 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Gay Marriage in Ontario | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/5/2003 9:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | DLW,
Don't rely on a link to this site. It changes daily and therefore will not be there when people link to it in the future as I just did now.  All I got was a site map.
Here is the article that I think you are referring to. It should be remembered that the Vatican was not trying to implement religious dogma. It was rather calling on politicians to live according to what the Catholic Church believes.
As to the question that religious freedom is protected, that is the government will not force a priest etc to go against their beliefs and marry gays or else face a fine or imprisonment. I have never believed this for a minute. I mean really. That would be like a restaurant serving all people except Jews or Blacks. What is to stop the government from saying that these priests, etc are discriminating or are bigots or are prejudiced??? The mantra is, NO DISCRIMINATION!! How can you have both? Though it is within the context of gay marriages, this is clearly an attack on religious freedom.
National Post
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Paul Martin came out of the policy closet last week and announced his support for legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage. The PM-in-waiting said that although he is a "practising Catholic" he has "responsibilities as a legislator and those responsibilities must take in a wider perspective."
The following day, the Vatican released a directive instructing Catholic lawmakers to oppose gay marriage. In response, Jean Chrétien's spokesperson said the Prime Minister, who is also Catholic, will ensure a free vote in Parliament on the issue, and believes his primary responsibility is to voters, not his faith.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has taken a similar line. When announcing his proposed same-sex marriage legislation last month, he pledged to promote the bill through "a Canada-wide approach" and said he'd be "more than pleased to travel the country to speak about the new definition of marriage" during the next election campaign.
In other words, all three politicians would have Canadians believe they will resolve the question of same-sex marriage according to the unfettered forms and spirit of Parliamentary democracy, not through the implementation of religious dogma or a party fiat. This would be the correct approach. (We are particularly happy Messrs. Martin and Chrétien have politely signalled that the Vatican should butt out.) But unfortunately, there are signs this message may be eyewash -- and that a legislative outcome in favour of gay marriage has been predetermined.
When the House of Commons justice committee met in June, the body appeared set to vote in favour of appealing the recent Ontario court decision upholding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Canadians should have expected no less: Marriage is an important institution, and voters are divided roughly evenly on whether it should be rendered more inclusive. Parliamentarians, not judges, should set the definition of marriage in this country. Indeed, during the 1999 Parliamentary debate over same-sex unions, the Liberals explicitly pledged their support for this very principle, and many campaigned on it in the election campaign of 2000.
But perhaps sensing a shift in opinion amongst their urban electoral strongholds, the Liberals now seem set to renege on that promise. In anticipation of the gay-marriage vote, Mr. Chrétien's government stacked the justice committee at the last minute, swinging the majority against an appeal. Earning special blame for this manoeuvre is Derek Lee, a Liberal justice committee member who had spoken in favour of appealing the Ontario court decision -- but who inexplicably disappeared when it came time to vote. The Liberal Whip replaced him with Sue Barnes, a Grit MP whose support for gay marriage is of long standing.
The failure to appeal the Ontario decision means gay marriage is becoming the law of the land by default -- perhaps rendering the debate the Liberals will stage in coming months moot. Mr. Cauchon is already urging provinces to recognize same-sex marriage even before his draft legislation becomes law. The popular outcry that gains strength among social conservatives in coming months will likely be answered with the claim that Ottawa's hands are tied by court judgments.
Indeed, the government seems to be making certain the judiciary will leave Parliament no wiggle room. Last month, Mr. Cauchon submitted his draft legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for a "reference" ruling on its constitutionality. Without commenting on the merits of the legislation, the court will answer several discrete questions, including: Is the bill's extension of same-sex marriage rights to gay couples consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and, does the issue fall within the exclusive authority of Parliament? When the court gives its expected answers -- yes and yes -- Ottawa will not only be able to present the bill to Parliament as a constitutional fait accompli, it will also pre-emptively head off any challenges from provinces, such as Alberta, that might oppose gay marriage.
(A third question -- does freedom of religion protect priests, rabbis and mullahs from being compelled to marry gay couples -- would also seem like a slam dunk in the "yes" category. But we have our doubts. Three years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission deemed religious conviction no defence against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Today, there is a bill awaiting approval by the House of Commons -- one that is also said to also have the PM's support -- that would make anti-gay "propaganda" a criminal offence. Factor in our activist, liberal Court, and it is clear why people are so concerned about religious freedom. Somewhere in Canada, perhaps, police officers are being trained to say, "Marry these two Muslims or come with me" in Arabic and Urdu.)
Canada is posed to become but the third society in human history to legalize gay marriage. Whether Canadians see this as a good or bad step, there is no doubt it is monumental -- and that it should take place, if at all, only following an exhaustive national debate, perhaps even a referendum. But that is not what is happening. Rather, a handful of provincial courts -- in Ontario, B.C. and Quebec -- have taken liberal positions, and our government is responding by following the path of least resistance.
Mr. Chrétien may be sincere in promising a free vote. But a free vote won't do any good if MPs believe the issue has already been settled. Under the weight of Cabinet pressure, justice committee inaction, provincial jurisprudence, the Supreme Court reference and a growing number of gay couples creating "facts on the ground," there is a risk most MPs will simply throw up their hands and agree to rubber-stamp the government's draft bill without serious debate.
This result may please Messrs. Chrétien, Martin and Cauchon, but it would also do violence to Canadian democracy. To ensure this does not happen, the trio must ensure that members of their caucus understand that it is they and their fellow Parliamentarians, not anyone else, who has the authority to decide this controversial issue. The vote that Mr. Chrétien has laudably promised on gay marriage should not only be free, but also meaningful.
© Copyright 2003 National Post
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/6/2003 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | A good friend of mine who is gay, told me that he thinks the Catholic Church has no right to impose it's teaching on the law. "Do we want the @%$#*!@ Church telling us how we should live, like back when they ran this country?" Christian ethicists have brought up the question of how far we can "impose" Christian morality on a secular society. However you respond to this question, EVERYONE has the right to speak their conscience.
Tackling marriage in a democracy
Claire Hoy
National Post
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Historian Michael Bliss, normally a beacon of wisdom and an absolute stickler for accuracy, argued in Saturday's National Post that same-sex marriage "ought to be left to the courts to sort out."
Why? Apparently such an explosive issue is fraught with all sorts of dangers, including the potential of splitting society "on religious lines or on fundamental moral issues."
What then, should "sensitive" politicians do? "Search for compromises, prevaricate, be courageously cowardly if necessary," he writes. And most of all -- let the courts decide.
Never mind that as recently as June 8, 1999, Parliament voted 216 to 55 in favour of a motion defining marriage as "the union of one man and one woman." Never mind that public opinion polls show Canadians split about 50-50 on the issue, and a published survey of 79 sitting Liberal backbench MPs showed only 15 of them support their government's legislation legalizing same-sex marriages.
Ignore the fact nearly every elected legislature in Canada has debated the issue and voted against the notion that same-sex marriages and traditional marriages are moral equivalents.
Prof. Bliss writes that if the majority of Parliamentarians voted against the bill, "the symbolic slap in the face to gays would certainly be unfortunate." Apparently much more unfortunate than the symbolic slap in the face to the millions of Canadians who disagree.
In a page right out of the book of numerous unelected judges -- who ignored the specific exclusion of homosexual "rights" when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was written, and have simply "deemed" the charter be rewritten to conform with their own personal biases -- Prof. Bliss has deemed that homosexuality is not really a moral issue at all, but "a genetically driven predisposition, thus a natural and unavoidable human condition ..."
Really? Where is the scientific truth for this? And how do we account for the thousands of practising homosexuals who have been counselled into heterosexuality?
Then there's the ultimate red herring, that since marriage has already been debased by "easy divorce ... and the recognition of common law unions ..." what's another step down the abyss? Indeed. Why stop now? If marriage as an institution is to have no relevance, why not allow brothers to marry sisters and adults to marry children? Ridiculous, you say? Yes, it is. But no more so than arguing that because politicians and judges have undermined the sanctity of marriage in the past it's pointless to fight its further diminution.
As somebody who grew up a Presbyterian in deepest Eastern Ontario during the 1940s, when such distinctions really mattered, your correspondent is not in the habit of defending the Roman Catholic Church.
But on this issue, the Church is not only being true to its beliefs, but is performing a public service by speaking out, even in the face of a hateful campaign (not by Prof. Bliss, by the way) against it in the media and elsewhere. All major religions oppose same-sex marriage. So my question is not "why is the Church sticking its nose into matters of state?," but rather, "where are all the other religious leaders in this debate and why are they afraid to speak up?" With the notable exception of 100 Huntley Street's David Mainse -- who left his position at Crossroads Television Systems to campaign full-time for traditional marriage -- most religious leaders are hiding behind their half-empty pews.
Nobody questions the right of organized labour or women's groups to lobby politicians on matters of considerable importance to them. Yet when a Church speaks out, all Hell (if you'll pardon the expression) breaks lose. The widespread opposition is not proof, as many claim, of widespread hatred against homosexuals, although doubtless such hatreds exist both ways. It's because most people don't see homosexual and heterosexual marriages as moral equivalents.
Critics cry that the "separation of Church and state" means the Church has no claim on the Charter rights of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech." There is no separation of Church and State in Canadian law. That's a Jeffersonian concept, first approved in Virginia, and then as the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
And even there, it never meant that the churches must remain silent on issues of importance to them.
They have the same rights as you have to speak out.
That's what makes democracy so great.
© Copyright 2003 National Post
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/11/2003 5:15 PM (GMT -6) | | The CHurch (Whatever that is) has every right to speak out for its agenda. It doesn't have a right to thwart the democratic and U.S. constitutional process (in the US, of course) however. The great thing about the 1st amendment is that the government can NEVER force religious institutions to do a darn thing. But on the other hand, the state can be completely secular. In other words, the state is free to define marriage however it wants. The Church does not have to agree. It's completely possible that the government could say that gays have a right to marriage, and therefore the state will recognize such unions, but that no religious institution will be compelled to. So you could have the scenario where that state legitimizes gay unions, and the Church does not. By the same token you already have several religious institutions performing marriage-like ceremonies for gays, but there are no legal rights or responsibilities going along with those ceremonies.
This really is only an extension of the realism that the Catholic church defines what is "marriage" in that church. If someone is divorced and remarries, it is not recognized as a real "marriage" in the Catholic church (unless certain protocal is followed). | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/12/2003 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | welcome back gina,
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
The CHurch (Whatever that is) has every right to speak out for its agenda. It doesn't have a right to thwart the democratic and U.S. constitutional process (in the US, of course) however. The great thing about the 1st amendment is that the government can NEVER force religious institutions to do a darn thing. But on the other hand, the state can be completely secular. In other words, the state is free to define marriage however it wants. The Church does not have to agree. It's completely possible that the government could say that gays have a right to marriage, and therefore the state will recognize such unions, but that no religious institution will be compelled to. So you could have the scenario where that state legitimizes gay unions, and the Church does not. By the same token you already have several religious institutions performing marriage-like ceremonies for gays, but there are no legal rights or responsibilities going along with those ceremonies.
This really is only an extension of the realism that the Catholic church defines what is "marriage" in that church. If someone is divorced and remarries, it is not recognized as a real "marriage" in the Catholic church (unless certain protocal is followed).
I don't think the State can be spoken of as an independent entity.
No ecclesiastical institution can seek to capture the entirety of the state, as was the case here in MX for a long time. However, they can be one interest that participates in the formation of the State's laws.
I've been telling a Canadian from Alberta, who correctly feels that her rights are being trampled on by the Liberal Party in Canada, that they ought to engage in more acts of civil disobedience and press for some compromises and reforms in the structure of the Canadian gov't.
Anyways, there are two competing def'n of Separation of Church and State in the US. Their segregation and their autonomy. The latter is more in line with what the founders had in mind. The former gives "secular" liberals and economic conservatives the right to pursue their interests but sets up a taboo on religious conservatives from seeking to change laws on the basis of their shared religious convictions.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/13/2003 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
The CHurch (Whatever that is) has every right to speak out for its agenda. It doesn't have a right to thwart the democratic and U.S. constitutional process (in the US, of course) however. The great thing about the 1st amendment is that the government can NEVER force religious institutions to do a darn thing. But on the other hand, the state can be completely secular. In other words, the state is free to define marriage however it wants. The Church does not have to agree. It's completely possible that the government could say that gays have a right to marriage, and therefore the state will recognize such unions, but that no religious institution will be compelled to. So you could have the scenario where that state legitimizes gay unions, and the Church does not. By the same token you already have several religious institutions performing marriage-like ceremonies for gays, but there are no legal rights or responsibilities going along with those ceremonies.
This really is only an extension of the realism that the Catholic church defines what is "marriage" in that church. If someone is divorced and remarries, it is not recognized as a real "marriage" in the Catholic church (unless certain protocal is followed).
Here's what I'm think'n. First, in Canada here, the Church (that well defined hierarchy of religious bodies), is being told that it has no voice in the public square. That's a MAJOR beef with many Catholics and evangelicals. Of ALL the institutions, the Church is being told to stay out of MARRIAGE??? I mean, is this exclusively secular territory!?
Second, I think it will NOT be hard for the state to eventually punish (fines, jail, etc) priests or ministers who think homosexuality is a sin and will not marry gays in terms of discrimination. In this way, the state will be VERY secular as you say. It will definitely NOT be neutral. There is a conflict here. As a matter of fact, in Ireland, homosexual lobbying groups have suggested that bishops who distributed the Vatican’s document a couple of weeks ago might be prosecuted under Irish hate crimes legislation. So it’s not unthinkable.
Third, I noticed that you read the editorial on the other thread, "Marriage and Religion Are Public Affairs?" Douglas Farrow says: quote:
Our current understanding of religious freedom requires that laws and policies, including those that regulate personal adult relationships, pursue objectives that can be defended in secular rather than religious terms."
But this too is a half-truth, however balanced it may sound to the pious secular ear. Whether we like it or not, the state cannot fail to take sides in certain religious disputes. The LCC itself has done so right here, in its own decision to make marriage a sub-category of what it calls "close personal adult relationships." For to do that is already to disagree with the major religious traditions about what marriage is, and to side with the view of a small religious minority and a somewhat larger anti-religious movement.
Now, you may say that the state can be secular by recognizing that gays have a RIGHT to marriage (where’s that in your Constitution? This could be the same with euthanasia, abortion, marrying pets, children or threesomes), however THE STATE WILL NOT BE NEUTRAL. When it begins to recognize such unions, accepting heterosexuality and homosexuality (name your poison that you mentioned above) as separate but equal ways of life, they pose an issue to which there is no neutral answer, though they perch themselves above the rest of us and pretend that they are. They are like a parent trying to settle a squabble among children. Eventually, one child will benefit from the parents decision. The reason why is because this is a demand that the public commit itself to a particular view of the nature and function of sex in human life. To leave it merely to individual choices would be a public declaration that in the eyes of society and it’s laws, sexual preferences are simply that—personal and subjective preferences of no objective validity and no public importance.
For example, there was a case, Belmont vs Belmont, where a father divorced his wife and remarried. He applied for custody for his children on the ground that his former wife was living in a lesbian relationship nocent to the welfare of the children. Even though the father was suitable “in all respects” he was denied custody because, “the mother is not to be denied custody merely because of her sexual orientation. Her sexual preference and her living arrangement with her lover are only two of the many factors to be examined in determining the best interests of the children…” Now, when the court ruled this way, it had committed that particular state to the proposition that a homosexual union is, or can be, as acceptable a one in which to raise children as is a heterosexual one dignified by matrimony. This is not merely a decision to leave sexual preferences up to individuals!? It is a public stand in regard to the institution of the family.
In such cases, what governments do will NOT be the advent of a truly neutral state, but the replacement of one view of man and the ethics and norms based on it, by another view.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/22/2003 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Here's something that's related:
What do you think God would want a couple to do in this situation:
A man has a sex-change operation and is now a woman but doesn't tell the man (s)he marries. Eventually, somehow the husband finds out. Does God want the husband to honor the vow he made to this (wo)man or not? Or can the husband divorce the (wo)man because (s)he wasn't honest about the operation - and because he's uncomfortable with the fact that the (wo)man was born a man?
I guess I'll chime in.
Tigress, I think your question is one that concerns reasons for divorce (and possibly remarriage) and not necessarily a question of sex changes per se. Under my view of divorce, there could be a number of possible reasons for getting a divorce. Therefore, that means that I'm not going to be a stickler for finding "ways out." It seems to me that introducing a sex-change into the equation is a red herring. One has to ask themselves if the marriage has been "adulterated" by the possible dishonesty of the spouse who did not reveal their past. One may have to ask, "You can take the man out of the ghetto, but can you can take the ghetto out of the man?" That is, once a man always a man? Did not the "husband" assume that he was marrying a "she?" If so, doesn't he then have a sense of betrayal? He could opt out if he wanted.
Why I think your question is a good one is because it brings up the whole issue of how technology has made the black and white answers of the past much more complex. Scientific advances have allowed human beings to relegate to ourselves capabilities and prerogatives hitherto seen as belonging solely to the divine domain. That is, we are now in the position to "play God." While I'm not against the use of technology with regard to human sexuality, technology does bring up the question of the propriety of such usages.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/22/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Here's something that's related:
What do you think God would want a couple to do in this situation:
A man has a sex-change operation and is now a woman but doesn't tell the man (s)he marries. Eventually, somehow the husband finds out. Does God want the husband to honor the vow he made to this (wo)man or not? Or can the husband divorce the (wo)man because (s)he wasn't honest about the operation - and because he's uncomfortable with the fact that the (wo)man was born a man?
I guess I'll chime in.
Tigress, I think your question is one that concerns reasons for divorce (and possibly remarriage) and not necessarily a question of sex changes per se. Under my view of divorce, there could be a number of possible reasons for getting a divorce. Therefore, that means that I'm not going to be a stickler for finding "ways out." It seems to me that introducing a sex-change into the equation is a red herring. One has to ask themselves if the marriage has been "adulterated" by the possible dishonesty of the spouse who did not reveal their past. One may have to ask, "You can take the man out of the ghetto, but can you can take the ghetto out of the man?" That is, once a man always a man? Did not the "husband" assume that he was marrying a "she?" If so, doesn't he then have a sense of betrayal? He could opt out if he wanted.
Why I think your question is a good one is because it brings up the whole issue of how technology has made the black and white answers of the past much more complex. Scientific advances have allowed human beings to relegate to ourselves capabilities and prerogatives hitherto seen as belonging solely to the divine domain. That is, we are now in the position to "play God." While I'm not against the use of technology with regard to human sexuality, technology does bring up the question of the propriety of such usages.
I know what you mean. I always say, "Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's right." Before my mom finally quit smoking (for the 2nd time) she used to use the argument, "Well, why else would God have made Tobacco plants, if not for us to use in this way?"
And I'd be like, "Well, science doesn't know everything! Maybe there is a good use for the Tobacco plant that just hasn't been discovered yet!"
I mean just because humans can build a nuclear bomb, does that mean it's alright to build it - and use it? We can do a lot of things, but that's no excuse for doing them.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
| 38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:15 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|