Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Canada got it right
Today this site ran a story about a Canadian man who is challenging his fine for not performing a gay civil marriage. As he puts it, his Baptist faith does not allow him to complete the union.
Fine.
But the response of Canadian officials illustrates just how Canada got it right: If you want to refuse gay people for religious reasons then you can’t hold a civil marriage license. You can, however, perform all the religious marriages you would like.
There are so many good answers contained in that sentence.
First, both civil and religious unions are called marriage. This means that there is no legal distinction between the rights that come with either and no legal distinction possible in the future because one term, marriage, refers to straight and gay unions.
Second, civil marriages exist as a distinct entity from religious marriages. That means that those who worry about a tainted marriage or a breakdown in the fabric of the heterosexual family that could come from including LGBT couples can go to their own church and get married there. They can encourage their family and friends to do the same. This keeps their marriage squeaky clean.
I would take the Canadian example one step further.
American churches can perform religious marriages and exclude LGBTQ people from acquiring their license from their minister/pastor/priest etc. However, those religious institutions that choose to discriminate should not be eligible for tax exemptions or government support. The tax dollars of all Americans, including gay ones, should not be funneled towards organizations that don’t support their full participation in society.
If you want to discriminate, go ahead. But the government isn’t going to help you do it.
I’m holding my breath, hoping that soon this country will come to the same level of tolerance and acceptance as Canada.
I also can’t wait to start fining religious officials who don’t think I’m worth as much as their straight congregants.
Canuck:
Wish I were you and you were me!
Well, we as Canadians may not have it all completely right, but we are working on it. After many years of blood, sweat and tears things are improving for homosexuals. The biggest part of it has been the movement towards separating church and state. Effectively this was begun by our beloved former Minister of Justice and Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau back in 1967 when he declared the “state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. And so began the decriminalization of homosexuality and the advancement of a more secular society. Even as late as the early 2000’s, religious groups desparately tried to regain influence in the battle for equal marriage rights of gay and lesbian people. They lost that battle, but they also retained the right to marry who they chose within the confines of the church, while civil marriage law was enacted to protect the rights of all people, whether gay or straight. Admittedly, we do have a lot more to get right in Canada, like ensuring all people have access to education beginning with our young to eradicating bullying and intolerance towards people of colour, homosexuals, and other various issues. It all has taken many years of hard work and struggle, but we have come a remarkable distance in my lifetime and I believe we are on the right track towards freedom for all.
Someone should check their facts. The second paragraph of the article states that a religious person can hold a civil marriage license yet refuse to marry a gay couple? I thought that only applied to religious clerics of all denominations? Am I missing something?
In the UK where civil partnerships are the norm granting all the rights of marriage without the name, no registrar or other government official may refuse to join a gay couple in a civil partnership if it conflicts with their religious beliefs and the law is upheld. The Brits have legislation that no business and no government official is allowed to discriminate against gay people in the delivery of goods and services. Further, the UK has legislation that compels the RC church from discriminating against gay couples who wish to adopt a child via a church agency. When will the U.S. get with the program and follow Canada and the UK’s example? We’re supposed to be the greatest nation on earth? Huh?
“Legislating from the Bench” and “Activist Judges” are MADE UP phrases from the RIGHT wing Loons…who object when things don’t go thier way – that’s all! ..of course Judges over-rule Mob mentality over the Minority ,that’s what they are there for! I totally agree with what Stan said – Either we Follow OUR Constitution,or we don’t….we can’t have it both ways!
My partner and I have been together for over 15 years; we were married in 2003 after the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia legalized same-sex marriage.
Canada is a much more secular nation than the U.S. It helps that the largest Protestant denomination in Canada (the United Church) supports and celebrates same-sex marriage, as do many other Protestant denominations and Jewish faith communities (like Reform and Reconstructionist).
Religion is not the problem. In fact, liberal religion proved to be very helpful in advancing the cause of same-sex marriage. But conservative and fundamentalist religious traditions opposed same-sex marriage, as they always do. Fundamentalism is the problem, not religion per se. But even some traditional religious communities (Sikh, Hindu, Asian Buddhist, etc.) acknowledge the (secular) validity of same-sex marriage, even though they do not celebrate them.
Liberal Americans are a lot like mainstream Canadians. It’s the fundamentalists who are completely different from everyone else. Keep fighting for your rights!
As long as churches are allowed to influence politics, as they currently do in the US, it’s an uphill battle.
It is difficult to compete with church/religious infrastructures that are well grounded, and created/maintained by the charitable tax exemption system. The reality under such a system is that same sex marriage proponents are funding the campaign for equal marriage, while unwillingly funding part the campaign against same sex marriage rights, within the current taxation system.
While we faced similar problems here in Canada, we do not have a ballot initiative system within our federal elections system. These ballot initiatives, and loose rules surrounding religious involvement in them, appear to be the nemesis of the US equal marriage movement.
For me the really scary thing about putting these thing to a vote, is the idea that democracy means that the will of the majority rules in all legislation, no matter what. Again, all this talk of ‘legislating from the bench’ and ‘ignoring the will of the majority’ is scary. Hello, Nazi Germany.
Marriage is not a religious institution. How many couples get married at city hall or by a justice of the peace and their marriage is recognized by the state. In many European countries the only marriage ceremony that is recognized is the civil one. You can be married in a church if you want but it has no legal status.
It is also not just to have children. If that were the case then straight couples who can’t have children or decide not have children would have to have their marriages annulled.
Marriage is a way for a couple to publicly pronounce their love for and commitment to each other.
Here is how your country appears to an outsider on this matter. You proudly proclaim that there is separation of church and state. I find the only that separates you and extremist Muslim countries is that they admit that religion is used in determining their laws.
One of your most “sacred” documents states that all men are created equal and you espouse your democracy as the greatest in the world. Yet for people who are not white males to get equal treatment and rights it has taken protests, legislation and court challenges to get these rights. Remember when women were not considered to be “persons” and therefore were not permitted to vote.
Yes, it took a long time to get gay marriage in Canada. The government finally recognized that this type of discrimination was wrong according to our “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. This stated that no one shall be discriminated on the basis of their sex. So, if a same sex couple applies for a licence and are refused, then one of them is being discriminated on the basis of their sex. And guess what, there were American religious groups who were sending money to Canadian groups to fight this battle towards equality. I can imagine the outrage that would occur if a foreign country were to send funds to yours to fight an issue. (Just because you are a world power does not make you boss of the world.) Charlton Heston even had the nerve to come up here and try and get us to change OUR constitution to include the right to bear arms.
But I digress.
To me the bottom line is this. Either you Americans believe in your constitution or you don’t. (Remember, separation of church and state?) If you do not want to grant the same rights to every citizen then they should receive a discount on their income taxes or not pay them at all because they are considered second class citizens.
Alas, a lot of the same pro-prop 8 arguments were spread here in Canada and still are. We had at least one national election where this (and the ‘legislating from the bench’ that ruled that laws against gay marriage violated our charter of rights and freedoms) was the key issue (and our current Conservative Prime Minister lost that election). Things got pretty darned ugly and hateful up here… for years. So it’s not quite paradise. There are still talk-radio loudmouths wanting to restore ‘traditional’ marriage…
As I understand it, and to put it broadly, a state and provincial marriage license are pretty much the same thing… and government officials in Canada and (briefly) in pre-prop 8 California would have to give out the licenses to same sex couples… but religious officials would not.
This is why I wish we were like Canada! Their tolerance and acceptance is something I respect as a gay man! I hope we aren’t too far behind them.
“If you want to refuse gay people for religious reasons then you can hold a civil marriage license. ”
You can?
Does anyone proofread this site? It’s a small thing, I know, but it makes gay people look like idiots when “we” can’t even get a simple thing like this right.
Jesus f*cking Christ on a donkey. Do it right or don’t do it at all.
Thank you Herkimer, that was enlightening.
I’m an ordained minister and I’m licensed by the court to perform marriages in my state.
Licensed marriage officiants–who don’t have to be clergy– can exercise discretion over whom they marry. For example, I declined to marry a couple when it was evident that the man had narcissistic personality disorder and the woman would be exploited. However, the clerk of the court has no personal discretion, because they are acting as an officer of the court. The court already issued the license, so the decision has already been made. This is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of who has the discretion.
A provincial marriage commissioner is acting as an agent of the province and thus has no personal discretion at all. This requirement does not violate his sickeningly sexual Baptist “faith,” because he is not performing the marriage; the province is. If he doesn’t like it, he needs to get a different job.