quote:The Supreme Court of Canada says the federal government can change the definition of marriage, giving gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.
In a non-binding opinion released Thursday morning, the court reaffirmed religious freedoms under the Charter, saying religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.
It also declined to answer whether same-sex marriage was required by the constitution.
So religious institutions that want to marry same-sex couples can do so, while those that do not want to marry same-sex couples don't have to. Everybody should be happy with that, but of course opponents of same-sex marriage are already talking about challenging the government's legislation when it is passed. On what grounds, I'm not exactly sure, given that the Supreme Court said this morning that same-sex marriage is clearly constitutional.
quote:Former prime minister Jean Chrétien sent the issue to the Supreme Court following a June 2003 ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal allowing same-sex unions.
Ottawa has proposed changing the definition of marriage to the "lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" rather than the "lawful union of one man and one woman."
Before taking it to Parliament, Chrétien referred the proposed bill to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to offer a non-binding opinion on three questions, including whether the government could redefine marriage, whether it supported the Charter of Rights and whether church groups had to perform the ceremonies.
When he became prime minister one year ago, Paul Martin added a fourth question: whether limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.
quote: 1. Is the annexed Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is section 1 of the proposal, which extends capacity to marry to persons of the same sex, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?
3. Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?
4. Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?
So:
quote:The operative sections of the proposed legislation read as follows:
1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
The answers were:
quote: Held: Question 1 is answered in the affirmative with respect to s. 1 of the proposed legislation and in the negative with respect to s. 2. Questions 2 and 3 are both answered in the affirmative. The Court declined to answer Question 4.
So there you have it. The Justice Minister said today that the legislation will be put to a free vote in Parliament soon (meaning that even government MPs will not have to vote in favour of the bill).
[ December 09, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Interestingly, there's never been a suggestion in the U.S. that a legislature lacks the power to authorize same sex marriage.
Dagonee
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Our government has done everything it can to avoid responsibility for answering the question, Dag.
[ December 09, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Foust ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
((((Canada))))
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Well, another step in what I see as the right direction. Wonder when the vote will be so I can watch it, chew my fingernails, and shake my fist at the MPs who vote against it Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee, I think it was a question of jurisdiction -- i.e., does the federal government have the authority to overrule the provinces in defining marriage legally? The answer is "yes." There are some provinces -- most notably Alberta -- whose governments oppose same-sex marriage. The Justice Minister in Alberta just held a press conference and essentially said "well, the federal government is about to bend us over and spank us pretty hard for being so naughty."
Okay, maybe he didn't phrase it quite like that. But if the government's legislation passes, Alberta will now have to recognize same-sex marriages, whereas had the Supreme Court not issued this opinion the matter would likely have gone before it as a formal case.
However, part of the questions business stemmed from Paul Martin's desire to avoid having same-sex marriage become an election issue. He added the fourth question to the list to ensure that the opinion would not come out until well after the election was over, but now they'll want to get the issue decided in Parliament as quickly as possible so that it doesn't affect the next election (which could come at any time because we're in a minority government situation).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Interesting. There would certainly be a case if the federal government tried to mandate same-sex marriage in the U.S.
The whole idea of advisory opinions is foreign to me, though.
Dagonee
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not sure if there's a precedent for it. I don't think there is, but I don't know. Like I said, it was partly a delaying tactic, but I actually think there's some merit in asking the Court to check the proposed legislation over to make sure it doesn't cause the kinds of problems that the government wants to avoid, and to make sure it doesn't violate the constitution or, even more importantly, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I wouldn't have minded if they'd just put the bill straight to a vote, but I also don't mind that they let the Court look it over first. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's just flat out not allowed here, at least in Federal court. No advisory opinions, ever.
I can't decide if it's a good idea or not - there's very good arguments for both sides.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Disappointing, but totally unsurprising. I don't expect the vote in parliament to go in any different direction either.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: But if the government's legislation passes, Alberta will now have to recognize same-sex marriages, whereas had the Supreme Court not issued this opinion the matter would likely have gone before it as a formal case.
Doesn't the notwithstanding clause cover provinces in this situation? For up to five, years, it says:
quote: "33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or section 7 to 15 of this Charter. (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of re-enactment made under subsection (4)"
In other words, if they are willing to pay the political price, a legislature may override (declare an Act notwithstanding) sections 2 and 7-15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a period of 5 years. "This essentially gives parliament," writes Yglesias, "the power to override the constitution by simple majority vote."
Will Alberta use this?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Woot Canada!
I take back almost everything I've said about that great nation. Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Especially the word "great".
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I've been hearing that they can't use the notwithstanding clause, though I'm not exactly clear as to why. It might be because the Court expressly stated that the right to define marriage for civil purposes rests exclusively with the federal government.
Frankly, the government is bending over backwards to ensure that the rights of religious organizations that do not condone homosexuality are not violated, so I really don't see why they persist in kicking up such a fuss about this. It really doesn't affect them at all.
And it's about time this legislation was passed.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: Frankly, the government is bending over backwards to ensure that the rights of religious organizations that do not condone homosexuality are not violated, so I really don't see why they persist in kicking up such a fuss about this. It really doesn't affect them at all.
Excuse me? We are talking about a piece of legislation that changes the fundamental meaning of a word, a word which is attached to something which is the fundamental basis of our society, and this doesn't affect me at all? It affects the very shape of the society we live in, and the society that my kids will someday grow up in, and I'm gonna have to do alot of explaining for them that my parents never had to do.
As for "bending over backwards", you exaggerate to the point of falsification. They are in no way "bending over backwards" to ensure that religious institutions will be protected; it would be more accurate to say that they are including a token mention of it in the legislation so they will no longer have to worry about it. No specific mesures to ensure that that protection will last have even been proposed. The fact is that the very act of passing a law like this will rapidly marginalize those religious institutions who disagree with it. Within a generation, these institutions will see intolerance and persecution towards them skyrocket. This is not even a slippery slope, it's a free-fall.
It is a very sad day for Canada indeed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:We are talking about a piece of legislation that changes the fundamental meaning of a word, a word which is attached to something which is the fundamental basis of our society, and this doesn't affect me at all?
Right. It doesn’t. And really, since you’re obviously straight, it’s none of your business. It’s also none of my business, but since people like you insist on attempting to make it their business, I also make it my business to at the very least pay attention to the issue. It doesn’t change anything fundamental about our society. It changes the legal definition of an important word, and making that change is the government’s perogative. Whose perogative would you rather have it be?
quote: It affects the very shape of the society we live in, and the society that my kids will someday grow up in, and I'm gonna have to do alot of explaining for them that my parents never had to do.
It does nothing of the kind. Gays and lesbians are still going to get into committed relationships with one another. The difference is that those relationships will now be formally recognized by the government for legal purposes. What’s the government supposed to do, wait and see if every church in this country accepts same-sex marriages? The right to define words for legal purposes does not rest with churches. This is the government’s job.
quote:They are in no way "bending over backwards" to ensure that religious institutions will be protected; it would be more accurate to say that they are including a token mention of it in the legislation so they will no longer have to worry about it. No specific mesures to ensure that that protection will last have even been proposed.
What you call a "token mention" is, again, actually a specific stipulation that "Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs."
quote: The fact is that the very act of passing a law like this will rapidly marginalize those religious institutions who disagree with it. Within a generation, these institutions will see intolerance and persecution towards them skyrocket.
Let me get this straight. You want your religion to be protected against becoming a minority?
That isn’t the government’s job.
So you’re afraid that religion will be marginalized in Canadian society. Or, in particular, those religions that decry homosexuality as sin. To me, that would be an amusing turnabout given that a mere 39 years ago we were imprisoning people who admitted to having engaged in consensual homosexual sex. The government must protect the rights of minorities, but it is not responsible for keeping groups from becoming minorities.
quote: It is a very sad day for Canada indeed.
No. It's a sad day for you, and a happy day for me, but the country itself is going to be just fine. It just had a day.
Posted by Fleche (Member # 7089) on :
quote: I'm gonna have to do alot of explaining for them
I'm curious as to what explaining you would have to do. This isn't an attack; I really just don't know what you mean.
quote: The fact is that the very act of passing a law like this will rapidly marginalize those religious institutions who disagree with it. Within a generation, these institutions will see intolerance and persecution towards them skyrocket.
I don't really see how that's a fact. If that's your opinion, then fine, I'll respect it, but I can hardly see how you can claim it's an "event or thing know to have happened or existed" or a "provable truth" (Collins Essential Canadian English Dictionary).
It seems that, for the most part, gay and lesbian people who want to get married but aren't allowed to by their church will either simply be married by someone else and be content that their church does not recognize their union, or will change denominations. If they change denominations, they're probably going to something closer to what they believe, anyway. A union not recognized by the church is not so unheard of: Catholics who divorce often go this route.
The idea that churches will be forced to marry gay and lesbian couples is absurd. No successful politician would attempt to pass such an idea into law, because even if they were some sort of atheist, church-hating bigot, it would lose them the next election. Further, it's clearly protected under freedom of religion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I am curious as to how agreeing not to force a private religious entity to act against their religious beliefs is "bending over backwards" to accomodate them.
Seems like it's just agreeing not to be fascist to me.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If the provision wasn't there, some church might have gotten sued, or some province (British Columbia ) might have tried to pass some sort of blanket "gay marriage for everyone!" bill. This way such foolishness is forestalled.
I don't think that provision particularly needs to be in the bill because religious freedom is already protected by law; I think it's there specifically to appease people who are afraid of either of the two unlikely scenarios I posited in the first paragraph. Not only that, but even with that provision in the draft bill, one of the questions the government asked the Court was whether or not the bill, as written, could be used to force unwilling religious organizations to perform same-sex marriages.
They didn't have to do all of that, they could have just drafted the bill without the provision and passed it when they had a majority before the last election. Instead they did a number of things, which included both some silly political games and going out of their way to make sure that this bill doesn't affect religious freedoms.
(Edit: Not that I think the government's motive in that is altruistic.)
(Edit 2: Oh, right, and they're also going to put the whole thing to a free vote in Parliament -- well, free with the exception of Cabinet members, I believe, but still, in a minority situation, that's pretty risky. When Stephen Harper (now leader of the opposition) tabled a motion to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in law, the first vote was a tie. The second time, the motion was narrowly defeated. I watched both votes live on CPAC. Again, they don't need to do that. If every Liberal party member was ordered to vote for the bill, it would pass because the bill also has the support of the Bloc Québecois. Instead, backbenchers will be allowed to vote how they like. Again, I don't see the government's motives as altruistic here, but they are doing it.)
[ December 10, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Fleche (Member # 7089) on :
I'd say "bending over backwards" is a probably a bit strong. Perhaps better to say they're aware of the issue and addressing it.
Edit for missing word. ("to")
[ December 11, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Fleche ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's more than a bit strong, it's hyperbole for effect. Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:I'm curious as to what explaining you would have to do. This isn't an attack; I really just don't know what you mean.
Quite simply, I'm going to have to explain to them that people are now legally entitled to use words to mean things that those words were not intended to mean. I will have to explain to them that even though those two men say they're married, and the government says they're married, what they are doing is not marriage. I will have to tell them that people, including the government, are very much into saying that wrong is right and right is wrong.
And twinky, I am not concerned about my religion becoming a minority. I am very much concerned that things in Canada will soon begin to go the way they are in Europe, where preachers are emprisoned for saying that homosexuality is wrong, where students are forbidden to wear any sort of religious symbols or religious dress in schools (and even this, I fear, is only the barest of beginnings; we're not even getting warmed up yet). I am concerned that this is a direct road to intolerance and persecution. That is what I am concerned about. No one will be happier than I if it turns out that I am under the spell of some raving paranoia when I say this. But I don't think that I am.
[ December 11, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: dh ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sounds like some excellent progress to me.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote: what they're doing is not marriage
Your definition of marriage sounds pretty shallow to me if it is defined by such characteristics as Male and Female. Unless you're going to try and point to only Male+Female+RelatedChildren as The Only True Kind of Marriage, it seems that adult Male + adult Female is your only requirement.
I myself believe that their love for each other and commitment is "doing marriage."
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Well, I love my brother very much, but I am not "married" to him. I also love my parents, my grandparents, my sister, and my cat very much, and am very "committed" to all of them. But those relationships can in no way be termed "marriage". But whatever. I don't want to repeat endlessly what I've said in dozens of other threads, because I am not going to convince anyone anyway.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
But you are connected legally to them. If your brother falls ill, you will be allowed to visit him in the hospital. If your parents die, you're entitled to what inheritance they're willing to give you. But homosexuals are not allowed that.
People who aren't homosexuals aren't allowed that, even if they're close enough. For instance, if my best friend is estranged from her family, and one of her basic beliefs is that someone's organs should be donated after they die, upon her death, even if I know she would want it that way, her parents can refuse to donate her organs and I'd have no say in it, even if we were roommates and her parents hadn't seen her in years.
I just think that calling it a 'free-fall' is a bit dramatic.
[ December 11, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Perhaps. We'll see. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by free fall anyway?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
It's like a slippery slope, except moreso.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I know that, I just never understood what people thought would happen...
The thing I associated with slippery slope was something like "If gays get married black will become white, up will become down, puce will become green, and people will marry their BOX TURTLES!!!!!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob, please tell me you weren't referring to this when you said excellent progress:
quote:I am very much concerned that things in Canada will soon begin to go the way they are in Europe, where preachers are emprisoned for saying that homosexuality is wrong, where students are forbidden to wear any sort of religious symbols or religious dress in schools (and even this, I fear, is only the barest of beginnings; we're not even getting warmed up yet).
Dagonee
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Ryuko, I stated above what I believe will happen; in fact, I believe it is already happening. We are entering an age of rapidly increasing religious intolerance and persecution (in the name of religious freedom, no less), and it will only get worse from here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
About people being imprisoned : Are you referring to the case in Sweden some time ago? Be aware that he was not imprisoned for saying homosexuality is wrong; that is entirely legal. He was imprisoned for saying homosexuals should be killed, and urging his followers to do so. That is illegal even in the US, I believe.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
That's the first I've heard of it, in all the articles I read about he incident. Would you kindly point me to a reliable source?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag...no that wasn't what I was referring to...of course.
I think freedom, equality, and justice have all taken a great stride forward in Canada.
Perhaps, like the hope that Iraq will become a shining beacon of Democracy in the Middle East, Canada will become a shining beacon of freedom and equality in the Americas. Maybe when everyone sees that this turns out to be no big deal and that the country doesn't fall off into the ocean as a consequence, other countries in this hemisphere will calm down about it and extend similar freedoms to all adults who reside therein.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I wonder if your parents, dh, had to stay up late explaining to you why my parents' marriage does not fall under the traditional umbrella of marriage. They were, after all, married by a Justice of the Peace in a court house, God was not mentioned once in the service. They too are married purely in the eyes of the government, the law, and the community. But perhaps the destruction you will say they paved the way for is the lagalisation of gay marriage?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't think so, Bob, but I know too many people who would view that as progress.
I share dh's fears - I just choose to fight it when it actually happens.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Here is the text of the speech in question. The passage I refer to is this :
quote:Så det är klart att Gud han inte skriver en sagobok för att människor skall tänka på det här, utan han skriver med tanke på att så här kommer människor att handla, då man överger Gud. På grund av dessa synder kommer landet att utspy sina invånare. Det politiska svaret i vårt land på detta är ju vad Paulus säger. De vet vad Gud har bestämt, att alla som lever så förtjänar döden, ändå är det just så de lever, ja än värre.
in English
quote:So it is clear that God He does not write a story-book for people to think about, without also writing with the thought that people will act in this fashion, in defying God. Because of these sins the country will spew out its inhabitants. The political answer to this is just what Paul has said. They know what God has decided, that all who live thus deserve death, and yet still, it is just so they live, yes, even worse.
My translation and emphasis. It comes out as rather bad English, but then, it's not very good Swedish. The reference to Paul is from the letter to the Romans.
It is true that the judgment also made reference to comrade Green comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia, thus :
quote:And sexual abnormality is a deep cancer-tumour on the body of society. The Lord knows that sexually twisted humans will even rape animals.
quote: We are already seeing the consequences of this, we see it in the spread of AIDS. Now not all AIDS sufferers are homosexual; but it has begun because of this once in a time.
quote:'Boy-defilers.' Even when the Bible was written the Lord knew what would happen. We have seen it, and we see it. And we ignore it. Paul speaks, in the first letter to the Corinthians, of 'perverted humans'. And 'perverted' is translated from the original as 'One who lies with boys.' One who lies with boys. These are the perverted humans, that the Bible speaks of. Now not all homosexuals are pedophiles, and not all homosexuals are perverts, but still one opens the gates to forbidden areas and allows sin to be rooted in one's thoughts. And he who is a pedophile today did not begin as such, without having begun quite simply with changing his desires. It was so it began.
He later makes it clear that homosexuality is a choice, taking texts from the Bible to justify this; the 'changing desires' are clearly a reference to choosing to become homosexual. In other words, he is saying that all pedophiles started as homosexuals.
This is illegal, in that it is forbidden to cast dispersions upon a group of people. In a somewhat similar vein, it would be illegal to blame AIDS on Jews, or state that all Pakistanis are diseased. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Even so, I doubt that he would have been prosecuted if not for the reference to 'all who live thus deserve to die.' That is definitely not covered by free speech.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:that is entirely legal. He was imprisoned for saying homosexuals should be killed, and urging his followers to do so. That is illegal even in the US, I believe.
First, that would not be illegal in the U.S. Second, it's clear from your translation that he did not say they should be killed.
quote:This is illegal, in that it is forbidden to cast dispersions upon a group of people.
Still a horrible law.
Dagonee
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
Teshi, may I join you in doing the ?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag...fight what?
And how?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Steps to interfere with religion. In other words, stopping X because it might lead to Y isn't really my thing - I'd rather fight Y when it comes up.
And yes, it does come up that people try to interfere w/ religious practice - witness CA forcing Catholic Charities to fund birth control. It comes up even more often in college contexts.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: it's clear from your translation that ...
There was nothing clear from that translation.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
link for the CA thing?
Are the Catholic Charities accepting public money? Do they have the option of doing things their own way if they stop taking public money?
Does Catholic Charities lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to fund birth control?
Or are you saying that CA passed a law saying that Catholic Charities cannot legally exist at all unless they fund birth control clinics?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They cannot offer prescription coverage to their employees unless they cover birth control. Link.
[ December 11, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:stopping X because it might lead to Y isn't really my thing - I'd rather fight Y when it comes up.
So, are you saying that you think that the slippery slope argument is not a good basis for public policy? In which case, I whole-heartedly agree.
Maybe if you gave a specific example in relation to the concerns about gay marriage and the intrusion on freedom of religion, I might have a better handle on what your concerns are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Slippery slope is not a good basis for making public policy.
I don't have the concerns about gay marriage legalization. I do have concerns about the ongoing restrictions on the exercise of conscience in many areas of life.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
from that link:
quote:The high court said that Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses in California, where "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement. Catholic Charities argued that it, too, should be exempt.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the charity is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly preaching Catholic values.
In fact, Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote that a "significant majority" of the people served by the charity are not Catholic. The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions.
Well, Dag...I think the court acted fairly prudently here. The state has an obligation to all workers in the state. Catholic Charities, while affiliated closely with a church, is not a church.
And when weighing the rights of workers versus the rights of employers, I think the broad view would be to treat all employers the same except in rare circumstances that are clearly delineated.
It seems to me, also, that Catholic Charities does have options that would solve its problems. They could: 1) Administer charity in a purely religious context and thus more effectively shield themselves from government regulations by actually qualifying for the exemptions that a church would.
2) Stop giving prescription drug benefits to their employees. That's not a mandatory part of any health insurance plan. It's a nice piece, but perhaps they could just lower everyone's premiums sufficiently and not have this headache.
3) If they became a purely religious institution within the bounds of CA law, they could also justify only hiring Catholic workers, so they wouldn't have to worry if anyone was using birth control. So, they could give the drug benefit and even if it was required to include birth control, they could rest assured that none of their employees was actually using it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There was nothing clear from that translation.
Not my fault! The good pastor is no great orator. Now, Dag does have a point : While Green says 'they deserve to die', he does not say 'and we should be the ones to kill them.' At least not in so many words. However, there is a tone going through the entire piece that it's time Christians took matters into their own hands, since the government is clearly failing. He does not precisely come out and encourage armed revolution, but he is not so far from it.
But in any case, the formulation 'Person X deserves to die' is not covered by free speech. Nor should it be. All Europe knows what comes of that.
quote:Oh, that way madness lies; let me shun it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
K.O.M.-- I think the difference might be in whether someone produced a "hit list" or just made a generally threatening statement about a group of people without actually naming names.
Still, I think the limits of protected speech may or may not extend to statements like the ones that preacher made. It'd be important to figure out the intentions and the understanding of the message that the people listening came away with, I think.
I had a boss who used to say things like "who do I have to kill to get a _____ around here." None of us went out and killed someone as a result, even though we were very loyal to this boss.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
also from that article that Dag linked to:
quote:Justice Janice Rogers Brown was the lone dissenting judge. Brown wrote that the Legislature's definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if it excludes faith-based nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities.
"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."
See... I disagree with Justice Brown on this last part. I think government has the right and responsibility to set boundaries on what it will call a "religion." For purposes of taxation and exemptions from various laws, it would behoove the government to adopt a very narrow and traditionalist definition, it seems to me. The failure to limit that definition would open the door to people starting religions solely for the purpose of avoiding taxes or avoiding various laws that would otherwise apply (like anti-discrimation laws).
Also...it seems to me that we are coming up against a real issue in this country. The issue is whether our anti-discrimination laws are more important than our non-interference with religion laws. The case Dag pointed to is exactly the kind of thing that religions want to be exempt from but it's a law that the people of the state have decided they want to be governed by. They have said that it's important that employers don't discriminate against women, gays, etc.
In this case, there's already a ruling on the books that says failure to include contraceptives as part of an employer-sponsored drug plan does discriminate against women. That is now a precedent in CA, and it's the law in that state.
Churches are exempt from that law.
But that doesn't mean that EVERY organization with a religious affiliation is exempt.
That's true in lots of areas of the law surrounding the issue of exemptions for religions. Churches are used to it, seems to me. They run some organizations that are exempt from state anti-discrimination laws, and they run some that are not exempt.
If anything, this case was a further clarification of the dividing line between the different types of entities that churches run and sponsor.
Seems like the line has to be somewhere.
Why not have the line be drawn so that those church-sponsored organizations that hire from outside the religion, and minister to people outside of the religion are considered non-exempt?
What's the problem with that?
How does this infringe on the rights of the Catholic Church in any way?
They also have the right to not run a charity in CA if they don't like the way they are treated there. That would not stop the Church from existing or enjoying the benefits of its exempt status in the other operations it runs.
No-one is FORCING the church to do anything but abide by the applicable laws for this particular operation.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
You would be hard pressed to find a person more disgusted with the influence the religious right value voter has had on this country than I, but that decision does bother me. If the organization is founded by a religion, follows the directives issued by the heirarchy of that religion, and for all intents and purposes is an organ of that religion, then it should be given the same due consideration that the churches of the religion are given. If it walks like a duck, people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What's the problem with that?
I cannot believe our society has gotten to the point where someone would even ask this question. We've gotten so used to the government limiting people's freedom of conscience that it sounds like an exception when they don't.
Here's what's wrong with it: The Catholic Church considers the use of birth (Edit: control) to be grave sin. The government is forcing them to choose between not providing prescription coverage to its employees or committing grave sin.
The reason Catholic Charities exists is because of specific elements of Catholic doctrine. Society gets enormous gains from the Church's practical exercise of that doctrine. Yet society is seeking to constrain the very impulses that lead to those good works - that is, that religious belief should have real impact in the way people behave.
Frankly, I find it to be horribly repressive.
Dagonee
[ December 11, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But in any case, the formulation 'Person X deserves to die' is not covered by free speech. Nor should it be. All Europe knows what comes of that.
I think Lee Malvo deserves to die. Guess I better not go to Europe, huh?
Dagonee
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
KoM, the Bible says that we all deserve to die, "for all have sinned" and "the wages of sin is death". Hmm. Better ban the Bible as hate-speech now, shouldn't we? And now you see what has me worried.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
KoM has already stated here that he would like to see something along those lines.
Dagonee
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Hmm. In that case, could we likewise have KoM banned for hate speech?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Only in Sweden.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dagonee...
you do realize that churches run a variety of organizations, some of which aren't even exempt from taxes right?
They all have to abide by a subset of the state's laws regarding employment and fair practices. Those that fall under the most clearly religious charter -- like the actual church sanctuary itself -- are fully exempt. Those that are more general purpose have some laws apply to them and some that don't -- Schools and open-employment things like some of the charities are probably good examples. Then, if a church runs a for-profit entity -- like an investment program -- it is fully taxable and non-exempt.
I think churches are used to this in the US. It's not an infringement on anything the Church stands for.
This particular charity obviously doesn't fall under the completely exempt religious-institution category or the court would've been obliged to judge it fully exempt.
This isn't the only non-exempt entity operated by the Catholic Church.
This isn't forcing the CATHOLIC CHURCH to do anyting. It's forcing this particular entity, which is run by the church, to follow the laws that apply to that type of entity in the state.
Every church plays by these rules. And the Catholic Church probably knew the rules that apply to this organization before they even went to court.
They're really practiced at this sort of thing.
I'm seriously surprised that you're so shocked. You seem so much more informed about the doings of the Catholic Church than I am, and yet this way of doing business has been something I've known for as long as I can remember.
Seriously, this isn't a big deal. This organization has had to abide by fair employment laws of every state for a long, long time. They know the drill.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think Lee Malvo deserves to die. Guess I better not go to Europe, huh?
I would note that the law does recognise some context. Public speech is rather more controlled than private - even in Scandinavia, you can say what you like in private, which I suspect includes Internet discussion fora.
But the fact is, Europe does not consider free speech as important as you do in the US. The right to free speech is overruled by the right not to be publicly compared to cancerous tumours who deserve only death. You are free to disagree.
Incidentally, about banning the Bible : While I would certainly like to see such a thing, as a matter of simple tactics, it wouldn't work. It would only radicalise our religious people, not to mention creating martyrs. More efficient to let religion die of apathy and education - a strategy already working well in most of Western Europe.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, there's at least one other option between the two you gave, which means reforming the Catholic Charities organization to be more in line with the law as far as qualifying as a religious organization.
That said, it is somewhat unsettling of an opinion, and would prefer that the court had thrown the issue back to legislature on this point, to more clearly define what a religious-exempt organization can look like.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:you do realize that churches run a variety of organizations, some of which aren't even exempt from taxes right?
Of course.
quote:I'm seriously surprised that you're so shocked. You seem so much more informed about the doings of the Catholic Church than I am, and yet this way of doing business has been something I've known for as long as I can remember.
Seriously, this isn't a big deal. This organization has had to abide by fair employment laws of every state for a long, long time. They know the drill.
This is a huge deal. Organizations shouldn't have to meet some arbitrary, ridiculous distinction in order to decide what benefits to provide to employees.
Frankly, it's utterly ridiculous.
It's even more ridiculous when you realize that this wouldn't be an issue if the organization were less giving to their employees.
Dagonee
[ December 11, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, there's at least one other option between the two you gave, which means reforming the Catholic Charities organization to be more in line with the law as far as qualifying as a religious organization.
That said, it is somewhat unsettling of an opinion, and would prefer that the court had thrown the issue back to legislature on this point, to more clearly define what a religious-exempt organization can look like.
The problem is that the court is basically saying that the organization isn't restrictive enough to qualify. Every thing Catholic Charities does is a religious action, or an action taken to allow them to carry out religious actions. The whole organization exists as an attempt to carry out Christ's commands. It's a distressingly narrow interpretation of religion.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let's take this a step further, Bob. The reason I'm in favor of legalized gay marriage, despite my moral opposition to them, is that I believe as much as possible should be left to individual conscience. Why are you unwilling to extend this courtesy to other areas of conscience? Especialy by compelling behavior contrary to conscience, rather than denial of access to a benefit?
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
As a taxpayer and someone who likes laws that force employers to stop discriminating against employees on the basis of race, gender or religion (and one day, I hope, sexual preference), I think that it's important for government to ensure that exemptions are granted only to those organizations that truly qualify as religious institutions under the applicable laws. The failure to do so would allow the unscrupulous to flaunt the state's and the nation's laws under the guise of religion. Something that is not good for the state or the institutions that really are religious in nature.
If you assert that Catholic Charities is purely Catholic and should be viewed as such, then I think it is in encumbent upon you to explain why they hire non-Catholics and why the administer aid in areas other than religious services and to those who are not part of that religion.
You say it's because they are carrying out Christ's charge. But that's a Christian thing, not a purely Catholic thing. So, you have to explain, in particular, why their activities are uniquely Catholic.
I don't think it behaves in such a manner. So, it really isn't purely a religious institution.
It is, however, a charitable institution. As such, it has earned certain exemptions under the law and it enjoys the freedom from some taxes and some laws that apply to for-profit corporations, and to government, by the way.
I think it would also matter who cuts the paychecks. If the check says "Catholic Charities" is the payee, then the laws that apply to that institution, and not the Catholic Church certainly do apply.
As I said, the Church does it this way by choice. They protect assets of the Church by keeping other organizations quasi separated. If the church gets sued, Catholic Charities is left out of it, and vice versa.
Nobody told them to set up separate institutions. They didn't have to. There were obviously advantages to them to do so. And so they did.
One of the potential disadvantages is that more of the states' various laws on fair employment practices apply to them. If they don't like it, they do have the option of taking Catholic Charities completely in house and managing as part of the church itself. In other words, they could make the distinction between the Church and Catholic Charities disappear and avoid this situation entirely. And not have to deal with this so-called assault on their principles.
But if they are going to reap the advantages of having separate entities, they have to figure out how to do it within the laws of the states in which they operate.
Nobody is telling them what to do. The state is telling them "given that you've chosen to operate THIS type of entity, these are the laws that apply."
Again, this is not a big deal.
It's the way this has worked for a long, long time.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:And twinky, I am not concerned about my religion becoming a minority. I am very much concerned that things in Canada will soon begin to go the way they are in Europe, where preachers are emprisoned for saying that homosexuality is wrong, where students are forbidden to wear any sort of religious symbols or religious dress in schools (and even this, I fear, is only the barest of beginnings; we're not even getting warmed up yet). I am concerned that this is a direct road to intolerance and persecution. That is what I am concerned about. No one will be happier than I if it turns out that I am under the spell of some raving paranoia when I say this. But I don't think that I am.
That still reads to me like you're afraid of losing "moral majority" status. If I were to try to summarize it as I tried to do with your last post on the subject, I would do so in exactly the same way as I did the first time around.
Regardless, that simply doesn't follow logically. Granting homosexuals the legal right to marry is not a negative action directed at churches, it's a positive action directed at homosexuals. The fact that you see it as the former rather than the latter is probably why you feel the way you do about the future of the country.
The government, some time ago, legally recognized homosexuals as a distinct minority that needs to be protected against precisely the same kinds of intolerance and persecution you claim to be afraid of (remember, as late as 1965, we were still putting people in prison for being homosexual). Given their legal minority status, it behooves the government to confer upon them the same rights and benefits given to heterosexuals. Since giving a homosexual the right to a heterosexual marriage is nonsensical, they're changing the legal definition of marriage so that homosexuals can have something that right now only heterosexuals have: the right to legally bind oneself to another person in a civil marriage.
They have been persecuted, and then some. You have not. Let's wait until your rights actually look like they might get trampled on before we begin to contemplate a return to restricting theirs.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Let's take this a step further, Bob. The reason I'm in favor of legalized gay marriage, despite my moral opposition to them, is that I believe as much as possible should be left to individual conscience. Why are you unwilling to extend this courtesy to other areas of conscience? Especialy by compelling behavior contrary to conscience, rather than denial of access to a benefit?
Corporations, even those that are charitable institutions, can't have a conscience. People can. The corporations operate under a set of laws that govern their behavior and, to a certain extent, protect the rest of us from them being able to do whatever their board of directors want to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know what, I have to say I'm appalled, Bob. There's really no other word for it.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
*Visualises Dagonee's suddenly upper-class British accent. "Appalled, old chap! Simply appalled! Just not done, what? Not cricket, you know!"*
Is 'visualises' the word I want? What's the word for imagining you hear something?
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"The Catholic Church considers the use of birth to be grave sin" I have to say, I am gravely disappointed that no one else noticed this in Dagonees' post. I mean, the sweet, sweet irony of it...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oops. Fixed.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Awww... but it was funny. And it engendered such great mental images. Phoo.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: They have been persecuted, and then some. You have not. Let's wait until your rights actually look like they might get trampled on before we begin to contemplate a return to restricting theirs
I am NOT talking about restricting rights! It isn't about rights. It's about calling apples oranges and oranges bananas. If I buy a dog and love him very much, does that mean that my relationship with him is the same as a parent/child relationship, and that the federal government should treat it as such? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. I could rant all I wanted to about how it is exactly the same, since my dog depends on me and I care for him and love him and teach him stuff. But I would never be able to adopt him as my son, because the relationship is just completely different. Well, this is the same thing.
Homosexuals can do whatever they want, and I can't stop them, nor do I even want to try. But let's call things by their real names. Oh, wait... it's already too late for that, at least in this country.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: I could rant all I wanted to about how it is exactly the same, since my dog depends on me and I care for him and love him and teach him stuff. But I would never be able to adopt him as my son, because the relationship is just completely different. Well, this is the same thing.
dh, do you have any clue how offensive it is to make an analogy between the relationship of two human beings to your relationship with a dog?
I get that you don't like flexibility in language, but your rant is undermined by such absurdist contrasts.
If anything, this situation is more like the redefinition socially of terms like "men" in the US Constitution. Well...noboday actually HAD to redefine that term, we just made it more inclusive of all humans by doing things like passing laws for universal suffrage and civil rights.
Seems like a rather apt analogy actually. Now the term "marriage" is being broadened to include the union of two adult human beings, rather than the more restrictive (but certainly more traditional) union of two adult human beings of opposite genders.
Seems like your government is deleting an unnecessarily restrictive modifying phrase.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*ahem* Because I like your point and don't want to see it weakened with an inaccurate example:
The word "men" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.
While confirming this, I found out the letters "men" appear in a LOT of words in the Constitution.
Dagonee
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Okay.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oops. Declaration of Independence.
Thanks!
Rats.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
dh,
quote: I am NOT talking about restricting rights! It isn't about rights. It's about calling apples oranges and oranges bananas.
Believe whatever you want, but for the people who are actually DIRECTLY affected by this, it is, in fact about rights. You don't get to define the terms of the struggle, the people struggling do. It just so happens that without the word "marriage" thay will never be assured the rights they need in order to live the way they want to. Their relationships will be seen as invalid. I honestly don't see what makes this semantic argument so important for you that you feel deep anguish if it's really JUST about the language of it. Do you boycott bakeries where muffins are labeled scones and eclaires go by the name of donuts? So the word marriage won't mean the same thing it did before. So what? The sacrament of marriage will not have changed. In many (dare I say most) churches, it will still only be available to a man and woman. It's only the legal definition that will change, and if a small semantic change has to occur to give rights to a currently downtrodden group in society, I'm all for it.
And your example of trying to adopt a dog saddens me. If you can't see the difference, you never will.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
dh,
quote:Excuse me? We are talking about a piece of legislation that changes the fundamental meaning of a word, a word which is attached to something which is the fundamental basis of our society, and this doesn't affect me at all? It affects the very shape of the society we live in, and the society that my kids will someday grow up in, and I'm gonna have to do alot of explaining for them that my parents never had to do.
A) The government lacks the power to change the meaning of a word. It merely has the power to misuse that word.
B) The government makes decisions every day that are going to change society more than this will. We're talking about the term the government uses to describe a certain relationship. That's not a society-changing issue. It's a technicality that at most will slightly alter taxes for the rest of us. It won't even alter what you have to explain to your children, because children are not concerned with legal definitions - either way they will want to know why a man and a man can be in such a relationship, whether it is called marriage or not.
Bob,
quote:dh, do you have any clue how offensive it is to make an analogy between the relationship of two human beings to your relationship with a dog?
Perhaps as offensive as it is to many to try to equate the marriage of a man and woman to the relationship of two men or two woman?
If we are doing so, that means we must be throwing offensiveness out the window - saying that gay people have the right to marry, and be called married, no matter how offensive it is to others. And if we're throwing offensiveness out the window, why not include man-dog relationships? Why not include ANY exclusive, intimate relationship under the definition of marriage? After all, doing so could only bring happiness to the people who want those relationships, and doesn't really effect the rest of us.
Don't dog-lovers have the right to marry too? Who gets hurt by allowing dog-man marriages to exist?
[ December 12, 2004, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Perhaps as offensive as it is to many to try to equate the marriage of a man and woman to the relationship of two men or two woman?
Xap, that's absurd.
"I am offended by homosexual marriage, but I am not homosexual."
The worst that can happen here, if homosexual marriage is allowed, is you wind up horrified by the direction your country is taking because it does not mesh with your personal morality. This is the situation DH finds himself in. It is not a happy place, and I confess I will feel exactly the same if the same-sex marriage bill does not pass in Parliament: I will be disgusted and saddened.
"I am homosexual and am offended that some heterosexuals want to keep me from having a civil marriage."
Homosexuals feel that this is a denial of their right to equal treatment as human beings. Horror, disgust, and sadness do not even come close to how homosexuals feel about this issue, and you should know that.
No wonder Caleb and Karl don't post here anymore.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
William Raspberry, in today's Washington Post, referenced a passage from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity which has formed half the philosophical position for my support of civil marriage for same-sex couples:
quote: C.S. Lewis, the British essayist, author and cleric, died 41 years ago, so he wasn't writing about same-sex marriage in America. No, his subject in his book "Mere Christianity" was divorce. Still, his observations may shed some light on our "values" controversy today.
"I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused," he wrote. "The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question -- how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws.
"A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. . . .
"There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
Religious marriage, he was saying, is a sacrament, and the state has no more business involving itself in the rules that govern it than it has in such questions as the efficacy of infant baptism, the validity of kosher certification or the number of virgins a (male) martyr might reasonably anticipate as his reward.
But marriage isn't only sacrament. It is also the basis on which we decide who may inherit in the absence of a will, who may make life-or-death decisions for loved ones, or who is eligible for the advantages of joint tax returns. And because it has these secular implications, the state has a legitimate role in determining who is married and who isn't.
The church has no interest in joint filings, and the state no interest in declarations of love or religious affiliation. To the one, marriage is a sacred rite; to the other, it is the sanctioning of a contractual relationship. The church may care whether he is a philanderer or she a gold-digger, or whether there's too great a gap in their ages. The state's interests run to the validity of the contract.
It's also the reason for my stated preference that the legal side simply be called "civil union." Let marriage refer, not just to Christian Marriage (of which there are several variations), but to the spiritual, sacramental, or otherwise non-legalistic implications of two people joining together for life (or eternity).
However, my preference is just that - a preference, one I will vote for and urge my representatives to vote for. It is not foundationally necessary to my wish that a legal entity creating legal responsibilities, rights, and conveniences be opened up to couples that wish to partake of it.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The only problem there is that "marriage" has been used for both purposes for so long. Even if the word were struck from all of our laws, I think lots of people who got civil unions would still say they were married -- partly because of inertia and partly because it's a lot less cumbersome than saying "we have a civil union."
What about adopting something along the lines of the LDS "sealing" to signify an eternal bonding of souls, and leaving "marriage" for the law books?
Edit: Or, obviously, coming up with some one-word term for civil unions that's easily verbed. At the end of the day, I think that the inertia behind the use of "marriage" to describe both of these unions is too great.
[ December 13, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At the end of the day, I think that the inertia behind the use of "marriage" to describe both of these unions is too great.
Yeah, me too. Doesn't stop me from wishing, though.
Dagonee
[ December 13, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's a great quote, Dagonee.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know why I haven't posted it (the C.S. Lewis portion) before - it's been fundamental to my view on this matter for years.
I was probably too lazy to type it in.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Yeah, me too. Doesn't stop me from wishing, though.
For some reason, that made me laugh. Not in a bad way, though.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)