The new Tories, sleeping with Belinda Stronach

[Ben Kenobi]

benefits of marriage should be extended to them as they would be to any heterosexual couple.

This they have, for the most part. Common law couples are given the same tax benefits as married couples here in Canada.

that society as a whole chooses to define marriage to include same-sex couples

That the majority of Canada, chooses to define marriage in this way I would accept, if parliament affirms gay marriage. Even if it passes, significant segments of Canadian society would reject this definition.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This they have, for the most part. Common law couples are given the same tax benefits as married couples here in Canada.

But not the same insurance benefits, etc.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This they have, for the most part. Common law couples are given the same tax benefits as married couples here in Canada.

What about emotional benefits? People who want a right to get married clearly think it's important.

As for your private definition of marriage - no one intrudes on that. You can choose not to recognize somebody's marriage - but the state should.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can choose not to recognize somebody's marriage - but the state should.

Can I? Suppose I work with Vital Statistics. Now I lose my job because of what I believe. Clearly the state says I do not have the right to believe what I want.

[Napoleon I]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Can I? Suppose I work with Vital Statistics. Now I lose my job because of what I believe. Clearly the state says I do not have the right to believe what I want.

You as an individual can continue to treat those people as being single. You, as government employee, have a function to perform. Perform in accordance to the guidelines your employer sets for you and you'll be fine.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think they can fire them.

Why not ask them to pass on what they cannot sign? Or to leave the ones they cannot sign for others? That would respect freedom of conscience more so than firing them. I can see a court case coming from the frist person in the vital statistics brach to get fired for what he believes.

[St Leo]

Redefine, shmedefine. The definition of marriage remains exactly the same as far as I am concerned.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't think they can fire them.

Why not ask them to pass on what they cannot sign? Or to leave the ones they cannot sign for others? That would respect freedom of conscience more so than firing them. I can see a court case coming from the frist person in the vital statistics brach to get fired for what he believes.

When was a Catholic fired for refusing to sign a license for a divorcee? Oh wait, the Catholic Church isn't allowed to force its definitions of marriage on others and so no one would ever try.

[Ben Kenobi]

When was a Catholic fired for refusing to sign a license for a divorcee?

That's an interesting question. A very interesting question. I shall have to inquire further.

Thanks for the excellent point, NYE.