[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red+Dec 9 2004, 01:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bleeding Red @ Dec 9 2004, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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. [/b][/quote]
I think we're all missing something here. There's a differnece between a civil ceremony and one at a church. the priest is involved so that the marriage is recognized by the church (ie God), and in the meantime, the priest is also doing all the legal stuff that is necessary for the province to recognize the marriage. So essentially, if you want to force a priest to marry you, you are basically trying to force something on God (or whatever diety you believe in), and from what I've heard, he's a pretty stubborn guy.

If I don't think I can fix your car, the government can't force me to try. Likewise, if a priest doesn't think he can change God's mind (and I can't think of any that think they can, not even good old J.P. II), so why would the courts try to make him.

Besides, if a case like this ever did come up, I'm pretty sure the response would be "We've already ruled on this, case dismissed" and once the SC says that, there really isn't much more you can do.