[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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."

Has the Catholic Church lost its charitable status for not ordaining women even though it is in direct conflict with Section 15 of the Charter? No. Why hasn't it? Because it is protected by its constitutional right to religious freedom. It is a boogey-man argument.

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.

While I take issue with your terminology of homosexuality being a lifestyle, I don't disagree with much of what you have said here. I have never expected the Canadian people to change overnight to be completely accepting of gays and lesbians. I believe that there are good and decent people who don't understand and don't want to understand homosexuality. I certainly do my best to be a good representative of gay men and while I aim to change the hearts of those who disagree with who I am, there is not much more that I can do.

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

Actually, yes you are abolishing civil marriage. If the word marriage is not being used, it has been abolished. Of course the benefits of civil unions will match the benefits of marriage but it isn't the same.

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.

That is my point. How do people who do not want to be married in a Church/Synagogue/Mosque get married? Doesn't denying them the opportunity to be married based on their atheism/agnosticism contravene their right to religion?

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.

Clearly you subscribe to the idea of framer's intent when you study history. I, on the other hand, see history and the law as a living tree which grows and expands. Maybe when the idea of civil marriage was adopted centuries ago, there were only two dimensions of marriage: legal and religious. But over the years, a third dimension developed. The third dimension is the societal dimension of marriage. The terminology and traditions of marriage have become adopted by both secular and religious societies. Marriage is no longer simply a religious event...the wedding day is something that many girls dream of and are prepared for from a young age. It has been romanticized by our culture regardless of whether it is a religious or a secular event. If the government no longer recognizes "marriage", it is denying those who want to celebrate a secular marriage ceremony/wedding based on their atheism.