![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Same sex marriage, again
Feb. 17th, 2005 03:39 pmSo, Stephen Harper is now trying to amend the bill, in, he says, two ways. First, he wants to get rid of the part where gays can marry.
(...but formally acknowledge that it's okay for them to have some separate but equal form of civil union. Why don't this - and the other argument, advanced by many thoughtful people, that governments should retreat entirely to civil unions, leaving the marriage business exclusively to religious authority - seem like a satisfactory solution to me? Mostly, because I think that marriage is, at this point, a secular institution - like Christmas, but much less conflicted about it. Atheists get married all the time, and when you see someone rejecting the institution, it's much more likely to be for its cultural implications than its religious.
Mr. Harper's amendment here, of course, would leave the legal and civil recognitions of marriage in place, and as such would actually restrict those churches as want to from marrying (with authority) homosexual couples, at least as far as I can tell.)
Secondly, he wants,
Which I still don't understand. It sounds suspiciously like people want the "right" not to see a couple in wedding rings kissing on the bus, which to me is pretty difficult to justify.
A while ago, another Conservative (Vic Toews, the opposition justice critic) gave a few examples of what they're apparently thinking of. The first was federal marriage commissioners who don't want to perform same-sex marriages, which I have very little immediate sympathy for; it seems to be that the marriage commissioner's job is to administrate civil marriage policy - to behave as the government's agent, not an autonomous authority on the propriety of a marriage. I don't imagine that, if you're a marriage commissioner and your sister walks in with a fellow you think is incredibly wrong for her, you're allowed to refuse to marry them; similarly if you're Catholic, and asked to marry a divorcee*. A policeman has the right to refuse to enforce a law he believes is immoral, but I'm pretty sure that he exercises that by resigning; as far as I'm aware, the same, here.
(*Unless I'm remembering wrong, and Catholics don't disapprove of remarriage. Someone does.)
After that, he talks about a church that is being sued by a lesbian couple, because it wouldn't rent its building out for their wedding (presumably, they will rent it for weddings in general). This seems a little more reasonable to me - it seems like the church's perogative - until I imagine a situation where the church similarly refuses to allow the use of its property, because it disapproves of an interracial wedding. It seems like if one is justified, then so is the other, so, I'm not entirely comfortable with any of the options. I don't think that this situation would be particularly improved if the church could argue that the women's activity was not nationally legally legitimate. Also brought up is
It seems like this guy has an obvious recourse, which is to say, "I'm sorry, but I only offer preparation for Prebytarian weddings, which you're ineligible for." Unless Presbytarians have one of the churches which are willing to marry same-sex couples, which kind of seems to be between him and his
Agh! I'm late for class!
Later: ...and his church.
Mr. Toews also said,
I think, though, that what's actually happening here is that a positive right is trumping a negative; the right to participate in this societal institution is more important than the right to have no contact with behaviour that upsets you. Especially considering the provisions already in place to avoid forcing folks into active participation, I think this is just fine.
(...but formally acknowledge that it's okay for them to have some separate but equal form of civil union. Why don't this - and the other argument, advanced by many thoughtful people, that governments should retreat entirely to civil unions, leaving the marriage business exclusively to religious authority - seem like a satisfactory solution to me? Mostly, because I think that marriage is, at this point, a secular institution - like Christmas, but much less conflicted about it. Atheists get married all the time, and when you see someone rejecting the institution, it's much more likely to be for its cultural implications than its religious.
Mr. Harper's amendment here, of course, would leave the legal and civil recognitions of marriage in place, and as such would actually restrict those churches as want to from marrying (with authority) homosexual couples, at least as far as I can tell.)
Secondly, he wants,
Amendments to strengthen protections for all those who refuse to be associated with same-sex marriage, not just for religious leaders asked to solemnize such marriages.
Which I still don't understand. It sounds suspiciously like people want the "right" not to see a couple in wedding rings kissing on the bus, which to me is pretty difficult to justify.
A while ago, another Conservative (Vic Toews, the opposition justice critic) gave a few examples of what they're apparently thinking of. The first was federal marriage commissioners who don't want to perform same-sex marriages, which I have very little immediate sympathy for; it seems to be that the marriage commissioner's job is to administrate civil marriage policy - to behave as the government's agent, not an autonomous authority on the propriety of a marriage. I don't imagine that, if you're a marriage commissioner and your sister walks in with a fellow you think is incredibly wrong for her, you're allowed to refuse to marry them; similarly if you're Catholic, and asked to marry a divorcee*. A policeman has the right to refuse to enforce a law he believes is immoral, but I'm pretty sure that he exercises that by resigning; as far as I'm aware, the same, here.
(*Unless I'm remembering wrong, and Catholics don't disapprove of remarriage. Someone does.)
After that, he talks about a church that is being sued by a lesbian couple, because it wouldn't rent its building out for their wedding (presumably, they will rent it for weddings in general). This seems a little more reasonable to me - it seems like the church's perogative - until I imagine a situation where the church similarly refuses to allow the use of its property, because it disapproves of an interracial wedding. It seems like if one is justified, then so is the other, so, I'm not entirely comfortable with any of the options. I don't think that this situation would be particularly improved if the church could argue that the women's activity was not nationally legally legitimate. Also brought up is
A person who offers a marriage preparation course for a Presbyterian congregation but is reluctant to advertise it in the community because he might have to open it up to gay couples.
It seems like this guy has an obvious recourse, which is to say, "I'm sorry, but I only offer preparation for Prebytarian weddings, which you're ineligible for." Unless Presbytarians have one of the churches which are willing to marry same-sex couples, which kind of seems to be between him and his
Agh! I'm late for class!
Later: ...and his church.
Mr. Toews also said,
"What we are seeing is a consistent pattern... Whenever equality rights and religious rights collide, equality rights trump."
I think, though, that what's actually happening here is that a positive right is trumping a negative; the right to participate in this societal institution is more important than the right to have no contact with behaviour that upsets you. Especially considering the provisions already in place to avoid forcing folks into active participation, I think this is just fine.
