where does this all end? If someone refuses to marry a black man with a white woman, while sucking on the taxpayers teat, are we going to draft a new law saying its OK. How about a Muslim with a Catholic? A new law for that too. How about two Catholics? Or does a new law cover every objection.
I object to a law that allows government employees to do less work than they do now. If you don’t like it find a new job.
“freedom, by it’s nature, should have no limits or controls.”
this is not a very good line of reason if freedom has no limits then there will be consequences.
Birds are a beautiful example of freedom birds are free to fly where ever they want they are not as constrained by gravity as we are; however if a bird was to say since I am free to fly where ever then I choose to fly down the middle of this very busy highway eventually that bird will run into a very big consequence called a semi
discussions about freedom along with rights must also include the discussions of responsibilities if gays want to have the right to marry they must also accept thee responsibility of NOT forcing everyone to agree with them If they force everyone to agree with them they are no different then the intolerent people who walk around with signs that say “God hates Fags”
Intolerence is simply not allowing others to have a different opinion. Freedom in this country allows us to all have different opinions. If we are all forced to believe the same things then… Orwells ‘1984’ comes to mind.
The topic of whether or not these people knew and agreed to the job description before becoming a Commissioner is interesting. Just how many took on the job years before SSM was even contemplated?
It’s a bit more subtle with paramedic Jehovah witnesses. I bet my boots that they do not choose to become the paramedics in the first place. It would be quite funny actually, to get a job as a paramedic and refuse to give someone a needles on the basis of religion. What a lucrative job would have that been: do nothing, get paid.
What concerns me most, is the crusade of the gay to get the world to submit to their needs. I cannot call their attack on the people with normal sexual orientation anything other than crusade. They now want to teach gay relations in school in BC and parents cannot opt out – over my dead cold body my sons will be taught how to fuck men in the ass for my own tax money. Every parent with guts should resist, if not protest. Check the kids into a hospital, get stranded on a snowy road in the boonies – just do something to skip that class. Otherwise soon all males will have to do ‘community service’ – you know what I mean. GFY, faggots!
Joe said:
“I’m sure there are many dyed-in-the-wool evangelicals out there today signing up for their licenses so they can cry out in agony when they take out the ad that says, “I don’t marry fags!” and then get sued.”
That would be consistent with the tactics of gay activists who seem willing to walk a mile to find a commissioner who won’t do a gay marriage, or find a church camp that won’t rent their facilities to a gay choir, but I am unaware of evangelicals engaging in this type of judicial activism.
Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just talking out of your ass with tired old liberal “moral equivalencey” arguments?
So now you want us to move on because you are sick of the argument. Well, I wanted to move on after the feds voted in favour of the traditional definition of marriage, so go pound sand!! If you don’t like the debate, don’t listen to. And shut up while you’re at it.
A marriage commissioner is a public employee, not a religious one. As such, their job is to be available to all people, of all races, all religions, and now, all sexualities.
This is non negotiable, and falls under charter rights. Under the Charter, there’s no difference between a Marriage Commission refusing to marry gays, as there is to them refusing to marry Protestants, as there is to them refusing to marry Jews.
While I can sympathize with the awkward position this puts Commissioners that have strong beliefs against same sex marriage, they should not hold that public position unless they’re willing to service any member of the public.
Adune,
So, this means that the terms of their employment have now changed. What if some have to leave their jobs because of it? Do you think there should be some sort of payout? Or are they just shafted?
Ha-ha-ha-ha, Adune! There is a big difference, I am surprised you do not see it. Sorry, I did not mean to offend you if you are blind by any chance, which is legitimate reason. The word ‘see’ was used in a sense irrelevant to vision, which is a broader term for ‘realization’… Okay, back on topic: the difference being, Jewish, Buddhist or Christian couples come in the shape of man and a woman, sometimes a woman and a man – however you like it. The gay couple is easy to distinguish by presence of two males or two females. Hoping that clears up your confusion.
“Intolerance is simply not allowing others to have a different opinion.”
Actually, The Tolerant don’t care if you *have* a different opinion as long as you keep it to yourself. Contemporary “tolerance” is about ultimately using the state to muzzle dissent from the political correct line of the day. It is, in fact, the very antithesis of tolerance.
jake:
I agree – freedom should have no limits, but that doesn’t mean there are no consequences. Once you are free to do something, there should be no artificial restraints put on it.
That bird is certainly free to fly down the middle of the road, and does so knowing theres a risk involved and stands a good chance of getting splattered. Does that mean we should tell the bird, no, you can’t do that. And you have to wear a helmet when you’re flying?
I also agree with you re: gays and not forcing acceptance. I believe both sides of this should just live and let live. It’s only the places where they meet that there is a problem, and the most obvious of those points is around marriage. I don’t think the gays should force people to marry them. That, in this case, is the governments job. Gay marriage is allowed by law now, so it’s not “the gays” trying to change peoples mind, it’s now the government. The government has now had 2 votes on the issue, and it still stands.
I don’t think anyone should be forced to believe in anything they don’t want to, but they should accept that others believe in things they don’t like, and stop trying to change or restrict those beliefs. to each their own.
Perhaps it’s the libertarian in me, I don’t know.
borked: “The government has now had 2 votes on the issue, and it still stands.”
3 votes actually. The first one recognized the traditional definition of marriage, but it was not allowed to stand because gay activists continued pushing it through. But it seems that now the activists have “found religion” saying that it is wrong to revisit an issue once a decision has been made. And no, it is not about the charter. The supreme court said that the government did not have to allow same sex marriage because of the charter, but that they could if they wanted to. But now marriage commissioners may be forced to perform gay marriages, or lose their jobs. And all for something that is not (according to the supreme court) a charter right. Rather, it was simply political pandering by a dithering idiot who was desperately trying to work out his daddy issues. A fine way to run a country.
If an employer says they are equal opportunity employers, how then can an employer decide that in future only a certain segment of society will be considered for jobs, aka, a fire dept stating basically no white men need apply. Any employer that deliberately trys to meet a quota of this minority or that minority is not an equal opportunity employer. It is way past time that alll employers, govt, private, etc hire the best qualified person for the job, instead of giving the job to unqualified people because they are the right sex, color, ethnic or whatever. Maybe by hiring the most qualified we would not have all the problems we have today. Imagine the pride a woman, ethnic, color, religion, whatever, would take in their job if they knew they were there because of qualifications instead quotas. This ss couple were offered a commissioner who would marry them. Instead, they are trying to force their beliefs on everyone else. Three cheers for the commissioner who said NO, and lets hope the passes.
Adune:
You might want to rethink your “non negotiable” assertion.
First point – remember that the legal definition of marriage spawned from the religious one. All of the rules for the legal definition of marriage are based in religion…
1) Must be to the exclusion of all others (adultery is breach of contract and grounds for divorce).
2) Contract must be made orally.
3) Oral contract must be witnessed by representatives of the bride and groom.
4) Marriage must be consomated on the night of marriage (it’s in the books).
5) Must be between a man and a woman.
No other contracts have such “unique” requirements…because no others are spawned from such a unique source. Most people who became JP’s and marriage commissioners did so with these being the rules that made up the definition.
But then government did two things that got them into trouble…
1) They invented common-law marriage (something religion never agreed with)
2) They introduced CPP and the concept of survivor benefits.
These two items are the ONLY grounds that gays had with which to argue about “equal rights.”
Thus, government found itself in a pickle when it comes to homosexual couples. And what did government do? Instead of admitting that common-law marriage (the idea that two people intend a contract when they clearly don’t) and CPP survivor benefits created more hassle than they were worth, government created another law to cover up the flaws of the first two laws…they created same-sex marriage and erased requirement 5.
So, imagine you’re a marriage commissioner. And imagine that, in order to please the people of Bountiful, BC, the feds decide to remove the “to the exclusion of all others” clause. After all, it gets in the way of the rights of polygamists. Then, imagine that your spouse comes to you and tells you that they want to marry another person and they expect you to perform the ceremony. You are a public servant – you must do it. It is non-negotiable.
You don’t need a religious argument to see that most people (including gays) would disagree with the removal of the “to the exclusion of all others clause.” And you can object to a fundamental pillar of society being changed without being a bigot or homophobe. If the reason for your object comes from religion (as did the original definition of marriage), then you too have a right to not be forced to go against that belief.
I think the whole idea of gay marriage is STUPID. These people have very serious mental problems.
Since we’re trying to find similar analogies, how about these?:
1. Pharmacists who don’t want to fulfill the prescription for the morning after pill, feeling that it is murder?
2. Nurses who don’t want to participate in abortion?
3. Anaesthetists who don’t want to participate in abortion?
3. Police officers in Toronto in the 1980s who didn’t want to guard the Morgentaler clinic?
Maybe they’re not perfect, but in the cases I’m thinking of, these people all took these jobs before abortion was widespread or the morning after pill was available. Most nurses in hospitals can simply ask to be reassigned, and it’s no big deal. Same with anaesthetists. Both professions do have a bit of bargaining power because there’s such a shortage of both. But nurses have lost their jobs over this.
Pharmacists are on shakier ground because sometimes there is only one pharmacist on duty at a time, especially overnight in the ER when such cases arrive. I know ER doctors and pediatricians who have asked someone else to prescribe the morning after pill because they didn’t want to be involved in it. It worked out okay overall.
The point is that there are ways around this when everyone is reasonable. The marriage commissioners mostly did sign up before SSM, so expecting that they’ll all just tow the line is unreasonable. Can’t there be give and take on this issue?
Re: the analogy of the Muslim cab driver refusing to transport dogs or alcohol.
That’s better, and is a real issue that’s been going on at an airport in Minnesota I think (Captain’s Quarters has had some blog posts on this over the last couple of months). This one’s a convincing argument, because if I recall correctly the airport authority is about to step in and mandate that cab drivers can not refuse to transport passengers on these grounds (in particular, they’re concerned about blind passengers with guide dogs being denied transportation and the legal ramifications thereof) or else the offending cab drivers will lose their license to serve the airport.
I’m sold.
A civil marriage commissioner who won’t perform an otherwise legal marriage shouldn’t be a civil marriage commissioner; it is not his/her place to place any “fitness test” upon the marrieds-to-be or subject them to his/her own personal moral code. If it’s such a matter of principle, resign.
And the moslem cabbies can’t have a cake and eat it too: they applied for the airport license to earn more cash than in the city, no one is denying their religious freedom – they are free to drive up and down the streets in the course of their business, sure – any time, help yourself. But they insist on the privilege to make airport $$ and at the same time set their own rules. They are on private property, dictating the rules to the property owner. and they can pike off, which is exactly what they were told.
Will the next step be to prosecute people who turn down invitations to a same sex marriage ceremony?
I realize that some of you have issues with the concept of gay marriage. That’s fine, but you need to recognize that same sex rights have become a part of Canadian law now.
It no longer matters where the concept of marriage came from originally. In the eyes of the Charter, it’s no different from race, or religion.
If a Christian is refusing to perform same sex marriages on religious objections, if that Christian is being truly honest, they should be refusing to perform any marriage not between two Christians.
If a commissioner performs a marriage between two non Christians, or a Christian & non Christian, or people that have lived in adultery, they’re making the case that they’re performing a civil, non religious function. If they’re a Christian, they should be opposed to joining a Christian & a non Christian in marriage on religious grounds.
By refusing to marry a same sex couple, they’re selectively applying their religious objections based on the sexual preference of their clients.
That’s discrimination that is not allowed under the charter.
If you want to make a case that the law is an unjust law, and should be disobeyed, that’s one thing. I realize that certain gay rights groups are being stupid here, and pushing something that shouldn’t matter. Are there not any marriage commisssioners willing to perform SSM that they have to go after the small minority that won’t?
Legally though, same sex couples have the right to marry, and they shouldn’t have to keep trying a different person until they find one willing to marry gays. I don’t have to try different insurance agencies to find someone willing to sell life insurance to a Christian.
yo, bork, you missed the part about differentiating between things people CHOOSE to do, to follow the gay lifestyle and avail themselves of ssm, and things like the colour of your skin.
pls cite a single example of a human being CHOOSING their race.
get it?
you cant discriminate against groups/individuals over thing they got NO CONTROL OVER.
gays are perfectly free to simply go somewhere else to get the marriage licence but no, they gotta pick a godam fight over it. get in the face of the clerks and priests and taxpayers and anyone else their activist little faggotry addled heads lock on to.
If you are a member of the clergy and don’t want to preside over a same sex marriage, no problem with me. However, if you are a civil servant (marriage comissioner)and object to it, perhaps you need to find another line of work.
Oh, come on, Jerry: “However, if you are a civil servant (marriage comissioner)and object to it, perhaps you need to find another line of work.” If you look at the number of same-sex couples coming forward to be married, which is miniscule, your line of reasoning doesn’t stand up at all. In addition, and perhaps far more important, EVERY Canadian has rights to expression and religion in this country. Why should the gay lobby–which, BTW, is a tiny number of very loud, activist gays–stomp all over others’ rights all in the name of their own rights. I find this lobby arrogant and mean-spirited in the extreme. If one commmissioner is unable to marry same-sex couples because of religious considerations, that should be his or her right in Canada, and there is always another commissioner that will do the “honours.”
This assault on others’ rights shows the true and hidden agenda of the gay lobby. They’re not really intersted in “human rights” for either them or others. They’re interested in obliterating any opposition to their lifestyle; they want to blow out of the water any group or institution that doesn’t fall in lockstep with their agenda–just like narcissistic teenagers who get in a rage when their ideas or plans are thwarted.
Scary agenda? You bet. Rights for the gays, as Kathy says, and fewer and fewer for anyone who dissents from their views. This lobby,BTW, is about 3 per cent of Canada’s population. Some democracy, eh, when they and a handful of Human Rights Commission activists can summarily shrug off other Canadians’ human rights to forward their less-than-universally-accepted agenda.
Oh Canada…strong and free?????????????????
What about freedom of choice, jerry? There are lots of commissioners who WILL marry homosexuals, so they’ll not lose out. Don’t you think the state forcing people to do something against their conscience, when they are causing no harm and there are alternatives for those who want the service they provide, is draconian?
I’d like to see less hypocrisy from the homosexual activists who scream for freedom of choice and from constraints for themselves, but seem only too happy to straightjacket those with whom they disagree. Not a pretty picture.
Hmmm…won’ttell and Lookout, I don’t disagree with your sentiments in relation to marriage commissioners, however, if you apply the same thinking to, say, a paramedic or nurse who is a Jehovah’s Witness, would it be okay for them to NOT give a blood transfusion to an injured person since their religion deems this to be wrong?
IF the marriage of same-sex partners is CLEARLY identified as a requirement of the job BEFORE they are hired, then they can obey their religious obligations by refusing to take the job. Those who were hired before any such edict regarding same-sex marriage is/was/may be implemented, should have their right to object to be “grandfathered” into the position…they should not lose their jobs or face any disciplinary action over this.
In summary, if you take a job and the job description requires this action to be undertaken, then you should be compelled to obey or you should refuse to take the job. If the job description that they were hired to do does NOT require this action, then they should have the right to refuse to perform the ceremony.
I think that’s about the fairest way of assessing the situation.
Seems this only allows the provincial commissioners of oats leway to exercise religious rights in not taking part in sodomite practices….perfectly constitutional as this is the provincial jurisdiction….I also suspect that these “commissioners” are not presiding over legitimate church marriages…all they can administer is the state-rended certificate of union…”marriage” cerimony in the Churches is still free of Gay lobby tyranny.
Hmmmmm – Didn’t all the Gay Marriage activists poo-poo the idea that the Gay Marriage bill would NEVER force anyone to marry Gays if they did not agree with it.
Mark my words – once they have the Marriage Commissioners forced to marry them, the churches will be next!
The Slippery Slope…….
“-groups have responded to the proposal with outrage
-It’s insulting —
-it represents a slap in the face “
Hmmm
That sounds familiar. What group is it that always responds with similar language?
“if you apply the same thinking to, say, a paramedic or nurse who is a Jehovah’s Witness, would it be okay for them to NOT give a blood transfusion to an injured person since their religion deems this to be wrong?”
No, and this is disingenuous on your part, to conflate the possibility of real pain & suffering that could result from the withholding of necessary medical treatment to the inconvenience of having to find someone else to perform a marriage ceremony.
Find another analogy.
to “won’ttell”
What if, back in the day, there were some say, some voter registration type people who wouldn’t register blacks to vote. I mean, most of them might have had no problem with it, but there were a few that, for religious reasons, refused to let the blacks register to vote.
How is that any different than what you are saying? Voting is a basic human right that was denied to the blacks, just as getting married has been denied to gay people. And please, I am not equating the gravity of the human rights movement to to the gay rights movement, just using it as an easy example.
As to those saying ‘oh, those lefties going on about freedom of choice then limiting ours’ … the thing is, we’re expanding choices with our freedom of choice. My desire to allow gays to marry is stopping an artificial limitation placed on what really amounts to ‘will you spend the rest of your life with me?’. However, your desired use of ‘freedom of choice’ limits the actions of others, based on your personal belief. You are telling people how to live their lives, while I am allowing people to live their lives how they want.
There is a basic difference between my and your use of the word “freedom”. I want to allow people to have freedom, and you want to control how people use freedom. freedom, by it’s nature, should have no limits or controls. “You’re free to do exactly as I tell you” isn’t exactly freedom, is it?
So when the developer doesn’t want to sell a new home to a gay man because he doesn’t want “that type” in his neighborhood, and when the hotel clerk doesn’t want to process the reservation so gays can do “stuff” in their rom, and the police man picks somone up he doesn’t like gay couples hanging out in the park, or when the child care center won’t process the child of that gay couple, that’s all just fine too if they are doing it for “religious” reasons?
Oh, I forget, wasn’t it Jesus who said, “Treat those different than you like shit!”?
Hiding behind so-called faith to justify your predjudices is pathetic.
They need to do their jobs or turn in their license, if their fragile egos can’t handle the stress of having to deal with the real world and the people in it.
“Hmmm…won’ttell and Lookout, I don’t disagree with your sentiments in relation to marriage commissioners, however, if you apply the same thinking to, say, a paramedic or nurse who is a Jehovah’s Witness, would it be okay for them to NOT give a blood transfusion to an injured person since their religion deems this to be wrong?”
You’re comparing a life or death matter to a minor inconvenience, doesn’t work.
What if the commissioner was a member of a visible minority (Islamic) whose religion forbade him from performing a homosexual marriage, then what is the PC position?
Equal rights mean exactly that, in an emergency, yes, the person should have no choice but to administer life saving care, but in matters of choice, everyone has equal rights, and you can’t decide in favor of the more politically correct.
Where do I apply for a marriage commissioners licence? I’ll hitch anything to anything for a price.
Borked-
What the hell kind of argument is that?
I’m supportive of gay marriage, but I certainly don’t support coercing an individual into performing a ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs.
That being said, I also happen to be an atheist, so it’s not my deeply rooted religious beliefs that drive me to support those who wish to abstain from performing a marriage ceremony.
You exhibit the typical sanctiminous attitude of a socialist, when you feel you can actually claim “I want to allow people to have freedom, and you want to control how people use freedom.”
Did anyone actually read the article – slanted as it is by the good folk at the LIfeSite “we hate gays” website?
This is NOT about a religious blessing of a union in a church. Where the big fear is that suddenly Hindus will have to marry Jews, or Catholics will have to marry Sikhs, or two drunk Protestant promgoers who wander by drunk off their asses. Oh, wait, they’ve never had to do that!!!!! Ever! No one has a church marry two people on any grounds, much less that they were of a different faith or belief.
This IS about a person licensed by the province to conduct civil ceremonies (that is, perform a civil function), no different than the person who works at the transit station, processes driver licenses, fishing licenses, you get the idea.
So please spare me the heart-wrenching angst you and they apparently feel. Especially when it is tempered with comments like “Where do I get my license?”
I’m sure there are many dyed-in-the-wool evangelicals out there today signing up for their licenses so they can cry out in agony when they take out the ad that says, “I don’t marry fags!” and then get sued.
Please move on – this topic has been beat to death for about 6 years now. I’m sick of seeing how many people keep finding ways to be mortified.
And another thing – since when do equal rights only apply “in emergencies”
I must have missed that clause in the Charter.
Please expand upon this new theory of civil justice, and where the chart is that explains the emergency rankings. You know, which rights can be granted or denied based uon the severity.
Their very weird and very dangerous these radical gays extremists and they run HANOI ON THE BAY
How come, if you have a right to do something, I don’t have a right not to do it. There are two groups in Canada that have done nothing but try to force their beliefs and lifestyle on the rest of us. Our rights not to follow them should have the same respect as theirs. Why do they go out of their way to find someone who disagrees with them, when there are many that do agree.
OT, but how many of you are tired of the word TORTURE whenever a story breaks of some problem a immigrant cdn has. Now we have some lawyer trying to get, a deported from canada family, out of detention in the US, who were trying to illegally re-enter Canada. They were tortured in their home country after being deported. Their son was born in Canada. What and where was he when his parents were detained and tortured in Iran. Bring the boy back to Canada, if he wants to come, but leave his parents in the US till they make a decision. Funny how none of these so called torture victims have any evidence of said torture. If you want to see the results of torture, look at the POWs and Holocost victims after WW11.
Message to the msm and lawyers, TORTURE IS MORE THAN A WORD TO EVOKE OUR SYMPATHY.
How about we exercise a little common sense and respect in this issue? The commissioner from Regina basically said I won’t do it, but I’ll find someone who will. And then went on to help them anyways, didn’t try to block their right to get married. They didn’t have to change their wedding date, etc and this was a very minor inconvenience that got totally blown out of proportion. You’ll notice it’s not that the commissioner called them hateful names or anything of that nature…he disagreed respectfully with them. It appears to be the fact that he disagreed with them that caused their feelings to be hurt.
There needs to be some recognition that we aren’t all going to agree on this….let’s just agree to disagree respectfully and use a little common sense in ensuring that people are afforded their legal rights. This having your feelings hurt because someone disagrees with you is silly – you are far too fragile a creature to survive in a free environment if someone else’s simple but respectful disagreement causes you to have a fit!
My religion says that I can marry up to six women (of any age) and four men (of any age) and any animal that speaks in tongues.
WHAT ABOUT MY HUMAN RIGHTS?!
Just waiting for the next step on the slippery slope, multimarriages as practiced in Bountiful.
there must be a gaggle of lawyers lining up on one side to fight a murder of lawyers on the other all on the public teat.
Any Immans being requested to do SSM? just a question.
The churches will be next – since almost all churches, synagogues,mosques, etc in Canada get $$ from a government in some form or another, they will be pressured to perform gay marriages. The ones that refuse will be in front of various human rights kangaroo courts (sorry, tribunals).
But this isn’t about the Regina case or someone’s hurt feelings, this post is about a law that is being considered that says civil servants don’t have to do their jobs if the person they have to administer the law to is Gay!
If we want to have a discussion about people’s feelings being hurt, and dealing with mixed company at parties, then Dead Animals should start a new topic.
I like how everyone gets all “reasonable” when the fallacies of their predjudiced arguments are exposed.
Ian
Find another analogy.
O.K. How about Muslim cabs that refuse to transport dogs or alcohol?
Kevin
no where did I say, or even imply, that we should cohere anyone in to doing it. There should be no cohersion at all. They can do what they are told, or they can find a job where they don’t have to do it.
What if I decided that filling out a timesheet was against my religious beliefs, and I wouldn’t do it? I’d get told to do it, and if I didn’t, I’d get fired. Civil servants work for the government, and the government has decided that they are going to offer the service of providing marriages. The law states that gays can be married, therefor civil servants should do the job.
I fully, 100% support churches not having to do it .. they are still a private enterprise and not controlled by the government (I wish I could say the opposite weren’t true, however) and are free to not do the ceremony as they wish.
Realistically, I think the only time a civil servant would be FORCED into doing it is if they were the only one in town. And frankly, you’re not too likely to find many gay couples living in a town small enough that there is only one person who could do it.
I don’t really think we should force people to perform the marriage who don’t want to, no fines for people who won’t, no prison time, no guns to their head. But, at the same time, it is their job. They are making a choice .. it’s a hard choice, but one people have been making for 1000s of years … do they do something at their job they don’t like, or do they stick to their beliefs and not do it? If they are a true believer, then maybe they should quit and stand up for their beliefs. If enough people did that, then no gays could get married, and the right would win. Hurrah!
As for being sanctimonious, meh. My argument is clear and holds up to logic. I contend that I, being a lefty type, while not necessarily agreeing with all the freedoms afforded and all the PC non-sense, will stand to uphold those freedoms because I believe everyone should be able to live as freely as they choose. The right, however, seems to want to dictate who gets what freedoms and when, and for how long, and at what cost. I say, let people do what they want as long as they don’t harm others. they say, “we know better than you about what you want” “you’re harming my the family” “you’re corrupting society” … I say … live and let live. If you want to go into the woods and form a cult that worships a small dead animal, I may not like what you believe in, I might not attend services, but you’re free to do it. The right says ‘no, you aren’t free to do it, because we don’t like it.’
so I ask you, who is sanctimonious here?
Are marriage commissioners allowed to decline to marry straight couples for any reason? If so, why not a _insert minority here_ couple?
And Joe, since you are up on the Charter of Rights and the Constitution, please show me chapter and verse where rights are granted based on sexual orientation. Last I remember, there where merely granted by a judge in Ontario who overstepped their authority.
Before you start name calling, I am not philosophically opposed to gay couples getting married, but don’t you think it should be discussed and considered somewhat more by representatives of the people with consideration for the consequences rather than a lucky judgment by a sympathetic judge? What is to stop roommates from suing for one another for spousal support?
The marriage commissioner issue comes down to the question of whether or not the state needs to force every employee to fulfill every mandate of the state in order to uphold the rights and privileges of the public.
I would argue that the responsibilities of the state can be fulfilled while affording employees the right to refuse certain duties based on religious rights.
In this case, are not the new found marriage rights of gays protected if the office of marriage commissioners can provide a commissioner to perform the ceremony? The answer is “yes”. Why then must every commissioner be willing, and if not, forced to marry gays?
Something else to consider is the concept of an “equal opportunity employer,” which the state prides itself on being. But if someone need only apply for or remain in a state job if their beliefs — religious or not — conform to the state definitions of marriage, as someone suggested earlier in this thread, can the state truly call itself an equal opportunity employer? Surely it is not; it presents equal opportunity only to those who do not hold religious beliefs contrary to the state “belief”.
borked – voting isn’t a ‘human right’. Marriage isn’t a ‘human right’. Your analogies are fallacious.
Both of these situations are social definitions and if the society says that voting is confined to, eg. Landowners (in ancient Greece); men only (in most of the West until recently); non-Indians (Canada until 1960); etc, etc – that’s up to the society to change its rules. It’s not a basic human right.
Same with marriage; it’s a social definition. In some societies, the man can have several wives; in others, a few, the woman can have several husbands. etc, etc. It’s not a basic human right.
Joe – Since the commissioner did not prevent their marriage but only excluded himself from the situation, then, no harm was done. For the couple to insist that he, and he alone, marry them, was an act of arrogance and domination on their part.
We need freedom from the FAGGOT agenda. 3% of the population telling the rest of us what we can say, think, do, etc is not my idea of freedom. All the FAGGOTS should be in doing jail time, just because that FAGGOT turdooh repealed the anti sodomite laws doesnt make it right.
It can successfully be argued that there are multiple laws and rights at play here – same sex marriage, religious freedom, employment law, etc. – not just one. The difficulty happens when the proponents of one view attempt to trump the rights of others. If this environment of rights, freedoms and democracy thing is going to work in practise, we need to have some balance and a little respect for the right of others to disagree.
ET
You are correct, my apologies. I was going for societal right. In the case of voting, a basic democratic right.
In the case of marriage, more of a right to a tradition.
I believe my point is still valid.
Cheers.
Where does this all end? If someone refuses to marry a black man with a white woman, while sucking on the taxpayers teat, are we going to draft a new law saying its OK. How about a Muslim with a Catholic? A new law for that too. How about two Catholics? Or does a new law cover every objection.
I object to a law that allows government employees to do less work than they do now. If you don’t like it find a new job.
“freedom, by it’s nature, should have no limits or controls.”
this is not a very good line of reason if freedom has no limits then there will be consequences.
Birds are a beautiful example of freedom birds are free to fly where ever they want they are not as constrained by gravity as we are; however if a bird was to say since I am free to fly where ever then I choose to fly down the middle of this very busy highway eventually that bird will run into a very big consequence called a semi
discussions about freedom along with rights must also include the discussions of responsibilities if gays want to have the right to marry they must also accept thee responsibility of NOT forcing everyone to agree with them If they force everyone to agree with them they are no different then the intolerent people who walk around with signs that say “God hates Fags”
Intolerence is simply not allowing others to have a different opinion. Freedom in this country allows us to all have different opinions. If we are all forced to believe the same things then… Orwells ‘1984’ comes to mind.
The topic of whether or not these people knew and agreed to the job description before becoming a Commissioner is interesting. Just how many took on the job years before SSM was even contemplated?
It’s a bit more subtle with paramedic Jehovah witnesses. I bet my boots that they do not choose to become the paramedics in the first place. It would be quite funny actually, to get a job as a paramedic and refuse to give someone a needles on the basis of religion. What a lucrative job would have that been: do nothing, get paid.
What concerns me most, is the crusade of the gay to get the world to submit to their needs. I cannot call their attack on the people with normal sexual orientation anything other than crusade. They now want to teach gay relations in school in BC and parents cannot opt out – over my dead cold body my sons will be taught how to fuck men in the ass for my own tax money. Every parent with guts should resist, if not protest. Check the kids into a hospital, get stranded on a snowy road in the boonies – just do something to skip that class. Otherwise soon all males will have to do ‘community service’ – you know what I mean. GFY, faggots!
Joe said:
“I’m sure there are many dyed-in-the-wool evangelicals out there today signing up for their licenses so they can cry out in agony when they take out the ad that says, “I don’t marry fags!” and then get sued.”
That would be consistent with the tactics of gay activists who seem willing to walk a mile to find a commissioner who won’t do a gay marriage, or find a church camp that won’t rent their facilities to a gay choir, but I am unaware of evangelicals engaging in this type of judicial activism.
Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just talking out of your ass with tired old liberal “moral equivalencey” arguments?
So now you want us to move on because you are sick of the argument. Well, I wanted to move on after the feds voted in favour of the traditional definition of marriage, so go pound sand!! If you don’t like the debate, don’t listen to. And shut up while you’re at it.
A marriage commissioner is a public employee, not a religious one. As such, their job is to be available to all people, of all races, all religions, and now, all sexualities.
This is non negotiable, and falls under charter rights. Under the Charter, there’s no difference between a Marriage Commission refusing to marry gays, as there is to them refusing to marry Protestants, as there is to them refusing to marry Jews.
While I can sympathize with the awkward position this puts Commissioners that have strong beliefs against same sex marriage, they should not hold that public position unless they’re willing to service any member of the public.
Adune,
So, this means that the terms of their employment have now changed. What if some have to leave their jobs because of it? Do you think there should be some sort of payout? Or are they just shafted?
Ha-ha-ha-ha, Adune! There is a big difference, I am surprised you do not see it. Sorry, I did not mean to offend you if you are blind by any chance, which is legitimate reason. The word ‘see’ was used in a sense irrelevant to vision, which is a broader term for ‘realization’… Okay, back on topic: the difference being, Jewish, Buddhist or Christian couples come in the shape of man and a woman, sometimes a woman and a man – however you like it. The gay couple is easy to distinguish by presence of two males or two females. Hoping that clears up your confusion.
“Intolerance is simply not allowing others to have a different opinion.”
Actually, The Tolerant don’t care if you *have* a different opinion as long as you keep it to yourself. Contemporary “tolerance” is about ultimately using the state to muzzle dissent from the political correct line of the day. It is, in fact, the very antithesis of tolerance.
jake:
I agree – freedom should have no limits, but that doesn’t mean there are no consequences. Once you are free to do something, there should be no artificial restraints put on it.
That bird is certainly free to fly down the middle of the road, and does so knowing theres a risk involved and stands a good chance of getting splattered. Does that mean we should tell the bird, no, you can’t do that. And you have to wear a helmet when you’re flying?
I also agree with you re: gays and not forcing acceptance. I believe both sides of this should just live and let live. It’s only the places where they meet that there is a problem, and the most obvious of those points is around marriage. I don’t think the gays should force people to marry them. That, in this case, is the governments job. Gay marriage is allowed by law now, so it’s not “the gays” trying to change peoples mind, it’s now the government. The government has now had 2 votes on the issue, and it still stands.
I don’t think anyone should be forced to believe in anything they don’t want to, but they should accept that others believe in things they don’t like, and stop trying to change or restrict those beliefs. to each their own.
Perhaps it’s the libertarian in me, I don’t know.
borked: “The government has now had 2 votes on the issue, and it still stands.”
3 votes actually. The first one recognized the traditional definition of marriage, but it was not allowed to stand because gay activists continued pushing it through. But it seems that now the activists have “found religion” saying that it is wrong to revisit an issue once a decision has been made. And no, it is not about the charter. The supreme court said that the government did not have to allow same sex marriage because of the charter, but that they could if they wanted to. But now marriage commissioners may be forced to perform gay marriages, or lose their jobs. And all for something that is not (according to the supreme court) a charter right. Rather, it was simply political pandering by a dithering idiot who was desperately trying to work out his daddy issues. A fine way to run a country.
If an employer says they are equal opportunity employers, how then can an employer decide that in future only a certain segment of society will be considered for jobs, aka, a fire dept stating basically no white men need apply. Any employer that deliberately trys to meet a quota of this minority or that minority is not an equal opportunity employer. It is way past time that alll employers, govt, private, etc hire the best qualified person for the job, instead of giving the job to unqualified people because they are the right sex, color, ethnic or whatever. Maybe by hiring the most qualified we would not have all the problems we have today. Imagine the pride a woman, ethnic, color, religion, whatever, would take in their job if they knew they were there because of qualifications instead quotas. This ss couple were offered a commissioner who would marry them. Instead, they are trying to force their beliefs on everyone else. Three cheers for the commissioner who said NO, and lets hope the passes.
Adune:
You might want to rethink your “non negotiable” assertion.
First point – remember that the legal definition of marriage spawned from the religious one. All of the rules for the legal definition of marriage are based in religion…
1) Must be to the exclusion of all others (adultery is breach of contract and grounds for divorce).
2) Contract must be made orally.
3) Oral contract must be witnessed by representatives of the bride and groom.
4) Marriage must be consomated on the night of marriage (it’s in the books).
5) Must be between a man and a woman.
No other contracts have such “unique” requirements…because no others are spawned from such a unique source. Most people who became JP’s and marriage commissioners did so with these being the rules that made up the definition.
But then government did two things that got them into trouble…
1) They invented common-law marriage (something religion never agreed with)
2) They introduced CPP and the concept of survivor benefits.
These two items are the ONLY grounds that gays had with which to argue about “equal rights.”
Thus, government found itself in a pickle when it comes to homosexual couples. And what did government do? Instead of admitting that common-law marriage (the idea that two people intend a contract when they clearly don’t) and CPP survivor benefits created more hassle than they were worth, government created another law to cover up the flaws of the first two laws…they created same-sex marriage and erased requirement 5.
So, imagine you’re a marriage commissioner. And imagine that, in order to please the people of Bountiful, BC, the feds decide to remove the “to the exclusion of all others” clause. After all, it gets in the way of the rights of polygamists. Then, imagine that your spouse comes to you and tells you that they want to marry another person and they expect you to perform the ceremony. You are a public servant – you must do it. It is non-negotiable.
You don’t need a religious argument to see that most people (including gays) would disagree with the removal of the “to the exclusion of all others clause.” And you can object to a fundamental pillar of society being changed without being a bigot or homophobe. If the reason for your object comes from religion (as did the original definition of marriage), then you too have a right to not be forced to go against that belief.
I think the whole idea of gay marriage is STUPID. These people have very serious mental problems.
If it can be illegal to smoke for the reason of increased burden on the taxpayers for treatment of sicknesses, caused by smoking, than sodomy should be equally illegal. You can’t have a cake and eat it too: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:q0hsD6eB3ywJ:www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/9_Sept/900fist3.htm+medical+consequences+of+homosexuality&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca
Since we’re trying to find similar analogies, how about these?:
1. Pharmacists who don’t want to fulfill the prescription for the morning after pill, feeling that it is murder?
2. Nurses who don’t want to participate in abortion?
3. Anaesthetists who don’t want to participate in abortion?
3. Police officers in Toronto in the 1980s who didn’t want to guard the Morgentaler clinic?
Maybe they’re not perfect, but in the cases I’m thinking of, these people all took these jobs before abortion was widespread or the morning after pill was available. Most nurses in hospitals can simply ask to be reassigned, and it’s no big deal. Same with anaesthetists. Both professions do have a bit of bargaining power because there’s such a shortage of both. But nurses have lost their jobs over this.
Pharmacists are on shakier ground because sometimes there is only one pharmacist on duty at a time, especially overnight in the ER when such cases arrive. I know ER doctors and pediatricians who have asked someone else to prescribe the morning after pill because they didn’t want to be involved in it. It worked out okay overall.
The point is that there are ways around this when everyone is reasonable. The marriage commissioners mostly did sign up before SSM, so expecting that they’ll all just tow the line is unreasonable. Can’t there be give and take on this issue?
Re: the analogy of the Muslim cab driver refusing to transport dogs or alcohol.
That’s better, and is a real issue that’s been going on at an airport in Minnesota I think (Captain’s Quarters has had some blog posts on this over the last couple of months). This one’s a convincing argument, because if I recall correctly the airport authority is about to step in and mandate that cab drivers can not refuse to transport passengers on these grounds (in particular, they’re concerned about blind passengers with guide dogs being denied transportation and the legal ramifications thereof) or else the offending cab drivers will lose their license to serve the airport.
I’m sold.
A civil marriage commissioner who won’t perform an otherwise legal marriage shouldn’t be a civil marriage commissioner; it is not his/her place to place any “fitness test” upon the marrieds-to-be or subject them to his/her own personal moral code. If it’s such a matter of principle, resign.
And the moslem cabbies can’t have a cake and eat it too: they applied for the airport license to earn more cash than in the city, no one is denying their religious freedom – they are free to drive up and down the streets in the course of their business, sure – any time, help yourself. But they insist on the privilege to make airport $$ and at the same time set their own rules. They are on private property, dictating the rules to the property owner. and they can pike off, which is exactly what they were told.
Will the next step be to prosecute people who turn down invitations to a same sex marriage ceremony?
I realize that some of you have issues with the concept of gay marriage. That’s fine, but you need to recognize that same sex rights have become a part of Canadian law now.
It no longer matters where the concept of marriage came from originally. In the eyes of the Charter, it’s no different from race, or religion.
If a Christian is refusing to perform same sex marriages on religious objections, if that Christian is being truly honest, they should be refusing to perform any marriage not between two Christians.
If a commissioner performs a marriage between two non Christians, or a Christian & non Christian, or people that have lived in adultery, they’re making the case that they’re performing a civil, non religious function. If they’re a Christian, they should be opposed to joining a Christian & a non Christian in marriage on religious grounds.
By refusing to marry a same sex couple, they’re selectively applying their religious objections based on the sexual preference of their clients.
That’s discrimination that is not allowed under the charter.
If you want to make a case that the law is an unjust law, and should be disobeyed, that’s one thing. I realize that certain gay rights groups are being stupid here, and pushing something that shouldn’t matter. Are there not any marriage commisssioners willing to perform SSM that they have to go after the small minority that won’t?
Legally though, same sex couples have the right to marry, and they shouldn’t have to keep trying a different person until they find one willing to marry gays. I don’t have to try different insurance agencies to find someone willing to sell life insurance to a Christian.
yo, bork, you missed the part about differentiating between things people CHOOSE to do, to follow the gay lifestyle and avail themselves of ssm, and things like the colour of your skin.
pls cite a single example of a human being CHOOSING their race.
get it?
you cant discriminate against groups/individuals over thing they got NO CONTROL OVER.
gays are perfectly free to simply go somewhere else to get the marriage licence but no, they gotta pick a godam fight over it. get in the face of the clerks and priests and taxpayers and anyone else their activist little faggotry addled heads lock on to.