You might wonder just why the debate over same-sex marriage is so charged on the pro side. For the antis, after all, this goes to God and the human soul and the origin of the universe and whether we’ll all burn in hell because Ted and Kumar up the street got to have their ceremony and a nice certificate.
Whereas for those of us supporting the right to same-sex marriage, the practical effect is really quite small, especially with that so-very-reasonable compromise some of the antis keep suggesting of creating a sort of I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-Marriage!, where lesbian and gay couples would have all the rights of straight couples — just not that marriage moniker. Right? Right?
Well, no, actually. In a very real way, our souls are on the line, and Cathie from Canada spells it out brilliantly by reprinting a news article on same-sex marriage. She simply replaces one word with another throughout the piece…
[Justice Minister Cotler said] it’s beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away Jewish couples … “That’s right,” Cotler said, when asked if his hands are tied by jurisdictional limits. Ottawa has the authority to define marriage, but provinces have the power to solemnize weddings.
A range of conflicts has already emerged. Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for Jewish celebrations. Marriage commissioners in several provinces, including Manitoba and B.C., have stepped down after receiving provincial orders to perform Jewish weddings against their beliefs. A couple in Prince Edward Island shut down their bed-breakfast rather than rent a room to a Jewish couple.
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:
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.
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.