Comments on: Same-sex marriage: What’s on the line

By: Thursday

Thursday — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:22:22 +0000

It’s not really the politicos that want this front and centre: any issur that is a fifty-fifty split is one any federal group wishes would go away…

Personally, I don’t really have a problem with churches not marrying gay couples, much like I don’t have an issue with them turning away someone who wishes to use it for a seder or other Jewish ceremony. A church (or synagogue or temple or what have you) can’t really be considered non-denominational, can it? If a hall has declared itself non-denominational, or specifically municipal/provincial/federal, then yes, I have a problem with them playing favorites.

By: Rick Barnes

Rick Barnes — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:51:35 +0000

Well done! I just want it over and done with. As a gay man being the centre of an issue for two years while the country has healthcare, education and scandal to address, seems the politicians have wanted this to be a number one issue.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:13:40 +0000

I’ve responded to Larry on his site, but wanted to repeat my response here (partly because his site’s comment function stripped out the link I included, and it’s a useful one):

As I understand the legislation, Larry, churches remain free to do whatever they want. C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, deals with – as the name suggests – civil marriage only.

I’m no legal expert… but fortunately, Mary Hurley of the Law and Government Division of the Library of Parliament is. From the Library’s legislative summary of Bill C-38:

Bill C-38‚Äôs key provision defines civil marriage as ‚Äúthe lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.‚Äù It is worth stressing that Bill C-38 is concerned exclusively with civil marriage, and does not affect gender-neutral survivor or common-law partner entitlements in federal legislation.

….The Court considered arguments that legislating same-sex marriage discriminates against religious groups opposed to it and/or would result in a collision of equality rights with freedom of religion guarantees. It found, on the first point, that the draft legislation reflected in clause 2 ‚Äúwithholds no benefits, nor does it impose burdens on a differential basis. It therefore fails to meet the threshold requirements of ‚Ä¶ s. 15(1) analysis‚Äù (par. 45). In the Court‚Äôs view, ‚Äú[t]he mere recognition of the equality rights of one group cannot, in itself, constitute a violation of the rights of another‚Äù (par. 46).

….Clause 3 recognizes that officials of religious denominations may refuse to perform marriages that are at odds with their religious beliefs.

By: larry borsato

larry borsato — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:16:29 +0000

My rights are better that your rights.

I have no strong opinion one way or the other regarding same sex marriage- I can understand the views of both sides – but I do tire of the rhetoric on either side. Today One Damn Thing After Another quoted…