Tag Archives: Traditional Marriage

News

What happens when same-sex marriage conflicts with religious liberty?

4 Comments

From the left-wing Globe and Mail.

Excerpt:

Saskatchewan’s top court has said marriage commissioners cannot use religion to say no to nuptials for same-sex couples.

The Court of Appeal had been asked by the government to rule on a proposed provincial law that would have allowed commissioners to cite religious grounds in refusing to marry gays or lesbians.

The appeal panel’s unanimous decision released on Monday said the law would be unconstitutional and amount to discrimination.

And more from the judge:

“Accordingly, putting gays and lesbians in a situation where a marriage commissioner can refuse to provide his or her services solely because of their sexual orientation would clearly be a retrograde step – a step that would perpetuate disadvantage and involve stereotypes about the worthiness of same-sex unions,” the justice wrote.

Judge Richards rejected suggestions that the number of gay marriages would be small and those affected could simply seek out someone else to perform the ceremony. That would overlook the impact a refusal would have on gay or lesbian couples, he noted.

“As can be easily understood, such effects can be expected to be very significant and genuinely offensive. It is not difficult for most people to imagine the personal hurt involved in a situation where an individual is told by a governmental officer, ‘I won’t help you because you are black (or Asian or First Nations) but someone else will,’ or ‘I won’t help you because you are Jewish (or Muslim or Buddhist) but someone else will,’ ” Judge Richards wrote.

As you might expect, the Human Rights Commission was involved:

The proposed law was crafted after a conflict arose when commissioner Orville Nichols, a devout Baptist, refused to marry a gay couple in 2005.

The two men laid a discrimination complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. The case went before the human rights tribunal, which ruled in 2008 that Mr. Nichols discriminated against the couple. It found that as a public servant he was obligated to marry them once they approached him.

Mr. Nichols, who has been a marriage commissioner for almost 30 years, was fined $2,500.

He asked the Court of Queen’s Bench to reverse the decision, but it upheld the tribunal’s ruling. A further appeal is still before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

Comments to this post will be strictly filtered in accordance with Barack Obama’s laws restricting free speech on these issues.

Related posts

News

British Columbia Supreme Court considers striking down ban on polygamy

9 Comments
Political Map of Canada

from the Province.

Excerpt:

As expected, the federal government Tuesday joined the B.C. government in support of Canada’s controversial polygamy law.

[…]If Canada were to allow polygamy, it would be contrary to international obligations that recognize the harms of multiple marriages, said Strachan.

Several interest groups also told the judge that they support the polygamy law, which was enacted in 1890 but has seldom been prosecuted in Canada.

Jonathan Baker, a lawyer for Real Women of Canada, said that when freedom of religion is raised by fundamentalist Mormons as a rationale for polgyamy, the court should examine whether the practice being engaged is in fact based upon religious belief:

“Was the marriage entered into in the honest belief that it was required to achieve eternal celestial bliss, or was it simply a matter of social pressure from the narrow, isolated community?”

Baker added that it was “no exaggeration to say that polygamy is an anti-democratic abomination” and that a finding that the law is unconstitutional would be inconsistent with the values and opinions of most Canadians.

[…]The court is expected to hear more opening statements Wednesday, including statements from groups that oppose the law and would like it struck down.

The issue of whether the law is constitutional was referred to the Supreme Court after polygamy charges laid in 2009 against two members of the small Interior community of Bountiful were quashed by the court.

The trial is expected to run until the end of January.

Canada has one of the most liberal policies in the world on same-sex marriage, and they are also notorious for their no-fault divorce laws and punitive family courts.

Podcasts

Is marriage just an arrangement for people who love each other?

1 Comment

Mary sent me this article from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is liberal like the CBC and BBC, but Australian.

However, read this excerpt:

As proponents for gay marriage turn up the political temperature on this issue, the catchcry has become ‘equal love’ – if two persons of the same sex love each other, who are we to tell them they cannot marry? Greens MP Adam Bandt has this week reintroduced the argument in the Federal Parliament, stating, “It is the power of love that has brought us to this moment in the debate over marriage equality.” This is a persuasive argument for it evokes in us our own needs to receive and to give love, but is ‘equal love’ a valid proposition for legalising same sex marriage?

Let’s think about it. If ‘equal love’ is the only prerequisite for marriage, then why not legalise marriage between uncles and nieces, or between mums and sons, if they are so inclined? I doubt if many people would accept such sexual unions, and yet if love (and take note that love in much of this debate is left undefined) is the only requisite for marriage how can we exclude a union between any two consenting persons, regardless of their status? Let’s not stop there, what if three people love each other, should they not be permitted to marry? And if marriage is so malleable why not introduce, as one newspaper article recently suggested, fixed terms for marriage rather than being for life?

The point is simple, ‘equal love’ is an inadequate ethic for deconstructing marriage. There are some human relationships which are appropriately deemed unsuitable for marriage. Particulars such as ‘kinds’ and teleology must play a role in defining marriage: what is a man and what is a woman, and what is the purpose or goal of marriage?

This guy is a pastor, yet he makes a good rational argument that is accessible to anyone. Is marriage really about adult feelings and the needs of adults to be happy? Or is it about something else?

Jennifer Roback Morse explains the purpose of marriage

If you want to learn more about how to define and defend traditional marriage, then take a look at these videos by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, which I found at Lex Communis.

Details:

Dr J addresses the Sacramento Department of Evangelization and Catholic Schools on the question of altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.  She also examines the break-down of traditional marriage and the consequences of no-fault divorce.

Clip 1 of 4:

Clip 2 of 4:

Clip 3 of 4:

Clip 4 of 4:

Or you can download the MP3 here. If anyone is wondering who I consider to be an ideal woman, Michele Bachmann and Jennifer Roback Morse are two of my favorite women. I really like women who I can sit and listen to and learn from, especially when they are passionate about what they believe and have lots of evidence to use in debates.