Canpol: Stick a fork in them, and congrats on the nuptials

[Ben Kenobi]

It is the law of the land. You may not like it, but we have a Constitution, a Charter of Rights, and courts charged with overseeing them. This is how we govern ourselves, finding it preferable to the rule of mobs, or worse.

The state of being gay was already protected by prior court rulings

Gay marriage was already legal in seven or eight provinces due to court rulings.

Parliament has merely given the rubber stamp to what the courts have been telling us all for over ten years.

Yes, and the courts keep telling us that people are born gay, in saying that it is a human rights issue. What recourse do people who disagree with the rulings of the courts with respect to gay marriage have here in Canada?

I agree that gay people ought to receive the same benefits and protections as anyone else. What I object to is them receiving special treatment. They already are treated as any other individual, and are already protected by the laws of the land without this ruling on gay marriage, so to say that they are second class citizens without gay marriage is a red herring.

It won't be just you standing up should things go haywire. Many of the same people who could not abide shunting Asher off as some kind of second class citizen will be standing right beside you if your rights are being infringed.

NYE, you are a good man, but I must disagree with you here. I have seen the Catholic church on campus spraypainted with my own eyes. I cannot count on the courts protecting my rights to practice religion in the manner that I see fit, nor can I count on those who support human rights to find a place for freedom of religion.

Now you reach hairy ground.

If the hall is available to be leased by the public, but they choose to exclude asian people from renting, would you not see a problem?

Let's reword this example. Suppose a Chinese society that owned a hall, and rented it out to chinese folks within their society, would they be required to lease it to, say, Klansmen? No, of course not. They would feel violated to see their hall used in such a manner. This is the way the Catholics feel when a Knights of Columbus hall hosts a lesbian reception.

If the ruling requires the Knights to only lease the hall to Catholics, and not to the public, than that is prefereable to hosting a lesbian reception. Leasing it to everyone is less important than the mission of the Knights.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Will the religious groups that refuse to do so be persecuted here in Canada? Will they lose their tax exemptation, while the government approved churches keep theirs?

Government approved churches?


The idea is that while no religion will be forced to conduct and sanction gay marriages, this will allow other religions to do so, and at the same time, will be legally recognized by the government.

[Ben Kenobi]

The churches that retain their exemptation, will be perceived as 'government approved'. Their doctrine will be in accordance with the demands of the state, and as such, will recieve preferential treatment in the retention of their exemptation. Of course, this only happens as soon as some churches get stripped of their exemptation.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Yes, and the courts keep telling us that people are born gay, in saying that it is a human rights issue. What recourse do people who disagree with the rulings of the courts with respect to gay marriage have here in Canada?

Not much, and you shouldn't. It's not your lives, pensions, or other fruits of matrimony that are being affected.

I should also point out that the largest religious denomination in Canada, The United Church, is fully supporting gay marriage and has been for some time.

This isn't just your religion, Ben. This is also the religion of others, but I've never seen you acknowledge that.

This is why this has been a freedom of religion argument to me, on the side of Asher, for a long time.

It would be quite a bit different if there were no religious ceremonies available to Asher, wouldn't it?

I agree that gay people ought to receive the same benefits and protections as anyone else. What I object to is them receiving special treatment. They already are treated as any other individual, and are already protected by the laws of the land without this ruling on gay marriage, so to say that they are second class citizens without gay marriage is a red herring.

What you say is not true if they are not allowed the same rights accorded by the state to recognition of a matrimonial union between two adults of the opposite sex.

All that has happened in the last few years is that legal teeth have been added to gay marriage. The state has been forced to recognise the unions that the United Church has wanted to perform for a long time before that.

NYE, you are a good man, but I must disagree with you here. I have seen the Catholic church on campus spraypainted with my own eyes. I cannot count on the courts protecting my rights to practice religion in the manner that I see fit, nor can I count on those who support human rights to find a place for freedom of religion.

Acts of vandalism can hardly be equated with repression by the government, the courts, or the country at large.

Are there anti-religious idiots and bigots out there? You bet there are. Probably roughly as many as there are homophobic bigots out there.

Let's reword this example. Suppose a Chinese society that owned a hall, and rented it out to chinese folks within their society, would they be required to lease it to, say, Klansmen? No, of course not. They would feel violated to see their hall used in such a manner. This is the way the Catholics feel when a Knights of Columbus hall hosts a lesbian reception.

If the ruling requires the Knights to only lease the hall to Catholics, and not to the public, than that is prefereable to hosting a lesbian reception. Leasing it to everyone is less important than the mission of the Knights.

Discrimination against racist groups is not a practice proscribed by the Charter.

Discrimination based on sex, race, age... and sexual orientation of an individual is.

You might be right, and I suspect the SCoC would agree that they do not have to rent, IF their premises are only open to members of affiliated Catholic parishes. But that is not how hall rentals go AFAIK. Churches have been participating in the open market, and helping to finance their halls, by making them open to booking by anyone who wants to rent them. That makes them a service offered to the public, and that makes them Charter territory.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The churches that retain their exemptation, will be perceived as 'government approved'. Their doctrine will be in accordance with the demands of the state, and as such, will recieve preferential treatment in the retention of their exemptation. Of course, this only happens as soon as some churches get stripped of their exemptation.

How is religious freedom the same as specific churches approved of by the government?


And what is this nonsense of preferential treatment by the government for those churches that do affirm gay marriage that you're referring to?

[notyoueither]

It is the rouge fish de jour.

[MrFun]

Now there's a phrase I hear everyday and I instantly know what it means.

[Ben Kenobi]

And what is this nonsense of preferential treatment by the government for those churches that do affirm gay marriage that you're referring to?

Of course, this only happens as soon as some churches get stripped of their exemptation

[notyoueither]

Ben, are your seriously expecting the GoC to revoke the status of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada any day now?

[MrFun]

Actually Bennie, you originally stated it in a form of a question:

"Will they lose their tax exemptation, while the government approved churches keep theirs?"


And this point of yours is really a slippery slope anyway. The government would be wise in avoiding trampling over religious freedom by choosing some churches over others in granting what should be equal exemption for all.

[notyoueither]

Slippery slope?

Electoral suicide.

[MrFun]

yeah, exactly my implication as well with "The government would be wise in . . . . ."

[Ben Kenobi]

Not much, and you shouldn't. It's not your lives, pensions, or other fruits of matrimony that are being affected.

Then why does Parliament have a say at all? Why does the Supreme Court of Canada, affirm that the Parliament of Canada are the ones who determine the marriage laws of the country? The answer to this, is that it is up to the people of Canada, and that the marriage law is something of concern to everyone.

I should also point out that the largest religious denomination in Canada, The United Church, is fully supporting gay marriage and has been for some time.

Largest Protestant denomination, NYE. Sloppy.

This isn't just your religion, Ben. This is also the religion of others, but I've never seen you acknowledge that.

Acknowledge that there are some churches that do want to marry gay people? Yes, they do. This is religion to other people, but as you have also said, their religion ought to be irrelevant to the issue at hand.

If I am to acknowledge that there are some who support, it also behooves people to understand that it isn't just Christians who are opposed. You have Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, among others who are all opposed to marrying gay people.

This is why this has been a freedom of religion argument to me, on the side of Asher, for a long time.

It would be quite a bit different if there were no religious ceremonies available to Asher, wouldn't it?

The churches are free to marry people, but if they wish their marriage to be recognised by the state, then they have to play ball by the rules of the state. I know a couple who have done just that, refused to have their own marriage recognised by the government, even as they pledged to each other in church.

So, it really isn't an argument that we require gay marriage in order to respect the religious freedoms of everyone here in Canada. If one were to follow the logical chain of argumentation, Canada would have to allow polygamy, since that is the practice of certain religious groups.

What you say is not true if they are not allowed the same rights accorded by the state to recognition of a matrimonial union between two adults of the opposite sex.

That's not an individual right, NYE. That is a collective right. One cannot get married to oneself. To say that it is a human right, assumes that it is an individual right and not a collective. All the other rights, freedom of speech, religion, conscience, and the equality provisions are all based upon the status of an individual and not a collective.

All that has happened in the last few years is that legal teeth have been added to gay marriage. The state has been forced to recognise the unions that the United Church has wanted to perform for a long time before that.

Fine argument. Now, should the state add legal teeth to the recognition of marriages performed by Muslims, to multiple wives, that they have been performing for a long time.

Acts of vandalism can hardly be equated with repression by the government, the courts, or the country at large.

Are there anti-religious idiots and bigots out there? You bet there are. Probably roughly as many as there are homophobic bigots out there.

I for once, would like to see a ruling in the court that sides with the religious folks, in terms of their beliefs. The last big one I saw was the Trinity Western case, that permitted them to retain regulations barring sexual activity, among their students, as a Private university.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If I am to acknowledge that there are some who support, it also behooves people to understand that it isn't just Christians who are opposed. You have Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, among others who are all opposed to marrying gay people.

The churches are free to marry people, but if they wish their marriage to be recognised by the state, then they have to play ball by the rules of the state. I know a couple who have done just that, refused to have their own marriage recognised by the government, even as they pledged to each other in church.

First -- even with a majority of various religious denominations opposing gay marriage, it doesn't justify denying other religions their freedom to decide where they stand in regards to gay marriage.

Second -- since the couple you mentioned did not have the a marriage recognized by the government where, in this instance, was this particular church forced to play by the rules of the state?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, are your seriously expecting the GoC to revoke the status of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada any day now?

Yes. I'm not the only one who sees this coming too. As for it being electoral suicide, just look at how many folks in this thread who would support such a thing.

People no longer believe that religious freedoms are an essential component of human rights.