Comments on: Canadian province sued over gay marriage rule

By: ALAN WOOL

ALAN WOOL — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:35:31 +0000

THE COMMENTS LEFT BY BUD BURGOON-CLARK I REALLY FIND INSULTING. HE INSULTS MY RELIGION OF WICCA BY CALLING PAGENS A “PAGEN FERTILITY CULT”. I HATE TO INFORM HIM OF THIS BUT PAGENS HAVE NO AND I MEAN NO RULES, LAWS OR ANYTHING AGAINST THE LGBT COMMUNITY. IF ANYTHING WE ARE MORE FOR THE LGBT COMMUNITY AS TO THE FACT THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE BOTH THE MALE AND FEMALE GODS. AND ALSO WE ARE A RECOGNIZED RELIGION BY THE US GOVERNMENT. IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT THEN WHY DID THE VA CHOOSE NOT TO FIGHT A LAWSUIT AGAINST THEM TO GET A PENTAGRAM FOR SGT. PATRICK STEWART PUT ON HIS MARKER. I AM SORRY IF I AM YELLING BET THIS STATEMENT JUST REALLY PISSED ME OFF. THANK YOU

By: br

br — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:01:10 +0000

I am trying to get provinces and states to form a new country out of N. America over gay marriage. This will require closer ties with Islamic states, Russia, 3rd world and China leaving liberal Canada, US, and the EU in their gay sphere. With the California government refusing to enforce Prop 8, judge recall, new state, and country will be required then probably war. This is the only way to the gays.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:45:00 +0000

Who does this marriage commissioner think he is? If he doesn’t want to perform the job for which he is being paid, he should quit. If I were a commissioner and my religious beliefs forbade me to support Baptists, I would not have the right to refuse to marry them in a civil ceremony. He should not have special rights to pick and choose whom he marries. Let churches marry who they want, but his job is not in a church. It’s a public position and he should do his job, quit or be fired.

By: Ross

Ross — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:27:27 +0000

Okay, being an American, ignorant of Canadian law and all that I’m asking for some clarification from my Canadian brothers and sisters.

There are two types of Marriage commissioners correct? One civil, one religious. In that case since this guy is a civil commissioner then he should’ve turned in his civil (commission?) and gotten a religious one. If he refuses to do that then he should be in a spot of trouble. Or is there some nuance to this case that I’m missing?

By: Jamie

Jamie — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:53:56 +0000

So what happens the the Orthodox Jewish food service worker refuses to serve bacon or pork products to customers?

Or the radical pentacostal evangelical Christian type who refuses to serve women wearing pants?

Or the Moslem wait staff who cannot serve a glass of wine?

Or what about the marriage commissioner who does not believe in interracial marriage? Can he or she refuse to officiate at such marriages?

I think this seems to be an issue of people doing their jobs. If the duties in the job description cannot be preformed due to personal inclinations, then the said people need to find another line of work. It’s really that simple.

By: Del

Del — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:46:17 +0000

If he doesn’t want to perform civil marriages, he should not be a civil marriage commissioner!

By: Timmy the Twink

Timmy the Twink — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:01:17 +0000

This really isn’t such a big deal. I mean, the guy did refer them to another commisioner that would perform it anyways, so it’s not like their not getting married. Who are we to demand tolerance for what we believe in if we can’t even tolerate other people’s beliefs? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sticking up for that Babtist piece of shit, but I’m saying he was respectful and said though he couldn’t do it because of his religion (which I think is fair) he did, respectfully, refer him to someone that would. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with this, though it is ignorant.

By: Trace

Trace — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:22:19 +0000

Crazyworld, I think your scenario is flawed. There is no way that someone could be Baptist and have an issue with Fat People.

By: Wanbo

Wanbo — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:12:11 +0000

“The pendulum has swung too far in favor of same-sex people and against people of faith.” Excuse me but his inference that same sex couples and people of faith are mutually exclusive is insulting. I live in this Province & work for the Government and believe if you work in the civil service you provide the same service to everyone. And, that changes in Government shouldn’t change human rights. Enough of this 1 step forward, 2 steps back malarkey… As a Canadian, I must say that I don’t see the so-called separation of church and state. On the contrary it seems that politics & daily governing in the U.S. is inundated by/with religion and religioius factions making this separation nothing more than a huge facade… There is an alternative for Mr Nichol, that of obtaining a religious licence vs a civil one. If he doesn’t want to meet the cannons of his religion in order to function in that capacity then that’s his choice. I imagine that the use of a civil licence ensures more profitability and doesn’t come with the same responsibility or religious entanglements. Incidentally those of which he apparently holds so dear.

By: Dijah

Dijah — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:23:13 +0000

I think that if you work for the government you have an obligation to do your job. If he has such a problem performing civil marriages for gays he has the option to only perform church marriages. I don’t understand what the problem is. If he is mainly concerned with his beliefs, he can just perform church marriages and disriminate to his heart’s content. Sounds good to me.