Same sex marriage and religion
From cbc.ca news ?Many of the groups opposed to same-sex marriage are concerned about their freedom of religion, fearing ministers from churches opposed to gay marriage would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies. The tird question on the reference is meant to deal with their concerns.?
The issue of same sex marriages are being debated in Canada?s top court starting today. For the full story:
The comment above is interesting because of it?s religious implications. I wonder, will sects like the Witnesses have to marry same sex couples soon? If so, how will they deal with it?
The JW's will NEVER perform a gay wedding ceremony. EVER. The light will NEVER be that bright.
I don't think ministers would have to perform a ceremony they didn't want to perform for what ever reason. A gay couple would probably not ask a homophobe to perform the ceremony. Just like a Jew would not want an antisemitic priest performing their ceremony.
Plus, I think they could just say they are not available if they don't want to do it.
This is simply an inane idea. No church is ever forced to perform a wedding ceremony. You cannot force a JW elder to perform a Catholic, Jewish, or Islamic ceremony. Allowing gays the same rights as straight people has no religious meaning. Churchs who disapprove of homosexulaity can continue to condemn it all day long. On the other hand, churchs who chose to support gay marriage should have the right to do so.
I tend to agree with you, yet, the Canadian Charter of Rights is the legal and binding force behind this question. In a nutshell no one can discriminate regardless of anything including common sence. It has sweeping implications and legal backing. It?s also pretty nit picky in practical use. For example if I fire alcoholic and accident prone employee number 1 for burning down my building in a drunken rage, I can not give a bad reference, EVER! I will be charge under Charter of Rights Act, and it can be stiff.
Technically, if, let?s say, cleric A refuses to marry gay couple B, cleric A is violating the Charter of Rights, and faces stiff repercussions, why, because cleric A discriminated against gay couple B and is breaking the law. While this is only a what if, it is the very grounds that got same sex unions legalized to begin with!
I agree the religious implications are unheard of, but, so was gay marriages.
I hear what you're saying...in terms of the cleric A situation you outline, I suspect that what will happen is that those who choose not to perform same-sex marriages will always be 'busy' when approached. Both sides will know what's going on, but there will be no legal implication (a moral one, sure), and no 'proof' of breaking the Charter.
Of course, I suspect that there will be plenty of other church leaders who will embrace it and perform same-sex marriages. Why be married by someone performing under duress? And I can imagine that the homosexual population has just as many people uninterested in religion as the heterosexual population...this would free up the justices of the peace to perform ceremonies for those uninterested in the religious type.
It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out...
Cerise of the Lives in Vancouver Class (2nd largest gay community in North America)
You guys might want to actually try reading the Charter: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Its a very reasonable and just document. And, it is shorter than you might imagine.
Section 15 guarantees equality before the law. Section 2 guarantees freedom of religion. This means that in all likelihood, gays will receive the right to be married and legally recognized as such. Religions will have the right to marry or not marry gays, as they choose.
As for the bad reference thing, I would like to see the section of the charter that even remotely touches on that subject.
When a church actively preaches against homosexuals we aren't likely to be asking them to marry us. This smacks of fear mongering.