Quote:
Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Dec 9 2004, 07:55 PM
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.
|
If it is only a civil concern - then why try to change the definiton of marriage, why not apply the term civil union to everyone?
And if you are a licensed auto mechanic who thinks he can't fix my car because a (black/jewish/gay) person is driving it, and I can prove it, then I can take you to court a force you to pay for not fixing it.
If you are a preist who is licensed to preform marriages and have performed marriages for interfaith couples and allow homosexuals to partake in your ceremonies and services, then you MAY be forced to perform the ceremony. The activist couple does not see this as "going against" the diety - they just want to make the point.
And this is not a ruling - if it were then there would be no need for a vote in Parliment- it is an opinion, a strong one, yes, but still not a ruling.