Same sex marriage settled.. again.. 175-123

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You cannot now, never were able to and never will be able to force a priest or anyone else to perform a wedding ceremony for a man and a woman if he didn't or doesn't want to do it. Why would it be any different for a same-sex couple?

I think this is a scare tactic cooked up by the religious crazies who are just trying to hang on to this resolved issue.

No kidding.

They don't even have to perform marriages for non-practicing Catholics... why would they have to perform them for gay people?

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Religious groups will not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples nor do I think there will ever be a serious challenge by anyone who demands that a church perform a same sex marriage. This isn't the litigation happy United States, after all.

The issue I have is when Ralp Klein went on and on about how he would insure that no Marriage Commisioner would have to marry two people of the same sex if it disagreed with their religious beliefs. HELLO! Marriage Commissioners are public servants! If they don't want to apply the law equally in all their duties then they should resign. There is supposed to be a seperation between church and state. It would be like a police officer refusing to uphold drug laws because he/she felt that drugs should be legalized anyways. If you are unable to shelve your personal beliefs and follow the requirements of the job then you should find another line of work. To institutionalize the discrimination contravenes the civil rights of Canadians.

I for one sure don't think that people should shove their convictions in their back pocket just because they are public servants. Should a Sikh
NOT be allowed to wear his turban as an example? To me your beliefs(religious or not) are part of you and you should stand up for them wherever. The government as as institution and the Church as one should be separate but people's own convictions should remain their own and not be violated no manner where they work.

[FLAMESBURNOIL]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

The way I see it, I'm not against gay marriage simply because I consider myself to be rational and tolerant of other people.

The fact that people oppose something like this so much appalls me. Who am I to say that two people love eachother can't get married because I don't agree with their lifestyles?

Ya I really don't think that's the issue, most people oppose this, don't oppose gay's, but oppose the changing the definition of the world marriage, which they have been brought up to believe its between man and woman.

Gays have had the same governmental rights as married couples via a civil union before this issue game up, they just wanted it to be called marriage too. And I find it funny this is an issue of equality to them, considering that marriage is a religious sacrament and most religions aren't in favor of gay couples.

[jharp]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

The way I see it, I'm not against gay marriage simply because I consider myself to be rational and tolerant of other people.

The fact that people oppose something like this so much appalls me. Who am I to say that two people love eachother can't get married because I don't agree with their lifestyles?

for me, being married isnt the issue.
i think 'gayness' is wrong, and i cannot fathom how any sane person could ever be lead down this path. at the same time, i am by no means omnipotent therefore i am sure that there are factors outside of my current understanding that play a part in their desicions.
i think the problem is children. being married means that (if it wasnt already) it allows these couples to adopt kids. i do not agree with this in any form.
the typical point people raise in trying to debate this is..'is it any better then a single mother, or a father who is a drunk?' yadaya...the answer is maybe it is, maybe it isnt. however, two wrongs dont make a right, and in my opinion having two daddys is an automatic disadvantage to any child. imagine going to school and having your mommy's or your daddys going to parent teacher interviews. i have a hard time beleiving that a child could grow up normally having these extra pressures placed on them.
not only that, but i think it would also sckew a childs perception of what a normal family should be. granted, many children are not afford this anymore, but it goes back to the points made before.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

i support gay marriage. however, i think the legislation was passed too fast and adequate protections of religious beliefs aren't in there. i'd like to see more protection for say... a priest who refuses to perform gay mariages because its against his religion.

I thought I heard that Harper said that there is no "religious protection legislation"...because the idea already exists under the Charter (of Rights and Freedoms). Thoughts?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I for one sure don't think that people should shove their convictions in their back pocket just because they are public servants. Should a Sikh
NOT be allowed to wear his turban as an example?

Depends where. If the turban interfears with the job, like being a catholic may interfere with being a marraige commisioner, then IMO the responsibility is on the individual to adapt to the job.
The turban issue is/was about image, not function so it's apples and oranges with the marraige commisioners

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FLAMESBURNOIL

but oppose the changing the definition of the world marriage,

Do these same people worry about the changing definition of other words? "Marriage" used to have a very different definition than it does now. Hell, it has many different definitions today.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

The way I see it, I'm not against gay marriage simply because I consider myself to be rational and tolerant of other people.

The fact that people oppose something like this so much appalls me. Who am I to say that two people love eachother can't get married because I don't agree with their lifestyles?

I'm not up for a debate, because I'm tired of the issue and I'm resigned to the fact that it's here to stay. However, I do need to say that your opinion of dissenters is based on your own assumptions, and not necessarily our beliefs. My beliefs are not religious...they're logical, tolerant, and they have been dismissed. So be it. It's over.

I personally don't have a problem with a gay lifestyle. If it makes two people happy, they should live that way. I don't have a problem with legal unions of two gay people...I think they should be entitled to all the legal benefits available to others. A system of allowing legal civil unions, equal in all respects to marriage, would have satisfied me. Undoubtedly, union-ed couples would have called themselves married anyhow, despite whatever the legal document said.

My problem was with the way the debate played out, including both the rationale and the tactics used.

1) Rationale: The demands for "marriage" as opposed to "legal unions" (or whatever name) were based on the tenet that a separate, but equal class of legal relationship would not in fact be equal if it couldn't be called the same thing. E.g., "equal but different is not equal at all!" I personally find that a weak argument when I consider all of the other minority/oppressed groups who have fought for equality, yet consciously chosen to maintain their original identities. I find it odd that a group with so much "pride" would want to be melded into the majority group, instead of fighting for their own, equal institution and then fighting to have it recognized as equal.

Many will agree with me that this was as much (or more) a fight about a word as it was about equality. That being the case, I find it disturbing that the views of a large constituency about this particular word were disregarded in favour of the demands of a much smaller group.

2) Tactics: As you're no doubt aware, while several provincial courts ruled on the unconstitutional nature of traditional marriage, the Supreme Court never ruled that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. In response to the reference question (paraphrased as): "is the opposite-sex requirement constitutional?", the SCC declined to make a decision on the grounds that the government had already stipulated the point by their refusal to appeal lower court rulings of unconstitutionality.

In short: the lower courts made a decision...the government executive (not parliament as a whole) decided that it agreed with their decision...and then claimed that it had no choice but to change the definition because the courts said so. That claim of "no choice" was used to influence public opinion as they repeatedly raised the "notwithstanding clause" issue. That was a lie, as any legislative body can attempt to defend its legislation all the way to the top. Personally, I think changes to the law should be made by the people and their elected representatives. Not by surreptitious decisions made by the governing executive, and blamed on unelected judges.

As for the court challenges themselves, I think they were based on a faulty premise: the Charter sets out individual rights, not "couple's rights." Every person previously had the right to marry...just not the right to marry certain people: close family members, people of the same sex, 2 people at the same time, horses, for example. Some of these restrictions are justified by the premise that such a marriage could cause harm, as in the production of children from an incestuous marriage or the abuse of wives by a polygamous husband. If that justification does not exist--e.g. a sterile brother & sister combination--then the prohibition on these marriages must also fall as unconstitutional under a Charter challenge. Regrettably, the provincial court judges failed to realize this point and have now inserted "couple's rights" into the Charter.

Court challenges based on Charter rights have a place. For example, a farmer's right to sell his grain as he pleases is a great example of a challenge that should succeed. However, I think the over-use of Charter challenges is dangerous to this country, as is the tendency of our current Supreme Court judges to "read-in" rights that aren't explicitly set out in the Charter. If a government allows provincial court of appeal judges to define Canadian law without any opposition, then I think we've already lost democracy.

So to summarize:

My opposition wasn't based on lifestyle or equality. It was based on what I perceived to be dangerous trends in Canadian democracy. So STOP CALLING ME INTOLERANT (as you did) unless you're willing to take the time to understand all the points of view!

Anyhow...I've given up, and the matter is settled.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Depends where. If the turban interfears with the job, like being a catholic may interfere with being a marraige commisioner, then IMO the responsibility is on the individual to adapt to the job.
The turban issue is/was about image, not function so it's apples and oranges with the marraige commisioners

Image? Was hardly an image concern for the Sikh's. Was a matter of their beliefs. IF a marriage commisioner has a belief that this would go against why should it be a problem. The next guy can do it just like the next doctor can do an abortion.

So it's all about apples --beliefs and they should be respected more than the requirements of some bozo job.

[Hack&Lube]

That was always the plan that I've been trying to explain to people for over a year - that Harper was going to put it up as a free vote simply to fulfill a campaign promise to the party grassroots but never intended to follow through on it as everybody in the party knows it was an untenable position.

It was done just to say: "well we tried like you ask. time to move on".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jharp

for me, being married isnt the issue.
i think 'gayness' is wrong, and i cannot fathom how any sane person could ever be lead down this path. at the same time, i am by no means omnipotent therefore i am sure that there are factors outside of my current understanding that play a part in their desicions.
i think the problem is children. being married means that (if it wasnt already) it allows these couples to adopt kids. i do not agree with this in any form.
the typical point people raise in trying to debate this is..'is it any better then a single mother, or a father who is a drunk?' yadaya...the answer is maybe it is, maybe it isnt. however, two wrongs dont make a right, and in my opinion having two daddys is an automatic disadvantage to any child. imagine going to school and having your mommy's or your daddys going to parent teacher interviews. i have a hard time beleiving that a child could grow up normally having these extra pressures placed on them.
not only that, but i think it would also sckew a childs perception of what a normal family should be. granted, many children are not afford this anymore, but it goes back to the points made before.

Do you have any statistics to back this up, or is this all speculation?

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Image? Was hardly an image concern for the Sikh's. Was a matter of their beliefs. IF a marriage commisioner has a belief that this would go against why should it be a problem. The next guy can do it just like the next doctor can do an abortion.

So it's all about apples --beliefs and they should be respected more than the requirements of some bozo job.

This is exactly what I was thinking. A doctor does not have to do an abortion if they don't want to and this person can go to another doctor to have it done. Why shouldn't marriage commissioners just be able to refer the person to a marriage commissioner who will perform the marriage if this is against his/her beliefs?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I for one sure don't think that people should shove their convictions in their back pocket just because they are public servants. Should a Sikh
NOT be allowed to wear his turban as an example? To me your beliefs(religious or not) are part of you and you should stand up for them wherever. The government as as institution and the Church as one should be separate but people's own convictions should remain their own and not be violated no manner where they work.

How would a Sikh wearing a turban infringe on anyone else's civil rights? It wouldn't.

I'm not saying public servants' rights should be infringed upon but their rights certainly shouldn't allow them to trump anyone else's rights.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I'm not saying public servants' rights should be infringed upon but their rights certainly shouldn't allow them to trump anyone else's rights.

Quick question then: If two people's so-called rights are in conflict, how should we determine which one gets his/her way? Something has to give, doesn't it? Some rights have to trump others. Who should get to decide?

That's the problem with this Charter...people have taken their enshrined "rights" as an absolute entitlement, and forgotten that compromise is required.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by FLAMESBURNOIL

And I find it funny this is an issue of equality to them, considering that marriage is a religious sacrament and most religions aren't in favor of gay couples.

Marriage is not strictly a religious sacrament. To make that claim would be so brutally one sided that I could find no humour in it. My marriage is not a religious sacrament as I was married to my wife by a Marriage Commissioner. The fact that it was not performed by a religious official does not cheapen or denigrate it in any way. If religious zealots were to claim that it does then they can go to whatever made up place that they think they would not like to go to.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Quick question then: If two people's so-called rights are in conflict, how should we determine which one gets his/her way? Something has to give, doesn't it? Some rights have to trump others. Who should get to decide?

That's the problem with this Charter...people have taken their enshrined "rights" as an absolute entitlement, and forgotten that compromise is required.

Please give me an example of where two seperate person's rights are in direct conflict where one of them has to be denied their civil right for the sake of the other person's civil right.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Reaper

How would a Sikh wearing a turban infringe on anyone else's civil rights? It wouldn't.

I'm not saying public servants' rights should be infringed upon but their rights certainly shouldn't allow them to trump anyone else's rights.

Pretty simple I would think. You don't have the right to ask someone to suspend their beliefs just because they do some dumb job. Especially when the next one will do so --Inconvenient for you --Tough.

[OilersBaby]

Maybe cuz Im super liberal and I live in the San Francisco Bay area but...what does the church have to do with marriage. The church and the law should stay SEPERATE. Marriage doesnt necessarily have to do with religion.......I wish this issue would stop being an issue. Just let people do what they want to do and if you dont believe in it, dont do it!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Pretty simple I would think. You don't have the right to ask someone to suspend their beliefs just because they do some dumb job. Especially when the next one will do so --Inconvenient for you --Tough.

Okay fair enough. But how would you feel if it were to go the other way and a marriage commisioner (or whatever they are called) decided that it's against his beliefs to marry anyone but same-sex couples. If he refuses to marry a straight couple because it goes against his beliefs, should he get to keep his job?

Or much more realistically, some people have the belief that people who don't have the same color skin shouldn't get married. What about a marriage commisioner who happens to hold that belief, and carries out his job accordingly?

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay fair enough. But how would you feel if it were to go the other way and a marriage commisioner (or whatever they are called) decided that it's against his beliefs to marry anyone but same-sex couples. If he refuses to marry a straight couple because it goes against his beliefs, should he get to keep his job?

Or much more realistically, some people have the belief that people who don't have the same color skin shouldn't get married. What about a marriage commisioner who happens to hold that belief, and carries out his job accordingly?

Let their supervisors figure it out. If they think it's a case of hatred then send them off for counselling and send the couple to another commisioner. Otherwise yep let them follow their beliefs and keep their jobs.