|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Um, read it again:
I must be blind, because I don't see any mention of heterosexuals in there. Apparently you forgot about us? |
Ah... innocent mistake... I certainly am not expecting my church to open its arms to me should I decide to get married in the future. LOL. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Good Riddance. Get the out.
We dont need sacs like you hating our wonderful country. Leave ! |
The thought of even the tiniest molecule of this country belonging to YOU makes me cringe. No country deserves a fate THAT low. |
|
|
| töbias |
I think its pretty crap that they are going to such lengths to change the all the legislative documents because of gay marriage when the word 'poof' is still nowhere to be found...
Talk about hypocritical. |
|
|
| Spam |
Since when does disagreeing with government policy = hating your country?
He wants out, not because the Country sucks, but because of the decisions made by politicians that he doesn't agree with. When they're done destroying everything he enjoys, they'll come for everything you stand for as well. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The thought of even the tiniest molecule of this country belonging to YOU makes me cringe. No country deserves a fate THAT low. |
Unlike mirrors.. water doenst break when people like you see thier reflection. Try looking at yourself without cringing and maybe then you will finally understand how no country deserves the fate of a creature like you occupying a place on its territory.
You do not deserve to live in this wonderful country... go to Israel |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
Ah... innocent mistake... I certainly am not expecting my church to open its arms to me should I decide to get married in the future. LOL. |
Haha, alright.
The problem is, while I don't doubt that most proponents of gay marrige do in good faith believe that churches shouldn't be required to marry gay couples if it goes against their religion, that simply won't stick.
Now I'm not trying to use the "slippery slope" fallacy as an argument against gay marriage here, but I think that a legislating government has a responsibility to make sure that the slope is indeed not slippery by instituting safeguards in order to protect religious rights. There are guaranteed to be some protesters and lobbyists who will cause a stink about refusals to marry gay couples, and with legislation like this, it's hard for churches (not to mention lawyers and courts) to come up with an airtight legal argument to support their case, because the correct legal terminology won't even exist.
At the very least, if they are going to pass this kind of legislation, it should be EXPLICITLY written into the law that the "new" definition of marriage does NOT override the religious sovereignity of churches/synagogues/etc. and that they are NOT required by law to fulfil requests for homosexual unions. And even then, there are some extremely sensitive issues, for example: many religious institutions have separate contracts for the "state" marriage and the "religious" marriage, are they going to be forced to rewrite the latter contracts? Undoubtedly these forms will say "husband" and "wife" on them. How is their freedom of religion write being preserved if these words are automatically struck down in a court of law? The contracts become completely void. Again, it's the slippery slope which the government is doing nothing to avoid...
This doesn't affect me personally, I'm an atheist, but it's the only way to protect constitutional rights in the long term. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Unlike mirrors.. water doenst break when people like you see thier reflection. Try looking at yourself without cringing and maybe then you will understand how no country deserve the fate of a creature like you occupying a place on its territory.
You do not deserve to live in this wonderful country... go to Israel |
Everything always comes back to that, doesn't it? Tell me again why I should feel hurt that the goat-blowing President of the Turban Club for Men doesn't think I'm attractive? |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Haha, alright.
I'm an atheist |
Another one! sweet... there are more on here than id have originally imagined |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Everything always comes back to that, doesn't it? Tell me again why I should feel hurt that the goat-blowing President of the Turban Club for Men doesn't think I'm attractive? |
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.. then it is a duck. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Haha, alright.
The problem is, while I don't doubt that most proponents of gay marrige do in good faith believe that churches shouldn't be required to marry gay couples if it goes against their religion, that simply won't stick.
Now I'm not trying to use the "slippery slope" fallacy as an argument against gay marriage here, but I think that a legislating government has a responsibility to make sure that the slope is indeed not slippery by instituting safeguards in order to protect religious rights. There are guaranteed to be some protesters and lobbyists who will cause a stink about refusals to marry gay couples, and with legislation like this, it's hard for churches (not to mention lawyers and courts) to come up with an airtight legal argument to support their case, because the correct legal terminology won't even exist.
At the very least, if they are going to pass this kind of legislation, it should be EXPLICITLY written into the law that the "new" definition of marriage does NOT override the religious sovereignity of churches/synagogues/etc. and that they are NOT required by law to fulfil requests for homosexual unions. And even then, there are some extremely sensitive issues, for example: many religious institutions have separate contracts for the "state" marriage and the "religious" marriage, are they going to be forced to rewrite the latter contracts? Undoubtedly these forms will say "husband" and "wife" on them. How is their freedom of religion write being preserved if these words are automatically struck down in a court of law? The contracts become completely void. Again, it's the slippery slope which the government is doing nothing to avoid...
This doesn't affect me personally, I'm an atheist, but it's the only way to protect constitutional rights in the long term. |
Well, in the bill before Parliament right now, clause 3 states:
"3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs."
...unfortunately this has no legal standing (as the Supreme Court has indicated), since the federal government can only set out the definition of marriage, not the solemnization (provincial jurisdiction). So it will be up to the provinces to introduce similar clauses.
In relation, the Supreme Court (on the religious issue) stated:
"The Court is of the opinion that, absent unique circumstances with respect to which we 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."
As for the paperwork, well the individual churches can generate whatever kind of certificate that says whatever they want on it. The only "official" form from the government's point of view is the marriage license certificate which itself is issued by the government and I'm sure that will be re-worded to encompass the generic terminology (if it hasn't been already). |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
Well, in the bill before Parliament right now, clause 3 states:
"3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs."
...unfortunately this has no legal standing (as the Supreme Court has indicated), since the federal governmetn can only set out the definition of marriage, not the solemnization (provincial jurisdiction). So it will be up to the provinces to introduce similar clauses.
In relation, the Supreme Court (on the religious issue) stated:
"The Court is of the opinion that, absent unique circumstances with respect to which we 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."
As for the paperwork, well the individual churches can generate whatever kind of certificate that says whatever they want on it. The only "official" form from the government's point of view is the marriage license certificate which itself is issued by the government and I'm sure that will be re-worded to encompass the generic terminology (if it hasn't been already). |
Well, as you yourself seem to be indicating, neither of these clauses are exactly ironclad in their wording, and neither have any power over the actual gay marriage bill.
The legislation itself should contain provisions for this and they need to be very specific. Phrases like "absent unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate" should not be there - there is absolutely NO reason to leave legal loopholes like that, aside from the obvious reason that perhaps they intend to violate the freedom of religion in the future.
For the record, this is far from being my sole objection to gay marriage legislation, and even farther from being my sole objection to *this* legislation, but it's a very good example of legitimate concerns that the government has failed utterly to address, and in fact, doesn't even seem to be attempting to address. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Well, as you yourself seem to be indicating, neither of these clauses are exactly ironclad in their wording, and neither have any power over the actual gay marriage bill.
The legislation itself should contain provisions for this and they need to be very specific. Phrases like "absent unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate" should not be there - there is absolutely NO reason to leave legal loopholes like that, aside from the obvious reason that perhaps they intend to violate the freedom of religion in the future.
For the record, this is far from being my sole objection to gay marriage legislation, and even farther from being my sole objection to *this* legislation, but it's a very good example of legitimate concerns that the government has failed utterly to address, and in fact, doesn't even seem to be attempting to address. |
Well there's not much more the federal government can do in this regard. That 3rd clause is little more than a feel-good statement and carries no weight, and they certainly can't force the provinces to adopt equivalent legislation.
As for the Supreme Court decision, I think it's entirely appropriate. Other sections state:
[53] The protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad and jealously guarded in our Charter jurisprudence. We note that should impermissible conflicts occur, the provision at issue will by definition fail the justification test under s. 1 of the Charter and will be of no force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In this case the conflict will cease to exist.
[58] It therefore seems clear that state compulsion on religious officials to perform same-sex marriages contrary to their religious beliefs would violate the guarantee of freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter. It also seems apparent that, absent exceptional circumstances which we cannot at present foresee, such a violation could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
The court is simply saying it will not be painted into a corner. It can't possibly see a circumstance where the legislation should trump freedom of religion, but in the highly unlikely event that there IS some justifiable reason, the door remains open. All rights within the charter for all individuals have to be balanced and weighed off against each other. I think the court is being quite clear here that freedom of religion will almost always carry the day, but that this freedom is not an absolute one which will ALWAYS trump all others. (No freedom in the charter in my mind should always trump all others... the balancing act is key to the charter). |
|
|
|
|
