10/04/2006

Gay Marriage... Again

The latest report is that gay marriage is up for discussion again, and possibly a vote. The House will be deciding whether they want to reopen the debate. The media is in a fit over supposed Conservative plans to introduce legislation protecting religious officials who do not wish to marry gays.
Apparently it's "discriminatory."
According to the Opposition, our current laws protect us.
Sigh.
If you have ever read my blog or are familiar with past rulings made by the Supreme Court of Canada, then you will know that our laws do not in any way protect freedom of religion when it comes to orientation. Quite the opposite. The Supreme Court has already ruled that gay rights trump religion.
As usual, the Liberals are lying. We do need some sort of backup law. It will be interesting to see what it says.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is this: the charter does not mention sexual orientation in regards rights.

If this needs to be tested in a court of law then it will be.

Ruth said...

It has already been tested. You should carefully read the Court's decision with regards to the Whatcott case.

Jim said...

Ruth,

It's not about religious discrimination. Right now, Churches are not required to marry anyone - heterosexual or otherwise.

The part of the legislation that is troubling is it would allow governmental officials not to have to perform a governmental service based upon a moral viewpoint. That's discriminatory.

Freedom for all said...

Jim wrote: "The part of the legislation that is troubling is it would allow governmental officials not to have to perform a governmental service based upon a moral viewpoint."

What legislation?

Also, you should look into the case of one Scott Brockie.

Anonymous said...

Jim: "The part of the legislation that is troubling is it would allow governmental officials not to have to perform a governmental service based upon a moral viewpoint"

Maybe that's true. But is that not within their "already" protected rights to express their religion? You are trumping these people's religious rights with someone's "sexual" rights.

We have labour laws protecting someone's right to refuse to work on Sunday. Why don't we protect their other religious beliefs as well.

The government only has to provide the marriage service. Not every employee should have to. If employee A says no then just get employee B who has no problem with it to do it. Or are you scared they won't be able to find anyone? If we are to believe the media then those opposed to performing a SSM are in the minute minority so someone refusing to perform the ceremony really shouldn't be a big deal.

Anton

Jim said...

FFA,

What legislation?

Point taken.

Also, you should look into the case of one Scott Brockie.

Which government ministry does he work for?

Jim said...

Anton,

But is that not within their "already" protected rights to express their religion? You are trumping these people's religious rights with someone's "sexual" rights.

First of all, being homesexual is not defined as a sexual right anymore than heterosexuality is. And, as far as I can tell, their religion only tells them that it's wrong for them to be gay - if they're comfortable with that, they can express that they're not allowed to be gay all they want.

It's simply the fact that a government official dispensing a publicly available service, provided by the government, does not have the authority to pick and choose which services to dispense based upon a personal moral viewpoint.

Should a marriage commissioner be allowed to deny a marriage license if one of the applicants is divorced? Could a birth certificate be denied if a child is born out of wedlock? Could a gun license be denied if the officer of the Solicitor General believes guns are wrong? Can a vegetarian meat inspector refuse to inspect a slaughterhouse?

[A]are you scared they won't be able to find anyone? If we are to believe the media then those opposed to performing a SSM are in the minute minority so someone refusing to perform the ceremony really shouldn't be a big deal.

I don't even know where to begin with this ridiculous assertion ...

Anonymous said...

"It's simply the fact that a government official dispensing a publicly available service, provided by the government, does not have the authority to pick and choose which services to dispense based upon a personal moral viewpoint."

Jim, so Gov't employees should obey orders without question? What if the order is immoral? Should we force medical doctors to perform euthasia because it's the law? Should soldiers simply kill POW if ordered to do so?

Have you ever heard how WWII concentration camp officers sent millions to their death in incinerators because they were "just following orders".

What about a person who is claustrophobic, should they be forced to go into a confined space because they are providing a government service to the public?

Also, have you ever considered that Government sometimes inact unjust laws and make mistakes? Should we obey unjust laws or continue to enforce bad legislation just because it's the law?

Listed on BlogsCanada Blogarama - The Blog Directory Powered by Blogger FeedBurner Blogging Tories
Southern Ontario Conservatives