[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I understand where you are coming from. However, it is specifically written in the legislation that any Church can refuse to marry gays and lesbians if it goes against their religious beliefs. There was a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to see if this legislation would contravene either the rights of gays and lesbians or the religious rights of the Churches who refused to marry gays and lesbians. The Supreme Court ruled that no it did not contravene the rights of gays and lesbians nor did it infringe upon the religious rights of the Churches. So there is no threat to religious bodies.

The difference is, Bill C-38 protects Religions, not the religious, and even so, only protects Churches from direct court challenges. Nothing in C-38 precludes the ability for a group to attack a Church's charitable status on the grounds that the Church "does not adhere to Canadian values, and fosters discrimination and intolerance." They wouldn't take a Church to court simply because they "refuse to solemnize Same-Sex Marriage," that, as you pointed out, is protected. However, without charitable status, no Church could survive indefinitely. Therefore, they'd be forced to change their policy. This is not some "boogeyman" I cleverly crafted for the purposes of debate, it was considered in my Poli 329 class as the next step to watch for, as well as a "significant legal threat to Churches in Canada."

When something like Bill 208 in Alberta came around to protect the religious (and religious schools), it was immediately dismissed as intolerant and discriminatory (despite the right of religious schools to teach their religious ideals, including pro-life and anti-SSM stances).

Why is protection of beliefs considered discriminatory? To me, just because someone doesn't like them is not good enough. Realistically, its in the same league as the acceptance of Sikhs in the RCMP wearing turbans, they are too, are defending their religious beliefs. In this case, some people don't like the ideas coming from the religious. Unless those ideas are actively and tangibly fostering hate and intolerance, those ideas are protected by law and no one's right to interfere with. Disagreeing with someone's stance does not equal intolerance, even if that person's stance disagrees with your lifestyle and desires no active part in it.

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I appreciate that you are trying to come up with a solution that is equal and fair but I think that abolishing civil marriages is a little overly dramatic. It is kind of like amputating a broken arm instead of trying to heal it.

Candidly, its easy to call it overly dramatic when from your angle, your needs have been addressed. As a Libertarian, I see this issue as one side achieving their agenda at the detriment of another, and that is not the way enlightened and free societies are supposed to work. The best way to satisfy both sides is to take the religion out of marriage, and to provide equality for both gay and straight couples in the eyes of the Law. Tolerance is a two-way street, and both sides should be considered and tolerated. To date, this has only happened superficially and haphazardly.

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

If we abolish civil marriage, those who don't want to be married in a Church/synagogue/mosque but want to be recognized as married would be denied that recognition.

Firstly, we're not "abolishing" civil marriage, we are calling a spade a spade, and renaming it more accurately. In this case "civil union."

Secondly, why would the non-religious even want to be married in a Church/Synagogue/Mosque? Do they truly want their legal declaration to be considered akin to a religious rite? They aren't religious and already can be legally refused a Church marriage. To be married in a Church, one has to prove they are religious and have had whatever sacraments/rites/ceremonies etc. are required of them.

What these people want is actually a civil union. If they wanted to be bound in Holy Matrimony (the root concept of marriage), they would find a willing Church and fulfill any necessary requirements.

The Government would essentially be acknowledging that they piggy-backed off a religious tradition, and that their definition, and the desired intent of Holy Matrimony historically, no longer match. Which is fine, its called progression. Traditional marriage was designed to bind a man and a woman in the eyes of God for the means of consolidating property and title for the greater purpose of procreation as per God's will. Contemporary marriage does not mean that at all. Contemporary marriage is the declaration of love and devotion between two people. No mention of procreation, property or religion.