Quote:
Originally posted by Bleeding Red+Dec 9 2004, 02:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bleeding Red @ Dec 9 2004, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
Firstly, of course it's not a ruling, there's no law, so there's nothing to rule on.
For those that are confused, this is advice from the supreme court to the government. The government asked the supreme court on the constitutionality of making a law that allows gay marriage, and the supreme court has said that yes, that law would be legal under the constitution, so if the govenment makes that law, and puts in the provision that the priests don't have to do it, then no one is gonna be able to argue that to the court, could they try? Sure, but the court has pretty much already said what the result of that challenge would be, and would outright dismiss it, just as any lower court could dismiss it on the same grounds.
As far as the priest goes, as far as he is concerned, he cannot marry two gay people, anymore than he can fly, why? Because as far as the church is concerned marriage is only between a man and a woman. Forcing a priest to do it would be just as descriminatory as me not fixing someone's car because he is black. No where in the bible (or anything the pope has said) does it preclude gay people from going to church, or does it say that catholics can't marry non catholics (using catholic as an example), but it does have a pretty clear set of rules for marriage, so saying they include them in their services isn't a valid arguement.
You ask me to build a brick house out of wood, and I can't do it regardless of whether you are black, white, gay, straight, or if I even care if you are. You can't build a brick house out of wood. Priests can't build a catholic marriage out of two men, or two women, because in either case they are missing a vital component. Is that right in the moral sense, some say yes, some say no, but the priest is definately saying yes, and making him do it would be just as illigal as anything you have put forth.