FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The Canadian Supreme Court weighs in on same-sex marriage (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: The Canadian Supreme Court weighs in on same-sex marriage
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
From the CBC:

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.

Here is a link to the Supreme Court's opinion. The questions that the government asked were:

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. [Smile] 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 ]

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Interestingly, there's never been a suggestion in the U.S. that a legislature lacks the power to authorize same sex marriage.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Foust
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for Foust   Email Foust         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
((((Canada))))
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob the Lawyer
Member
Member # 3278

 - posted      Profile for Bob the Lawyer   Email Bob the Lawyer         Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Wink]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Wink] 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).

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile]

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ludosti
Member
Member # 1772

 - posted      Profile for ludosti   Email ludosti         Edit/Delete Post 
[Smile]
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile]

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
[The Wave]
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
digging_holes
Member
Member # 6237

 - posted      Profile for digging_holes   Email digging_holes         Edit/Delete Post 
Disappointing, but totally unsurprising. I don't expect the vote in parliament to go in any different direction either.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vwiggin
Member
Member # 926

 - posted      Profile for vwiggin   Email vwiggin         Edit/Delete Post 
Woot Canada!

I take back almost everything I've said about that great nation. [Wink]

Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dh
Member
Member # 6929

 - posted      Profile for dh   Email dh         Edit/Delete Post 
Especially the word "great".
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dh
Member
Member # 6929

 - posted      Profile for dh   Email dh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fleche
Member
Member # 7089

 - posted      Profile for Fleche           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 5 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
If the provision wasn't there, some church might have gotten sued, or some province (British Columbia [Wink] ) 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 ]

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fleche
Member
Member # 7089

 - posted      Profile for Fleche           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 5 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
It's more than a bit strong, it's hyperbole for effect. [Smile]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dh
Member
Member # 6929

 - posted      Profile for dh   Email dh         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Sounds like some excellent progress to me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Suneun
Member
Member # 3247

 - posted      Profile for Suneun   Email Suneun         Edit/Delete Post 
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."

Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dh
Member
Member # 6929

 - posted      Profile for dh   Email dh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryuko
Member
Member # 5125

 - posted      Profile for Ryuko   Email Ryuko         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dh
Member
Member # 6929

 - posted      Profile for dh   Email dh         Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps. We'll see. I hope I'm wrong.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryuko
Member
Member # 5125

 - posted      Profile for Ryuko   Email Ryuko         Edit/Delete Post 
Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by free fall anyway?
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
digging_holes
Member
Member # 6237

 - posted      Profile for digging_holes   Email digging_holes         Edit/Delete Post 
It's like a slippery slope, except moreso.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryuko
Member
Member # 5125

 - posted      Profile for Ryuko   Email Ryuko         Edit/Delete Post 
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!!!!!"

Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dh
Member
Member # 6929

 - posted      Profile for dh   Email dh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dh
Member
Member # 6929

 - posted      Profile for dh   Email dh         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob the Lawyer
Member
Member # 3278

 - posted      Profile for Bob the Lawyer   Email Bob the Lawyer         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Uhleeuh
Member
Member # 6803

 - posted      Profile for Uhleeuh   Email Uhleeuh         Edit/Delete Post 
Teshi, may I join you in doing the [The Wave] ?
Posts: 378 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag...fight what?

And how?

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
it's clear from your translation that ...
[ROFL]

There was nothing clear from that translation.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
They cannot offer prescription coverage to their employees unless they cover birth control. Link.

[ December 11, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2