OK, kiddo! Here are all the fantastically amazing posts tagged with Civil marriage commissioners
Conservative MP Blasts Court For Equal Rights Ruling
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled on Monday that civil marriage commissioners—individuals licensed by the government to perform non-religious civil marriage ceremonies—cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples.
Saskatchewan’s government, under premier Brad Wall, had asked the court for advice on two proposed bills. One would have allowed marriage commissioners to deny public services to gay couples, and the other would have allowed only marriage commissioners licensed before the legalization of same-sex marriage to do so. Both proposals were ruled unconstitutional.
This decision was expected and right. Marriage commissioners are there to perform non-religious, legal ceremonies and are not representatives of their privately held religious beliefs. Allowing a public service employee to refuse their duties based on the sexual orientation of their clients would have been unprecedented, opening a can of writhing, slimy worms as to what other services can be denied to the public.
Not everyone is content with the court’s ruling, of course. Maurice Vellacott, a Conservative MP (who has been on this site before, imagine that), angrily blasted the court decision on Tuesday. “The Court has hereby belittled religious faith or any faith for that matter,” he announced, hereby, in a press interview. “It sets up a hierarchy of rights saying these same-sex rights are more important than freedom of consience and religion.”
Utter nonsense, of course. No one, not even gays, are allowed to deny public services to anyone legally entitled to those services. That right never existed, and this ruling hasn’t changed it. Religious freedom, also, still exists in Canada. Everyone is free to worship whichever religion they choose.
So, if you believe that a gaggle of motley-clad deities mandates that all moral humans must get their left nipple pierced by an 84-year-old former acrobat upon graduating high school and have it fastened with a pewter-cast triskaidecagon, then by all means, go for it. But that doesn’t mean you get to go around denying boating licenses to anyone who has their pewter-cast triskaidecagon through their right nipple instead of their left.
At least, I think so. Technically, that court decision is still pending.
- Marriage officials can’t refuse gays: Sask. court [CBC News]
- MP blasts Sask. court for gay marriage decision [Toronto SUN]
Civil Marriage Commissioner Bill Goes To Court
A discriminatory bill that would allow civil marriage commissioners to refuse their public services to gay couples went before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal yesterday. The bill was, strangely enough, brought to court by the government that’s ultimately trying to introduce it in an attempt to predetermine its constitutionality.
I’m certainly no lawyer, but the fact that the provincial government even has to consult the courts shows what a constitutionally shaky bit of nonsense this is. I mean, I can’t imagine how allowing people to refuse public services based on personally held beliefs can mesh with Canada’s Charter of Rights. Civil marriage commissioners provide non-religious ceremonies for couples that do not wish to be married by a priest in a church. If these commissioners interpret their personal religious texts in a way that forbids them from serving a segment of the public in a professional capacity—and that’s a pretty big stretch, if you ask me—then they’ve chosen a career forbidden by their faith and had better choose another.
Personally, I have a feeling that we have nothing to worry about, but if my intuition is wrong and the court rules in favour of the bill, then I have a ton of questions. In addition to gays, could civil marriage commissioners refuse to marry an inter-faith couple? How about a couple who has a child out of wedlock? Does this incredible trump card apply to other careers? Could a vegetarian working at a provincial registry refuse to file paperwork for hunting licenses? What about a pharmacist who’s a Scientologist refusing to fill prescriptions for anti-depressants? Can a doctor who’s a Jehovah’s witness refuse to perform blood transfusions?
And if those questions are too hypothetical at this point, how about a thick-headed premier who’s an Annelidaterian forcing all Saskatonians to open a massive can of writhing, slimy earthworms?
I guess we’ll find out soon!
Churches Want Involvement In Marriage Commissioner Case
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will consider and rule on whether or not civil marriage commissioners can deny their otherwise public services to gay couples. The case is in response to a request from the provincial government, which is seeking information on the constitutionality of a proposed legislation to allow just that sort of thing.
In addition to the usual suspects—unions, rights groups, and some individuals—several church organizations have sought intervener status so that they can speak on the case. Most will argue that presiding over a gay marriage violates the religious freedoms of the individuals doing the presiding.
Churches are already exempt from Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore do not need to serve everyone equally regardless of their gender, race, or sexual orientation. That does not, however, apply to individuals. At least not yet—and that includes civil marriage commissioners, who are, after all, just people who perform the legal duties at non-religious wedding ceremonies for people who do not wish to get married by a priest in a church. They’re not, nor are they supposed to be, representatives of their personal religion.
Nevertheless, the Canadian Fellowship of Churches and Ministers, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the Chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Saskatoon, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and the Christian Legal Fellowship are all seeking to influence this public ruling. (I shall assume that they all pay taxes, then…)
Here’s my thoughts. Much in the same way that a vegetarian mustn’t deny a carnivore a boating license (lest the carnivore go fishing in violation of the vegetarian’s personal beliefs), a marriage commissioner cannot deny a marriage license to a gay couple; and that’s the way it should stay.
I mean, where did this idea come from that you can just avoid the duties that you’re expected to do? (cough, cough)
Anti-Gay Marriage Commissioner Loses Case
Orville Nichols, a Saskatchewan civil marriage commissioner, has lost his anti-gay appeal of an earlier ruling by the provincial Human Rights Commission. Nichols was fined $2,500 in 2007 for refusing to perform his public services for a gay couple. He then fought the ruling in court, arguing that his private religious beliefs entitle him to discriminate and refuse public, non-religious services to gay people. A non-religious violation, if you will.
Civil marriage commissioners are licensed by the government to conduct marriage ceremonies for couples that do not wish to have a religious wedding. Since the ceremonies are secular and commissioners aren’t representatives of their private religious beliefs, they are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as everyone else.
So, consequently, he lost his appeal… Not that he had much of it to begin with. Snap!
Anti-Gay Marriage Commissioner Sues Saskatchewan
Orville Nichols, a civil marriage commissioner from Saskatchewan, is suing the provincial government over a requirement to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
Nichols was fined $2,500 last May for refusing to perform a marriage for a couple because they were gay. Nichols now says that the province is violating his religious beliefs and that he should be allowed to deny his services to whomever he pleases, adding that the province’s requirement to serve everyone equally is an icy, icy, all ’round super treacherous slope. His lawer, Philip Fourle, explains:
What is next? Will the government be invading churches with their laws and forcing pastors and ministers and priests in churches to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies?
Ah, yes. Ever since I was a wee lad, I always imagined my special wedding day being held in a church that thinks I’m a horrible, horrible sinner—priest nervously presiding over us at gunpoint… government agents standing cross-armed by the newly kicked-in cathedral door. But that’s not terrifically likely.
See, religious institutions are exempt from Canada’s Charter of Rights, and may deny services to whomever they wish. Many religions refuse to wed inter-faith couples unless one converts, and are well within their legal rights to do so. Likewise, churches are not required to marry same-sex couples.
But here’s the thing: A civil marriage commissioner is acting on behalf of the state. Nichols is not an ambassador of his religion and he may not deny his public service to anyone based on their religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
So, basically, if this case succeeds, that means I also get to deny my services to whomever I want. So watch out, Bluetooth headset users! Your day is coming.
- Saskatchewan government sued over same-sex marriage rites [National Post]
- Marriage official sues Sask. government over same-sex unions [Edmonton Journal]
Anti-Gay Marriage Commissioner To Appeal Fine
Orville Nichols, a civil marriage commissioner from Saskatchewan, is going to appeal a $2,500 fine he received for refusing to do his job for a gay couple. Nichols claims that performing a non-religious, civil marriage for the gay couple violated his religious beliefs.
Marilou McPhedran, the Chief Commissioner of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Commission explained the case matter-of-factly:
To allow public officials to insert their personal morality when determining who should and who should not receive the benefit of law undermines human rights in Saskatchewan beyond the issue of same-sex marriages.
Succinctly and correctly put.
Nichols’ services are on behalf of the government, not his church. Religious officials acting within their own church are free to decide to whom they provide services (many churches refuse to marry inter-faith couples, for example), but it is not correct to claim this freedom applies to followers performing their public duties. Frankly, I think it’s a stretch to claim that one’s religious beliefs forbid anyone from interacting with same-sex couples at their job in the first place.
Potentially Illegal Religious Bill Drafted By Tories
It’s… It’s aliiiiiiiive! Well, almost.
The federal Tories have drafted a “religious freedom” bill that would allow civil marriage commissioners or Justices Of The Peace to refuse their public services to gay and lesbian couples, but haven’t introduced it in parliament yet.
While the government continues to deny they have plans to actually table legislation on the subject, The Globe and Mail was able to access over 1200 pages of information confirming that such a bill was researched and drafted as late as October. Oddly enough, the Globe also revealed that these records were almost entirely blacked out. (Though, since Mr. Harper has assured us a much more open government, I’ll attribute the blacked out portions to unrelated poetic clutter.)
Now, as for why the Conservatives don’t intend on introducing this bill after so much planning… Who can say? I mean, it’s certainly not in their character to be sneaky with human rights issues, springing this bill upon an unsuspecting public only after they’ve been handed a majority, right?
Incidentally, other provinces have tried to introduce bills on the subject (I’m looking at you Alberta and New Brunswick!), but legal experts have panned them for being fundamentally illegal.
- Tories drafted law on religious rights [Globe and Mail]
Why I Support Making Commissioners Wed Gays
Well, folks, a gang of microscopic germs have decided it would be convenient to set up shop inside my throat. I’m feeling lousy. So, I’m posting a response from the Slap Upside The Head Mailbag!
A visitor (from back in November) writes:
Why do you object to parents being notified if their kids are going to take a class on gay issues? And why does it bother you that some people do not wish to administer marriage vows to gay/lesbian couples?
Mark responds (again, back in November):
Thanks for writing; I appreciate your questions!
First, I’d like to clarify that I don’t have a problem with clergy refusing to officiate over same-sex weddings. Clergymen are performing a religious ceremony on behalf of the church, and are absolutely free to abide by the rules of the church. Many churches, for example, do not permit inter-faith marriage and will refuse to officiate over such ceremonies. This is within their constitutional right.
My objection is rather to the notion that a Justice of the Peace or civil marriage commissioner could refuse to perform their services to a same-sex couple. Unlike a clergyman, JOPs and commissioners are not religious ambassadors, and the services they are providing are on behalf of the state, not the church. For a state-sanctioned commissioner to refuse a marriage license to a gay couple would be kind of like a state-sanctioned private registrar refusing to issue a drivers license to someone of a profoundly different faith.
On a personal note, I absolutely agree with a person’s right to religious expression. However, I do think it’s a bit of a stretch for someone to claim their religious beliefs forbid them from interacting with same-sex couples in a job capacity.
As for the school notifications, I assume this is a reference to Ted Morton’s Bill 208, which stated that parents would have to be notified before a teacher acknowledges the existence of same-sex marriage in Canada.
Given that same-sex marriage does exist in Canada, I feel this is an awfully heavy-handed restriction to be written into law. The most outspoken opponent of this bill was the Alberta Teacher’s Association. My objections are the same as theirs. To require parental notification before acknowledging any potentially contentious topic effectively muzzles spontaneous discussion. A teacher would have to refuse to answer student questions on the topic and halt student reports. This gags discussions on the constitutional, social, political, and economic aspects, and I firmly believe that it’s important for students to develop sound discussion skills.
Beyond that objection, I also think that since other contentious topics (war, abortion, divorce) are not given the same treatment, this law would single out discussions about same-sex marriage as posing a unique hazard. This is not a fair message to gay and lesbian students, and their peers.
Incidentally, there are no courses in Alberta that discuss same-sex marriage as part of the curriculum. There is a new “Social Issues” course being offered in B.C. for 2008, and that includes a unit on gay issues. However, this course is offered to senior students in high school only, and is purely an elective. Parents should always discuss which electives their children take.
So there you have it: My lazy “Sick Day” post! Do you agree? Disagree? If you’d like to send a letter for a future mailbag post, don’t forget to visit the stupendous About Page!
Well, I’m off to get some rest and drink plenty of fluids. Until Wednesday, folks!
Update: Thanks to everyone who sent me “get well” notes, and to the very many more of you who wrote to point out the hilarious ambiguity in this post’s title. At my own discretion, I respectfully refuse to clarify which interpretation is accurate. ;-)
Related Posts:
Anti-Gay “Institute” Plays Poll-Twister!
Oh, this ought to be good! The anti-gay lobby group, Institute for Canadian Values, unveiled their latest poll this week, concluding that the majority of Canadians want to revisit same-sex marriage in light of religious freedoms.
The poll’s “big result” is, of course, that a whopping 72% of Canadians do not want clergy to be forced to marry same-sex couples. A very odd thing to include in a poll, considering that the same-sex marriage law already includes redundant preamble stating that clergy can’t be forced to marry anyone. The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled that the Charter guarantees this right, in the same capacity that clergy do not have to wed interfaith or divorced couples.
Where the poll gets especially interesting, though, is in the choice of questions relating to matters which are presently illegal. The pollsters were very quick to state, for example, that 61% of Canadians think a publisher should be able to refuse business to gays.
Really? 61% of Canadians said that?
Luckily, I’m somewhat literate (bear with me), so I was able to read the poll questions myself. Here’s the actual phrasing presented to respondents:
Should a religious person who prints brochures for a living have the freedom to recommend another printer to a homosexual group wanting some brochures printed?
Should a printer have the “freedom to recommend another printer?” What?
The other questions were equally hypothetical and deliberate in not having anything to do with same-sex marriage whatsoever. Not that it matters, of course, as—no matter what the majority thinks—the Charter guarantees, irrevocably, that clergy are protected and that Joe Public can’t refuse squat to nobody.
Anti-Gay Civil Marriage Commissioner Appeals
A Manitoba civil marriage commissioner is appealing to the Queen’s Bench after his commissioner’s license was suspended for denying public services to a same-sex couple. Kevin Kisilowsky claims that by having to serve all people equally, his religious freedoms as a Christian were horribly violated. The poor dear!
Interesting stuff, though! I wasn’t aware that Christianity forbids followers from providing non-religious civil services to gays! “Thou shalt refuse thy job to the gayeth ones.” Hmm… I guess that means I had better look around extra carefully for someone to renew my drivers license this week.
- Gay-marriage foe takes fight to court [Winnepeg SUN]
Conservatives Acting Kind Of Scary
Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed in an interview this week that the government is planning to introduce the “Defence of Religions Act.” The new act would permit a civil marriage commissioner or a justice of the peace to refuse their public services to gays without consequence.
Oddly, as soon as the popular media picked up on the story, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pooh-poohed the notion, saying that the government is “determined to protect the rights of gay and lesbian citizens.”
Uh… Determined, eh? That, coming from a government that is committed to re-voting on same-sex marriage. A government that happily kneeled to pressure from the anti-gay lobby to delay the vote past its promised timeline. A government that recently appointed a new ontario judge who represented anti-gay groups in a bid to declare same-sex marriage unconstitutional. A government that completely axed its most important (and gay-friendly) equality program despite a massive budget surplus. A government that just appointed the president of Canada’s most hysterical anti-gay lobby group as their newest Chief of Staff. Gee, that sounds pretty determined there, Stevey.
But, don’t worry, folks! Harper says he’s not scary! Although, come to think of it, I don’t recall him saying the same about the rest of his party…
- Tories plan to protect same-sex marriage opponents [Globe and Mail]
- PM denies plan to bolster rights of gay marriage opponents [Canada.com]
P.E.I. Gets Private Marriage Commissioners
Prince Edward Island has finally allowed private marriage commissioners to perform marriages in the province, and the first such commissioner, Jim Culbert, was very proud to have his first ceremony be a same-sex marriage!
It’s great to be able to see people finally getting things that they really would like in their life and not have to hide about it. You know, they can be openly married and go home and say, “Hey, you know, we really are people.”
This wonderful attitude is a far cry from Alberta, which almost passed legislation this spring that would have made commissioner discrimination against gay and lesbian couples perfectly legal. So, congratulations to Jim, the new couple, and Prince Edward Island! Here’s to not being crazy bigots!
