How does same-sex marriage affect religious freedom?

BigToque

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,700
0
76
This was in the paper today and this is something I continue to read about, but dont understand the arguement... (I've bolded the statement)

Text

'Rights are added'

Gov't presents its same-sex marriage bill

By KATHLEEN HARRIS, Ottawa Bureau

Calling it a key step in Canada's "rights revolution," the Liberal government has moved to approve gay marriage by summer break. Tabling the bill in the Commons yesterday, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler worked to fend off critics with assurance that religious freedom won't be sacrificed as civil marriage rights are extended to homosexual couples.

"The minority rights of gays and lesbians do not in any way undermine the rights of religious groups or opposite-sex couples," he said. "Their rights aren't taken away -- only rights are being added."

Aiming to "reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality" enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the bill also tinkers with eight other acts to redefine spouse in the Divorce Act and Income Tax Act.

The contentious legislation goes to a committee for study before heading to the Commons for debate and a vote.

While most Conservative MPs and a healthy faction of Grits remain staunchly opposed to redefining marriage, Cotler hopes to pass the bill before the House rises in June.

Alex Munter, spokesman for Canadians For Equal Marriage, called it a "great day" but cautioned the bitter fight isn't over yet.

'LONG STRUGGLE'

"The finish line for marriage equality is within sight -- but there are still hearts to change, there are still arguments to be made and now is no time to let up what has been a very, very long struggle," he said. Referring to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's push to restrict gays to civil unions, Munter said same-sex marriage supporters must battle "bound and determined" opponents.

Terence Rolston, president of Focus on the Family Canada, slammed the Liberal bill as an "experiment" that fails to adequately protect religious freedom and threatens the traditional family unit.

"It's an experiment that we're putting on the backs of our children, and that's not fair."

While Cotler stressed that religious officials won't be required to marry gay couples against their convictions, he admitted protecting the religious freedom of civic officials is out of his hands.

Solemnizing marriage falls into provincial jurisdiction. But despite a spate of human rights complaints filed by marriage commissioners in Manitoba and Saskatchewan who were ordered to marry gays or face dismissal, Cotler said his provincial counterparts are confident any problems can be resolved.

Cabinet ministers must support the government, but parliamentary secretaries and backbenchers are allowed a free vote.

Only a handful of Tory MPs, including Belinda Stronach, have publicly expressed support for same-sex marriage. Most Bloc Quebecois MPs endorse the bill, while only one New Democrat, Manitoba's Bev Desjarlais, intends to defy her party's whipped vote.

I don't care about the other issues at the moment. I'm just interested in what the arguements are for saying that same-sex marriages that are recognized by the government fail to protect religious freedom?

The government has stated that the legislation does not force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages. What the legislation does is give same-sex couples the same legal rights and benefits that opposite-sex couples receive.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
63,630
20,086
136
I'd be interesting in hearing a legitimate answer to this question as well.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
It limits the freedom of Christians to oppress all that oppose their beliefs.
 

GimpyOne

Senior member
Aug 25, 2004
302
1
0
The only way I see this is if a devout catholic works at a courthouse and is asked to fill out a marriage liscence for a same sex couple. This would be against his beliefs but he would be forced to do it.

Of course, not doing it would be forcing his religious beliefs on someone else!
(as the anti same sex movement is based off the bible, which not everyone belives in)

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
Related Topics for: How does same-sex marriage affect religious freedom?
FuseTalk has found that the following topics are a close match.
Topic Replies Views Originator Last Post
New Messages Rating Anandtech OT Affect needed!! EYE CANDY INCLUDED!
by toant103
New Messages Rating Atheists sue to stop Christian mentoring
by Forsythe
New Messages Rating does too much sex make you lazy?
by otispunkmeyer
New Messages Rating CALI - Tax On Used Car - How Does This Work?
methinks this new feature doesn't work so well
 

BigToque

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,700
0
76
Originally posted by: GimpyOne
The only way I see this is if a devout catholic works at a courthouse and is asked to fill out a marriage liscence for a same sex couple. This would be against his beliefs but he would be forced to do it.

Of course, not doing it would be forcing his religious beliefs on someone else!
(as the anti same sex movement is based off the bible, which not everyone belives in)

I suppose that could be an issue. Could this person say that he couldn't make the licence, but that another person could on another date or even just later in the day?

Edit:

Maybe they could have two marriage licence tills. One for opposite-sex marriages and one for same-sex marriages. That way, there would always be someone available at both tills and nobody would have to wait for someone with the ability to make the licence
 

axnff

Senior member
Dec 1, 2000
227
0
0
It sounds as if government officials are legally bound to perform a marriage for anyone who asks. It would appear as though any discrimination on their part would result in dismissal. Therefore, they are legally bound to violate their own religious principles for the sake of upholding the law. Not an easy catch-22.

The (seemingly) simple answer would be not to force officials to take part in a ceremony to which they personally object on religious grounds, but that would open up a whole lot of arguments going back to discrimination and such. Personally, I would take great offense if I was legally bound to take a personal part in a ceremony to which I objected (regardless of consequences, I would not bend). On the other hand, if someone else did not want to take part in my ceremony for whatever reason: fine! I'll just go find someone else who will. Unfortunately, every "group" (whether a minority or not), will always have a vocal minority who feel "entitled" - not just to pursue their own happiness - but to force others to accept it. Too many people fail to see the line between "tolerance" and "acceptance."
 

broon

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,660
1
81
Marriage is and has always been a religious institution. Religion should determine who can and can't get married. The state should not recognize marriage at all because of this. The state should only recognize civil unions and then the state can decide who can enter into a union.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: broon
Marriage is and has always been a religious institution. Religion should determine who can and can't get married. The state should not recognize marriage at all because of this. The state should only recognize civil unions and then the state can decide who can enter into a union.
Kiss my ass. Marriage should not be the sole domain of Mythologies and Cults!

 
Aug 27, 2002
10,043
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: broon
Marriage is and has always been a religious institution. Religion should determine who can and can't get married. The state should not recognize marriage at all because of this. The state should only recognize civil unions and then the state can decide who can enter into a union.
Kiss my ass. Marriage should not be the sole domain of Mythologies and Cults!
there is a difference between marriage and unions....the main one being religion. if you thing all religions are myths and cults then get a union from the state, not a religious mariage. :roll:

I could care less if gay folks get unions from the state, but I'll be dasmned if they can get married in a Christian (or other religions that consider gayness a sin) setting, it simply isn't acceptable, niether are the so called gay christian churches.

this topic belongs in P&N, everytime it gets brought up.
 

stephenw22

Member
Dec 16, 2004
111
0
0
Originally posted by: axnff
It sounds as if government officials are legally bound to perform a marriage for anyone who asks. It would appear as though any discrimination on their part would result in dismissal. Therefore, they are legally bound to violate their own religious principles for the sake of upholding the law. Not an easy catch-22.

The (seemingly) simple answer would be not to force officials to take part in a ceremony to which they personally object on religious grounds, but that would open up a whole lot of arguments going back to discrimination and such. Personally, I would take great offense if I was legally bound to take a personal part in a ceremony to which I objected (regardless of consequences, I would not bend). On the other hand, if someone else did not want to take part in my ceremony for whatever reason: fine! I'll just go find someone else who will. Unfortunately, every "group" (whether a minority or not), will always have a vocal minority who feel "entitled" - not just to pursue their own happiness - but to force others to accept it. Too many people fail to see the line between "tolerance" and "acceptance."

This is also how I see this issue.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: broon
Marriage is and has always been a religious institution. Religion should determine who can and can't get married. The state should not recognize marriage at all because of this. The state should only recognize civil unions and then the state can decide who can enter into a union.
Kiss my ass. Marriage should not be the sole domain of Mythologies and Cults!
there is a difference between marriage and unions....the main one being religion. if you thing all religions are myths and cults then get a union from the state, not a religious mariage. :roll:

I could care less if gay folks get unions from the state, but I'll be dasmned if they can get married in a Christian (or other religions that consider gayness a sin) setting, it simply isn't acceptable, niether are the so called gay christian churches.

this topic belongs in P&N, everytime it gets brought up.
You be damned?:roll: You have no say idiot. Also which Religion, Mythology or Cult will determine who can or cannot be Married? What if one Religion says it's ok and another says it isn't?

You religious fanatics should just mind your own fscking business and leave others alone.
 

Alphathree33

Platinum Member
Dec 1, 2000
2,419
0
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
is polygamy legal in canada?

No, but interestingly enough that was the threat that opposition leader Stephen Harper made: if we make gay marriage legal, polygamy could be next.

I don't normally like 'slippery slope' arguments, but he does have a point. We are shifting from one absolute to another. The first absolute is "marriage is fine." The next one is "gay marriage is fine too." But in a completely relativistic society, ANY kind of marriage or union between any number and any types of individuals would be equally recognized.

I think Harper's point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere.

This gay marriage bill is the result of a powerful gay lobby, not some overall sense of moral relativism.
 
Aug 27, 2002
10,043
2
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: broon
Marriage is and has always been a religious institution. Religion should determine who can and can't get married. The state should not recognize marriage at all because of this. The state should only recognize civil unions and then the state can decide who can enter into a union.
Kiss my ass. Marriage should not be the sole domain of Mythologies and Cults!
there is a difference between marriage and unions....the main one being religion. if you thing all religions are myths and cults then get a union from the state, not a religious mariage. :roll:

I could care less if gay folks get unions from the state, but I'll be dasmned if they can get married in a Christian (or other religions that consider gayness a sin) setting, it simply isn't acceptable, niether are the so called gay christian churches.

this topic belongs in P&N, everytime it gets brought up.
You be damned?:roll: You have no say idiot. Also which Religion, Mythology or Cult will determine who can or cannot be Married? What if one Religion says it's ok and another says it isn't?

You religious fanatics should just mind your own fscking business and leave others alone.
some goes to anti-religious fanatics fscking around in religious business and leave us alone. if you want to find a religion that says gay "marriage"(instead of union) is ok fine, don't call it a marriage/union under christ(or other religions that consider it a sin) is my only problem. pack fudge all you want, its your business not mine, I don't force my religion on you or tell you not to do what you want to do as long it doesn't encroach on my rights. one of the facts about christians is that marriage is a sanctity between a man and woman, anything else can't be a christian marriage, it's simply a union between two people under the states authority (or other religion that does condone same sex unions).

edit: everyone has a say btw, it's something called the 1st amendment.
 

BigToque

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,700
0
76
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: broon
Marriage is and has always been a religious institution. Religion should determine who can and can't get married. The state should not recognize marriage at all because of this. The state should only recognize civil unions and then the state can decide who can enter into a union.
Kiss my ass. Marriage should not be the sole domain of Mythologies and Cults!
there is a difference between marriage and unions....the main one being religion. if you thing all religions are myths and cults then get a union from the state, not a religious mariage. :roll:

I could care less if gay folks get unions from the state, but I'll be dasmned if they can get married in a Christian (or other religions that consider gayness a sin) setting, it simply isn't acceptable, niether are the so called gay christian churches.

this topic belongs in P&N, everytime it gets brought up.

The government performs non-religious marriages for heterosexuals, not "civil unions". They should do the same for homosexuals.

Nobody is forcing the church to perform same-sex-marriages.