April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by transplant99

and you wonder why there is a shortage of health care professionals in this province?

Im sorry but there is no way anyone should be forced to do anything against their beliefs.

Im against any and all discrimination without question, but that has to work both ways, and lets be realistic here....how many people will actually opt out of giving services we are talking about from the total pool of them. 2-5-10%?

I know how much it should be that don't offer a service to the public when they are legally obligated to, zero percent.

And as for why there is a shortage of medical professionals, I think it has more to do with wage cutbacks in the early-mid 90s in combination with the fact that there was a large hiring freeze which resulted in many Alberta trained nurses going to other provinces in order to practice. There are a number of reasons but this is the first time that I have heard that people were not allowed to descriminate as a reason for a staffing shortage.

This is in the CNA Code of Ethics by the way...

When providing care, nurses do not discriminate on the basis of
a person’s race, ethnicity, culture, political and spiritual beliefs,
social or marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, health
status, place of origin, lifestyle, mental or physical ability or
socio-economic status or any other attribute.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I know how much it should be that don't offer a service to the public when they are legally obligated to, zero percent.

And as for why there is a shortage of medical professionals, I think it has more to do with wage cutbacks in the early-mid 90s in combination with the fact that there was a large hiring freeze which resulted in many Alberta trained nurses going to other provinces in order to practice. There are a number of reasons but this is the first time that I have heard that people were not allowed to descriminate as a reason for a staffing shortage.

This is in the CNA Code of Ethics by the way...

Yup...so what?

You are still saying you want to force people to do things against their religious belief system...which is absurd when you want to use the "rights" argument. You want to trample someone elses rights to satisfy another rights, when in reality both can be accomodated.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by kn

As politically suicidal as it might be, could they invoke the notwithstanding clause to ignore the outcome of such challenges?

I think notwithstanding clause doesn't work on s2, s7 or s15, which would be the likely sections being debated.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yup...so what?

You are still saying you want to force people to do things against their religious belief system...which is absurd when you want to use the "rights" argument. You want to trample someone elses rights to satisfy another rights, when in reality both can be accomodated.

Not to split hairs, but in Canada you don't have a RIGHT to religion. You have "Freedom of conscience and religion." One is a right--the other is a liberty.

It might seem like splitting hairs, but understanding the difference reveals why a policy allowing health care providers to make decisions about the care they provide on the basis of conscience would not only be very wrong, it would be unconstitutional.

A right requires a corresponding duty in somebody else. Saying that you have a right to religion therefore amounts to saying that the government has (and may impose on others) affirmative duties with respect to your religious practice. This isn't the law; what we have is an obligation not to interfere with your religious practice, which is very different.

The problem is, of course, that doctors are employees of the public, and marriage commissioners are its agents. And to exercise their "conscience" rights therefore may engage the s. 15 "right to equality" of the people affected. And s. 15 really IS a "RIGHT" in the sense that affirmative implementational duties are implied.

It follows that you can't place the freedom of a medical practitioner to, say, not provide certain medical services that they are contractually required to perform, on equal footing with the right of all persons to equal treatment.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by transplant99

which i think is what they are saying...at least in terms of the abortion statement of a couple days ago...no?

I think they have, which is good, but I would focus on making sure that's the message that comes across whenever the PCs try to fearmonger on it. (Ironically, in 2008, the PCs attempted to table a bill protecting conscience rights lol)

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So you are saying that if a doctor is against abortions and refuses to perform them, he shouldnt be allowed to practice whatsoever?

No, but what I would say is if there is an old family doctor who lets say has been around since before abortions were legalized in Canada and he refused to refer a patient to receive an abortion based upon his religious rights that would be grounds for his medical license to be revoked as it is akin to not providing appropriate care for the patient.

I do think that this conscious rights thing is being blown out of proportion by both sides though.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not to split hairs, but in Canada you don't have a RIGHT to religion. You have "Freedom of conscience and religion." One is a right--the other is a liberty.

It might seem like splitting hairs, but understanding the difference reveals why a policy allowing health care providers to make decisions about the care they provide on the basis of conscience would not only be very wrong, it would be unconstitutional.

A right requires a corresponding duty in somebody else. Saying that you have a right to religion therefore amounts to saying that the government has (and may impose on others) affirmative duties with respect to your religious practice. This isn't the law; what we have is an obligation not to interfere with your religious practice, which is very different.

The problem is, of course, that doctors are employees of the public, and marriage commissioners are its agents. And to exercise their "conscience" rights therefore may engage the s. 15 "right to equality" of the people affected. And s. 15 really IS a "RIGHT" in the sense that affirmative implementational duties are implied.

It follows that you can't place the freedom of a medical practitioner to, say, not provide certain medical services that they are contractually required to perform, on equal footing with the right of all persons to equal treatment.

I'm not totally opposed to conscience rights so long as the people that are practicing them have to register the service they won't perform and/or administer and provide a solid reason for it being against their conscience. It's important that these rights don't become situational which would leave the door open to discrimination. It's also important that these rights are limited so that if there is no readily available alternative access to the services provided, the medical practitioners still must provide them, despite their conscience. In addition, these practitioners must still refer the people requesting the service to a place that does provide the service.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

No, but what I would say is if there is an old family doctor who lets say has been around since before abortions were legalized in Canada and he refused to refer a patient to receive an abortion based upon his religious rights that would be grounds for his medical license to be revoked as it is akin to not providing appropriate care for the patient.

I do think that this conscious rights thing is being blown out of proportion by both sides though.

So you are saying a doctor should lose his job (license) because of his beliefs....which is absurd to me when there are sufficient other professionals to which a woman can get that same referral from.

Again we have a shortage of health care professionals as is, and this is so over the top as a reaction to someone elses belief system that we could potentially make it worse/

There just is no common sense any longer.

And no...only one side is blowing this out of proportion....as per usual when it comes to the whole boogeyman argument.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yup...so what?

You are still saying you want to force people to do things against their religious belief system...which is absurd when you want to use the "rights" argument. You want to trample someone elses rights to satisfy another rights, when in reality both can be accomodated.

The "conscience rights" issue was very recently considered by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal when the province referred proposed amendments to the Marriage Act, 1995, S.S. 1995, c. M-4.1, to the Court. Justice Richards (one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country IMO) wrote an excellent decision (reported as Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3; available here) which considered many of the issues being discussed in this thread.

With respect to the argument that gay couples denied services by marriage counselors on the basis of "conscience rights" can simply find other, non-objecting marriage counselors, to provide those services, Justice Richards stated as follows:

[40] It was suggested in argument by Mr. Megaw, and some of the intervenors supporting him, that any such impact flowing from either the Grandfathering Option or the Comprehensive Option will be insignificant because a gay or lesbian couple turned away by a commissioner who does not solemnize same-sex marriages will be able to easily contact another commissioner who will be prepared to proceed. Moreover, they say the number of same-sex marriages will be small and the chances of a gay or lesbian couple being denied services will not be great. In my view, this line of argument is not persuasive.

[41] First, and most importantly, this submission overlooks, or inappropriately discounts, the importance of the impact on gay or lesbian couples of being told by a marriage commissioner that he or she will not solemnize a same-sex union. As can be easily understood, such effects can be expected to be very significant and genuinely offensive. It is not difficult for most people to imagine the personal hurt involved in a situation where an individual is told by a governmental officer “I won’t help you because you are black (or Asian or First Nations) but someone else will” or “I won’t help you because you are Jewish (or Muslim or Buddist) but someone else will.” Being told “I won’t help you because you are gay/lesbian but someone else will” is no different.

[42] Second, if either of the amendments is enacted, it is entirely possible that a significant number of commissioners will choose not to perform same-sex marriages. The impact of commissioners opting in this direction would be compounded by the fact there is nothing in the proposed amendments to ensure some minimum complement of commissioners will always be available to provide services to same-sex couples. Accordingly, if more than a very few commissioners do opt out of solemnizing same-sex marriages, it might well be more difficult than has been suggested for a gay or lesbian couple to find someone to marry them. They might be forced to make numerous calls and face numerous rejections before locating a commissioner who is prepared to assist them.

[43] My third concern about the arguments aimed at minimizing the impact of the amendments is that they take no account of geography. The material filed with the Court suggests marriage commissioners are appointed with a view to ensuring that people in all areas of the Province have a commissioner or commissioners reasonably close at hand. It seems obvious that, if commissioners can opt out of the obligation to perform same-sex marriages, a situation might quickly emerge where gay and lesbian couples (particularly in northern and rural areas or smaller centres) would have to travel some distance to find a commissioner willing to perform a marriage ceremony.

[44] In the result, I have no difficulty concluding that both the Grandfathering Option and the Comprehensive Option will have the effect of creating a negative distinction based on sexual orientation.

[45] I also have no difficulty finding that the distinction created by both of the possible amendments would be discriminatory within the meaning of s. 15(1) of the Charter. The historical marginalization and mistreatment of gay and lesbian individuals is well known. See, for example: Egan v. Canada, 1995 CanLII 98 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 at paras. 173-174. They have been able to recently claim the right to marry only after travelling a very difficult and contentious road. Accordingly, putting gays and lesbians in a situation where a marriage commissioner can refuse to provide his or her services solely because of their sexual orientation would clearly be a retrograde step – a step that would perpetuate disadvantage and involve stereotypes about the worthiness of same-sex unions.

[46] As a result, the enactment of either the Grandfathering Option or the Comprehensive Option would curtail rights guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both options, by way of their effect, would draw negative distinctions on the basis of an analogous ground and do so in a discriminatory manner.

Of course, that does not end the debate. No right is absolute. All rights protected in the Charter may be infringed so long as such infringement is justified and rational (see s. 1 of the Charter.)

Quite unusually, the Court's s. 1 analysis turned on the proportionality element:

[90] The third and final aspect of the proportionality inquiry involves consideration of whether the deleterious effects of the impugned law are, overall, proportionate to the public benefit conferred by the law. This involves a broad assessment of whether the positive effects of the law warrant its negative impact on guaranteed rights or freedoms. In Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1998 CanLII 829 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877, recently quoted with approval in Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, supra, at para. 77, Bastarache J. explained as follows:

[77] …

The third stage of the proportionality analysis performs a fundamentally distinct role. … The focus of the first and second steps of the proportionality analysis is not the relationship between the measures and the Charter right in question, but rather the relationship between the ends of the legislation and the means employed. Although the minimal impairment stage of the proportionality test necessarily takes into account the extent to which a Charter value is infringed, the ultimate standard is whether the Charter right is impaired as little as possible given the validity of the legislative purpose. The third stage of the proportionality analysis provides an opportunity to assess, in light of the practical and contextual details which are elucidated in the first and second stages, whether the benefits which accrue from the limitation are proportional to its deleterious effects as measured by the values underlying the Charter.

[italics added]

[91] Historically, this aspect of the Oakes test has been the subject of some academic criticism and has not featured prominently in the jurisprudence. But, in Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, supra, at paras. 72-78, the Supreme Court recently reconfirmed this aspect of the proportionality inquiry and clearly endorsed its ongoing application.

[92] What then of the salutary effect of the Grandfathering Option and the Comprehensive Option? The answer is straightforward and easily described. Both would allow marriage commissioners to avoid acting in situations which would offend their religious beliefs – beliefs which are, no doubt, of very significant importance to some commissioners. The Grandfathering Option would, of course, extend this benefit only to those commissioners appointed before November 5, 2004, while the Comprehensive Option would make it available to all commissioners regardless of their date of appointment.

[93] However, in considering the benefits of the Options, it is also important to note that the freedom of religion interests they accommodate do not lie at the heart of s. 2(a) of the Charter. In other words, the Options are concerned only with the ability of marriage commissioners to act on their beliefs in the world at large. They do not in any way concern the freedom of commissioners to hold the religious beliefs they choose or to worship as they wish. This reality means the benefits flowing from the Options are less significant than they might appear on the surface.

[94] I turn then to the question of deleterious effects. Three points warrant emphasis on this front. First, both the Grandfathering Option and the Comprehensive Option would perpetuate a brand of discrimination which our national community has only recently begun to successfully overcome. It would be a significant step backward if, having won the difficult fight for the right to same-sex civil marriages, gay and lesbian couples could be shunned by the very people charged by the Province with solemnizing such unions.

[95] Second, and more concretely, allowing marriage commissioners to deny services to gay and lesbian couples would have genuinely harmful impacts. This can be seen, for example, in M.J. v. Nichols (2008), 63 C.H.R.R. D/145, where M.J. testified as follows about his reaction to being denied services by a marriage commissioner:

It was actually pretty devastating… So when this happened I was quite devastated. I rehashed this I don’t know how much when I couldn’t sleep because I actually wound up sleeping very little. I was just crushed about it. I couldn’t believe that as a human being I wasn’t going to be treated as a real person. And everybody should be treated as a real person. …

[96] Negative effects of this sort would not be restricted to those gay and lesbian individuals who are directly denied marriage services. A more generalized version of it would obviously be felt by the gay and lesbian community at large and, indeed, there is no doubt it would ripple through friends and families of gay and lesbian persons and the public as a whole. Simply put, it is not just gay and lesbian couples themselves who would be hurt or offended by the notion that a governmental official can deny services to same-sex couples. Many members of the public would also be negatively affected by the idea.

[97] The third, and in some ways most important deleterious effect of the Grandfathering Option and the Comprehensive Option, is that both would undermine a deeply entrenched and fundamentally important aspect of our system of government. In our tradition, the apparatus of the state serves everyone equally without providing better, poorer or different services to one individual compared to another by making distinctions on the basis of factors like race, religion or gender. The proud tradition of individual public officeholders is very much imbued with this notion. Persons who voluntarily choose to assume an office, like that of marriage commissioner, cannot expect to directly shape the office’s intersection with the public so as to make it conform with their personal religious or other beliefs. Any idea of this sort would sit uneasily with the principle of the rule of law to the effect that “the law is supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals, and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power.” See: Reference re: Manitoba Language Rights, 1985 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721 at p. 748; Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 at para. 71.

[98] Marriage commissioners do not act as private citizens when they discharge their official duties. Rather, they serve as agents of the Province and act on its behalf and its behalf only. Accordingly, a system that would make marriage services available according to the personal religious beliefs of commissioners is highly problematic. It would undercut the basic principle that governmental services must be provided on an impartial and non-discriminatory basis.

[99] Taking all of the relevant considerations into account, it is readily apparent that the positive aspects of the objective sought by the Grandfathering Option and the Comprehensive Option do not outweigh their deleterious effects. As a result, neither alternative satisfies the third aspect of the proportionality wing of the Oakes test.

[100] In my opinion, neither the Grandfathering Option nor the Comprehensive Option curtail equality rights in a way that is justifiable within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that freedom of religion is not absolute and that, in appropriate cases, it is subject to limitation. This is clearly one of those situations where religious freedom must yield to the larger public interest.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. Hopefully those posters interested in the "conscience rights" debate find it interesting.

For what it's worth, I think its clear that "conscience rights"-type legislation would immediately face a very strong legal challenge. I also think that it would very likely be struck down. Personally, I'm very glad of that.

I also think that the Wildrose Alliance either knows or should know this. Therefore, I view its inclusion in their platform as mostly pandering to their base, which I find a bit offensive. But, that said, its not like I was ever going to vote for the Wildrose Alliance anyway, so I suppose they haven't really lost anything.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So you are saying a doctor should lose his job (license) because of his beliefs....which is absurd to me when there are sufficient other professionals to which a woman can get that same referral from.

Again we have a shortage of health care professionals as is, and this is so over the top as a reaction to someone elses belief system that we could potentially make it worse/

There just is no common sense any longer.

And no...only one side is blowing this out of proportion....as per usual when it comes to the whole boogeyman argument.

No, he's not saying that. He's saying that if a doctor doesn't provide a service because it goes against his conscience, that they should still be required to refer the person to a doctor that will so that the service is available to the person requesting it, even though the doctor himself won't provide it. That seems like a fair compromise to me.

FWIW, I misread it to say what you think he said the first time as well, but after rereading it, he's only saying that refusing both the service and a referral would be grounds for dismissal, not just refusing to perform the service.

[transplant99]

yeah i read it that way now as well....and i agree actually.

[RougeUnderoos]

The issues here are abortion, and gay marriage. The "Conscience Rights" business comes from a bunch of white, conservative Albertans. Obviously, what we're really talking about here are not "Conscience Rights", but "Christian Rights" by another name.

We all know that this conscience stuff wouldn't apply to anyone else.

Say a Muslim firefighter (a public servant) refuses to put out a fire at a Church for whatever supernatural reason he cooks up. How far does the "conscience" argument get this guy? Are conservatives going to be outraged when he gets fired? Yeah, right.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Now I'm officially scared. While I do think that the protection of rights/freedoms are important, I do think that inevitably there will be clashes and thus as a society we need to determine which rights are held to a higher degree, while it is obvious in cases of life and personal wellbeing/safety, in cases this this it is much blurrier. I will fully admit that I am about as religious as a rock is smart and that likely plays a significant role in my viewpoints, I also think that the rights associated with equality under the law and the right not to be discriminated against as a result of sexual orientation are also very important. I agree that this isn’t likely to be a huge deal and I hate the slippery slope argument so I won’t use that, I just think that in this particular case the risks associated with not allowing someone to get married outweigh the risks associated with offending a single individual whose life will not change in any way, shape or form by signing the page or doing whatever it is they do to marry someone.

That being said the simple solution is to do away with marriage commissioner and get people do find their own person do to the whole sickness, health, rich, poor etc etc spiel...

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The issues here are abortion, and gay marriage. The "Conscience Rights" business comes from a bunch of white, conservative Albertans. Obviously, what we're really talking about here are not "Conscience Rights", but "Christian Rights" by another name.

We all know that this conscience stuff wouldn't apply to anyone else.

Say a Muslim firefighter (a public servant) refuses to put out a fire at a Church for whatever supernatural reason he cooks up. How far does the "conscience" argument get this guy? Are conservatives going to be outraged when he gets fired? Yeah, right.

There's a reason that it only applies to health care and marriage commissioners. It's also the reason that many Christians, and I assume people from other religions as well, are cautiously supporting this, but only with a very well defined and rigid set of limitations. Aka, I'll support it if it means you can say no assuming there is someone else that can perform the service, and you refer them to that person. If there is no other reasonably easily accessible person, then the person in that role should still be required to perform the service. Also, if not peforming the action would result in harm to that persons long term health, then the service must be performed regardless of your conscience. For example, an abortion must be performed if the mother's life is in danger, or she is at risk of receiving a disability, etc. Basically, conscience rights should only apply to non critical procedures (like the majority of abortions where 1 or 2 days delay makes no difference).

I really hope the Wildrose comes out and specified exactly how they plan to implement this as it could have a large bearing on how I and a lot of people vote.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The issues here are abortion, and gay marriage. The "Conscience Rights" business comes from a bunch of white, conservative Albertans. Obviously, what we're really talking about here are not "Conscience Rights", but "Christian Rights" by another name.

We all know that this conscience stuff wouldn't apply to anyone else.

Say a Muslim firefighter (a public servant) refuses to put out a fire at a Church for whatever supernatural reason he cooks up. How far does the "conscience" argument get this guy? Are conservatives going to be outraged when he gets fired? Yeah, right.

Right...and absolutely nothing is going to change in regards to either one of them, therefore this is a total non-issue and nothing more than what the left claims about the right...fear-mongering.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

There's a reason that it only applies to health care and marriage commissioners. It's also the reason that many Christians, and I assume people from other religions as well, are cautiously supporting this, but only with a very well defined and rigid set of limitations. Aka, I'll support it if it means you can say no assuming there is someone else that can perform the service, and you refer them to that person. If there is no other reasonably easily accessible person, then the person in that role should still be required to perform the service. Also, if not peforming the action would result in harm to that persons long term health, then the service must be performed regardless of your conscience. For example, an abortion must be performed if the mother's life is in danger, or she is at risk of receiving a disability, etc. Basically, conscience rights should only apply to non critical procedures (like the majority of abortions where 1 or 2 days delay makes no difference).

I really hope the Wildrose comes out and specified exactly how they plan to implement this as it could have a large bearing on how I and a lot of people vote.

How would you respond to the following point though?

[41] First, and most importantly, this submission overlooks, or inappropriately discounts, the importance of the impact on gay or lesbian couples of being told by a marriage commissioner that he or she will not solemnize a same-sex union. As can be easily understood, such effects can be expected to be very significant and genuinely offensive. It is not difficult for most people to imagine the personal hurt involved in a situation where an individual is told by a governmental officer “I won’t help you because you are black (or Asian or First Nations) but someone else will” or “I won’t help you because you are Jewish (or Muslim or Buddist) but someone else will.” Being told “I won’t help you because you are gay/lesbian but someone else will” is no different.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Right...and absolutely nothing is going to change in regards to either one of them, therefore this is a total non-issue and nothing more than what the left claims about the right...fear-mongering.

No, that's not true. Apparently, Danielle Smith supports a (discriminatory) change in how the province delivers those services:

It may be a policy drawn up from an earlier political incarnation, but Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith is sticking by a party members’ wish to “ensure conscience rights for marriage commissioners and health professionals.”

Smith initially made the comment in a civil liberties questionnaire drawn up by the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association and issued to several provincial political leaders and leadership candidates.

SOURCE: http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/ne...e-leader-8013/

Therefore, in my view, it is perfectly legitimate to debate the merits of those proposed changes.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Makarov

How would you respond to the following point though?

Looking at Service Alberta's site, it appears that all Marriage Commissioner are government officials/representatives, and as such it only seems correct that they should not be allowed to turn away gay couples. I made the original statement assuming religious and civil marriage 'officers' were all marriage commissioners when they are not. If they are a member of the clergy of a religious organization, they should be allowed to say no if it's against their religion/conscience, but not if they are marriage commissioners who are government officials.

Basically, I'm for conscience rights if it doesn't change anything. Currently, religious clergy are not required to marry those who are not members of their faith, and in Alberta the code of ethics already allows pharmacists and doctors to create alternative arrangements, so long as the arrangements are done in advance. If conscience rights add rights beyond this, I'm opposed as the last thing we need is a nurse not performing their duties on a single patient because they are a Jew that is notorious for speaking out against Muslims for example. I hope she clarifies that she just wants to entrench existing policy in law, and not add rights beyond this.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Not to derail the conversation,

Please do....

but ThreeHundredEight has an updated seat projection and analysis on the election so far.

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.co....html?spref=tw

Interesting trends between the three main areas in the Province, with The WRP plateauing in Edmonton, about to plateau in Calgary and still soaring in Rural Alberta.

It's going to be curious to see how this all plays out. My take is that we're going to see a bit of a downturn in week two for the WRP in Calgary and Edmonton. I can't see a way that the PCs get completely shut out in Calgary, especially with the Premier in Calgary Klien, or other candidates such as McIver and Jansen not getting in. I'd also be shocked if Hehr isn't re-elected in Calgary. (That being said, I don't have boots on the ground in Calgary so I don't know what's really going on).

But the other outcome which might be interesting if this start to soften or plateau in regards to the WRP in these two cities, is we could have a very definitive divide between the rural areas and urban areas.

Yes, I've said it before; no party can keep up this rate of escalation for 4 weeks.

One thing though.... the Premier is running in Calgary Elbow, not Klein.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Looking at Service Alberta's site, it appears that all Marriage Commissioner are government officials/representatives, and as such it only seems correct that they should not be allowed to turn away gay couples. I made the original statement assuming religious and civil marriage 'officers' were all marriage commissioners when they are not. If they are a member of the clergy of a religious organization, they should be allowed to say no if it's against their religion/conscience, but not if they are marriage commissioners who are government officials.

Fair enough. That is my position too (and, incidentally, this protection for religious leaders [who are not agents of the government and therefore to whom of course the Charter does not apply]) was specifically included in the amendments to the federal Marriage Act which permitted same-sex marriages.