Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 9 2004, 07:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 9 2004, 07:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 11:21 AM
I do not know if the "Church's right to refuse" has ever been challanged in court.
|
The Supreme Court just said in this very ruling that a church has the right to refuse to marry homosexuals.
<!--QuoteBegin-Supreme Court of Canada
Absent unique circumstances with respect to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs
|
Case closed. [/b][/quote]
First - this is not a ruling - it's advice and opinion given to the government at the Librals request.
Second - it does not prevent an activist couple for taking the issue to court for a ruling. Some argumants I would put forth against the religious leaders are - do you allow homosexuals to pray in your sanctary? Do you offer them counseling? Does the counseling involved only deal with changing sexuality? Do you preform marraiges of converts? the notion being that if you accept them as they are then you must marry them as they are - your religious beleifs are flexible.
I know it all seems cut and dried - allow gay marriages but don't force religious leaders to perform them - but that is not how the world works, someone always wants to make a point or be the pioneer or prove that they are right and someone else is wrong.
live in interesting times.