Should a marriage commissioner have the right to refuse homosexual couples?

[PlasmaTwa2]

Here's a debate topic for all you smart and mature people on this board:

Saskatchewan's highest court will rule Monday morning on whether provincial civil marriage commissioners can refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies on religious grounds.

The province asked the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal for advice on whether proposed legislation allowing commissioners to recuse themselves from performing same-sex marriages for religious reasons would be constitutional.

As a compromise, the proposed law would compel dissenting commissioners to provide gay or lesbian couples with a referral to a colleague who would conduct the marriage.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchew...-marriage-decision.html?ref=rss#ixzz1AdwHu5pO

And what do you think? Personally, I'm all for allowing the commissioners to refuse to marry people on religious grounds. It's a strange phenomenon were we can allow members of minority languages in Canada to walk around carrying ceremonial knives and to take a break from work to pray, but when it comes to the largest-demographic in Canada we can't be bothered to allow them anything. It's completely assinine to think that a gay couple can force someone who is uncomfortable with their relationship to do anything and it is an invasion of their freedom.

So the question here really is this: Who's rights trump the other's?

 

[lurkingdirk]

I think they should be allowed to refuse - but the provision that they have to refer the couple to another (and willing) commissioner is a good one.

 

[Hot Mega]

Here's a debate topic for all you smart and mature people on this board:



And what do you think? Personally, I'm all for allowing the commissioners to refuse to marry people on religious grounds. It's a strange phenomenon were we can allow members of minority languages in Canada to walk around carrying ceremonial knives and to take a break from work to pray, but when it comes to the largest-demographic in Canada we can't be bothered to allow them anything. It's completely assinine to think that a gay couple can force someone who is uncomfortable with their relationship to do anything and it is an invasion of their freedom.

So the question here really is this: Who's rights trump the other's?

He should find a job that more easily fits around his religious beliefs. No one forces anyone to do anything in a job. Jobs have conditions, you're either okay with them or the job doesn't suit you.:dunno:

I don't know a whole lot about the constitution Canada's laws and rights are based on but certainly g'ment officials shouldn't be intertwining the duties they are officially charged with and their personal (religious or otherwise) beliefs IMO.

 

[L3ggy]

You trying to marry BB?

 

[GregCentauro]

I'm not familiar with the Canadian customs, so correct me if I'm wrong.

If I understand correctly, the marriage commissioners are civil servants. If they are refusing to marry someone on highly subjective "religious grounds", they are effectively refusing to do their fucking job.

The religious argument doesn't pass the litmus test.

 

[larss]

He should find a job that more easily fits around his religious beliefs. No one forces anyone to do anything in a job. Jobs have conditions, you're either okay with them or the job doesn't suit you.:dunno:

I don't know a whole lot about the constitution Canada's laws and rights are based on but certainly g'ment officials shouldn't be intertwining the duties they are officially charged with and their personal (religious or otherwise) beliefs IMO.

I'm not familiar with the Canadian customs, so correct me if I'm wrong.

If I understand correctly, the marriage commissioners are civil servants. If they are refusing to marry someone on highly subjective "religious grounds", they are effectively refusing to do their fucking job.

The religious argument doesn't pass the litmus test.

If the commissioner took the job before the law was changed to allow same sex marriages, then surely the argument that "they should do the job they were employed to do" does not hold water. I would also have to say that changing jobs in a difficult job market is not an ideal solution either.

Religion does not really come in to it, that is just an excuse. If you are uncomfortable performing the ceremony, then you should not be forced to do it.

As long as they refer the couple to someone willing to perform the ceremony, I fail to see a problem.

 

[Hot Mega]

If the commissioner took the job before the law was changed to allow same sex marriages, then surely the argument that "they should do the job they were employed to do" does not hold water. I would also have to say that changing jobs in a difficult job market is not an ideal solution either.

Religion does not really come in to it, that is just an excuse. If you are uncomfortable performing the ceremony, then you should not be forced to do it.

As long as they refer the couple to someone willing to perform the ceremony, I fail to see a problem.

It's not really relevant IMO when 'he' took the job...before or after. Point is if he wants to make his own rules (or most of them) he should go into business for himself.

The theoretical problem with your solution is how far should people seeking a public service be kicked down the road until they find someone who will perform the service for them?

Theoretically none of the commissioners could feel comfortable with it. Then what do you do? Or the couple could needlessly or unnecessarily be burdened by having to travel many miles to one who will.

The government shouldn't have to hire one that will just because they have one that won't either.

But let's take your theory of the law changing while someone holds a post. What if cops decided on their own whims which laws they would and wouldn't enforce based on their personal beliefs? Should it matter what the laws (they believe in) were before they took the job?

 

[Supafly]

I'm not familiar with the Canadian customs, so correct me if I'm wrong.

If I understand correctly, the marriage commissioners are civil servants. If they are refusing to marry someone on highly subjective "religious grounds", they are effectively refusing to do their fucking job.

The religious argument doesn't pass the litmus test.

I second that. A civil service officer can't refuse due to religious beliefs, unless you live in Iran or some goddamn extremist state.

 

[Boothbabe]

The first civil marriage commisioner we went to didn't want to marry us because of his beliefs so we went to another one. The other one (a woman) was more than happy to marry us. We didn't even want someone who had to be forced to perform the ceremony. Getting married is supposed to be an awesome day and forcing someone to perform the ceremony is like having a little black cloud over your head when you say I do. At least that's how my wife and I think about it.

 

[Ulysses31]

This reminds me of a tricky case here in the UK a couple years back. A gay couple went to stay in a hotel and when the owners (Man and Wife) saw they were two men they said they couldn't stay there and returned their money saying homosexuality went against their Christian beliefs and they didn't want to men together in their home. The case split the public and it can't even remember the outcome, will try and find the story

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fusing-allow-gay-couple-share-double-bed.html

 

[~~whimsy~~]

He shouldn't have to do it if he doesn't want to or feel uncomfortable doing it. He can always refer them to someone/somewhere else that will do it with willingness. Boothbabe's post is decent example. Why force someone and have that for a wedding day memory?

Yeah, we completely forced him to do it, he had this pissed off look and just hated it, everyone there was happy, so YAY! What a way to enter into a marriage.

 

[betagammapi]

If you refuse to do your job, get out of the way for someone who will.

 

[Hot Mega]

The first civil marriage commisioner we went to didn't want to marry us because of his beliefs so we went to another one. The other one (a woman) was more than happy to marry us. We didn't even want someone who had to be forced to perform the ceremony. Getting married is supposed to be an awesome day and forcing someone to perform the ceremony is like having a little black cloud over your head when you say I do. At least that's how my wife and I think about it.

I can understand your point on that but the point here is more along the lines of someone's fitness to do a job.

You presumably live in what some would consider a more tolerant society so you probably had no fear of getting the run around in trying to get someone to perform the service for you. But what if that wasn't the case?

Your individual case notwithstanding, it may not be as simple or easy for someone in Canada or elsewhere as it was for you. You accept this because you have a reasonable expectation that if one doesn't, people will just find someone who does. But nothing prevents a de facto ban by 100 pct. of the people who perform this service acting on the same perspective and imposing their same beliefs....let alone the fact that your tax dollars pay their salary. A person living a paying taxes in Saskatchewan could theoretically have to call or run around from there to Newfoundland to find someone to do a service their hometown should be providing them. If you live in a place or province where the laws are different that's one thing but if it's legal where you live the public servants ought to be performing it.

If a person performs a g'ment service like marrying people, they ought to accept the prospect that the laws can change. If it becomes the case that the law has changed and it goes against some principle you hold, you should have 2 choices; change with the laws or hold your principle dear enough to find something else to do. There are many jobs for which there are just certain things you will have to accept as part of it.

For example, if there are Muslims who join our military who have some religious belief against fighting other Muslims have only 2 choices if it comes to us fighting against an Islamic regime; quit conscientiously or adjust their views and fight.

To me this isn't even about same sex marriage...it's about someone charged with performing a public service or job unwilling or unable to do it.

If you refuse to do your job, get out of the way for someone who will.

^Bingo.

 

[mrtrebus]

No they shouldn't.
Faith is a choice, sexuality isn't. Human rights outweigh religion when that religion is discriminatory.

 

[Boothbabe]

You presumably live in what some would consider a more tolerant society so you probably had no fear of getting the run around in trying to get someone to perform the service for you. But what if that wasn't the case?

You're right, Dutch society is much more tolerant in this regard. Gay couples are able to get married since 2001 and the majority of marriage commisioners have no problem marrying a gay couple so we weren't afraid we wouldn't find someone to perform the ceremony. We also have no seperate gay marriage. The existing marriage was opened up to include gay couples. No special position, just one marriage for everyone wich is how it should be.

 

[BadNewsBewes]

Yes a marriage commissioner should have the right to refuse homo couples.

If faith is a choice, the commisioner should be given the right to decide for the benefit of his own faith.

 

[Member442]

I'm not familiar with the Canadian customs, so correct me if I'm wrong.

If I understand correctly, the marriage commissioners are civil servants. If they are refusing to marry someone on highly subjective "religious grounds", they are effectively refusing to do their fucking job.

The religious argument doesn't pass the litmus test.

Greg your right. They are suppose to have no specific religion when marrying you. If you don't want a religious ceremony you are to go to them instead of whatever church, chapel ect. I know that most in this area however are quite a bit religious and that sucks as it is suppose to have no place in that job. s its suppose to be the place people like me go to have a "legal" marriage under our government.

It sucks or any of the smaller communities as they may be forced to travel great distances to be legally married under that. Though in that case I would do it likely as I really wouldn't want the one marrying me to fuck up my wedding by not wanting to be there. I see no easy way to solve this problem save to live common law.

 

[Boothbabe]

I see no easy way to solve this problem

I do. Get over it. We've always been here and always will be and we're not going to go away because some religious fucktard thinks we're evil. Just grow up

I'm not saying this to anyone in specific :1orglaugh

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Well, the courts ruled that it is unconstitutional for marriage commissioners to deny gay couples. Can't say I'm happy with the decision, but it will be alright if everyone stays level headed about it. If a man is uncomfortable with it, why force him to do it? Simply ask him for the name of someone who will. In my opinion, if a gay couple attempts to force someone who is uncomfortable with this to marry them, there really isn't much of a difference between them and the people twenty years ago who attempted to force homosexuals to follow their way. Forced tolerance is going to get my country nowhere.

I also think (key word, think) that this simply applies to marriage commissioners and not priests, who are obviously not civil servants (they simply obtain marriage licences) and can deny anyone they feel like, nor a church who can deny a gay couple use of the church for the wedding.

 

[mrtrebus]

Yes a marriage commissioner should have the right to refuse homo couples.

If faith is a choice, the commisioner should be given the right to decide for the benefit of his own faith.

No he shouldn't not if it infringes on the human rights of the "homo couples" as you so lovingly put it. . .