OK, kiddo! Here are all the fantastically amazing posts tagged with Same-sex marriage
What Is With The Alberta Government?
Well, this is getting bizarre! Wednesday’s silly little story about the Alberta government defining same-sex couples as “benefit partners” instead of “spouses” in their employee benefit plan is causing more of a stir than expected.
Same-sex marriage is a legal reality in Canada, but Alberta’s gay government workers are being categorized differently. It should be a no-brainer to remedy this and move on—or so you’d think.
Lloyd Snelgrove, an Alberta cabinet minister and president of the treasury board, is continuing to defend the separate-but-equal treatment in the benefit plan, saying that the government’s benefit plan shouldn’t be used to “drive social change” and that anyone who has a problem with it should go to the Human Rights Commission instead of the plan’s source.
“Drive social change?” Same-sex marriage has been legal in Alberta since 2005; the change already happened. Surely this is just a matter of updating the books to keep consistent. But even Alberta’s premier, Ed Stelmach, has now come out against calling same-sex spouses “spouses” in the plan: “The benefits are the same,” he said during Wednesday’s question period, “and that’s the most important thing.”
It’s true: The benefits are the same—just like the water that leads to separate drinking fountains come from the same pipes, but something’s still not right. It’s a cliché, but one apparently requires repeating: Separate but equal is not equal. The Alberta government should just acknowledge reality, update the darn plan, and move on to something more important.
Alberta Defines Gay Spouses As “Benefits Partners”
Gay government workers in Alberta are not allowed to list a same-sex partner as a “spouse” in their benefits package, according to a government booklet.
Scott Mair, a former government employee, said in a radio interview that the government only permits same-sex spouses to be defined as “benefit partners” instead of “spouses,” and that because of the difference, same-sex couples cannot register or update their spouses’ benefits online.
Astonishingly, Lloyd Snelgrove, an Alberta Cabinet minister and president of the Treasury Board, called the double-standard “fine,” and that he had “no intention of changing the definition of spouse to include people in same-sex marriages.”
An interesting stance, since the federal parliament already did that in 2005. I guess Lloyd overturned it when we weren’t looking. You’re a sly one, Lloyd!
Anti-Gay Lobbyists Batten Down The Hatches
Well, it’s the Easter long weekend, so let’s have some fun!
National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay lobby group based in the United States, has released one of the wackiest anti-gay advertisements I’ve seen, comparing same-sex marriage to a violent storm. YouTube has the goods.
The disparity in outlook has taken a turn for the melodramatic, has it not?
I’ll leave the final bit of amusement courtesy of the Human Rights Campaign, who has managed to get the audition tapes for the spot—and, interestingly enough—every one of those concerned individuals is a California doctor and Massachusetts parent. Fascinating!
Anyway, thanks to everyone who sent this ad in. Have a great long weekend! Slap will be back on Wednesday instead of Monday. Cheers!
Equal Marriage Rights Spreading Quickly
In just this past week, Sweden, Iowa and Vermont have all either passed legislation giving equal marriage rights to same-sex couples, or have had laws banning same-sex marriage struck down as unconstitutional. Clearly, equality is unstoppable!
Eventually, anti-gay lobby groups everywhere will realise this and begrudgingly move on… to attack some other minority group, in all likelyhood.
- Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override [Associated Press]
- Vermont Legislature OKs Gay Marriage [National Public Radio]
Sweden Gets Equal Marriage Rights
Sweden’s parliament voted to legalize same-sex marriage on Wednesday. The vote—which, despite its date, was no April Fool’s joke—passed with an impressive 226-22 support, making Sweden the seventh country worldwide and the fifth country in Europe to provide equal marriage rights to all citizens. The law comes into effect May 1st.
Neat! And I didn’t think it was possible for more gays in Sweden to sing “I do I do I do I do I do” then there already were. Congratulations, you guys!
- Sweden votes in favour of legalizing gay marriage [Canada.com]
- Sweden allows same-sex marriage [BBC News]
Former Top Judge Pooh-Poohs Polygamist’s Gay Argument
Claire L’Heureux-Dube, a former Supreme Court judge, has predicted that the courts will toss out any arguments linking same-sex marriage to a polygamist sect in Canada.
Two men currently facing charges related to a religious cult in Bountiful, British Columbia have already indicated that they will invoke gay marriage as an argument defending their dozens of wives.
“It is contrary to the equality of the sexes,” L’Heureux-Dube said to the press, noting that in the United States these men would be charged with sexual exploitation rather than simply having multiple spouses. Indeed, the polygamy charges in Bountiful appear to be a blanket charge for greater accusations of incest and exploitation.
So where do the gays come in all of this? Beats me! I’ve only heard the argument from those wacky anti-gay lobbyists, not the actual connection.
- Former top court judge doesn’t buy polygamy argument [Canada.com]
Church Proposes Jail Time for Attending Gay Weddings
James over at Gay Persons of Color has dug up an unreal story about the Anglican Church of Nigeria and their formal proposal to jail anyone who participates in a gay wedding.
The proposed law, delivered to a parliamentary committee this week, would incarcerate gay couples who get married for five years, as well as any witnesses to the ceremony for one year.
Well… Someone’s awfully cranky.
Many governments worldwide are actively homophobic, but jailing well-wishers who simply attend a gay wedding would, essentially, make it illegal not to be homophobic.
But perhaps there’ll be nothing to worry about. As James points out, the proposed law would be entirely moot—at least, according to the government. Just last month, Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that an exhaustive, country-wide search for gays and lesbians had been carried out and that they “could not come across any Nigerian with such sexuality.”
Robosexuals Crush, Kill, Destroy Traditional Marriage
Despite a growing number of countries demonstrating that gay marriage does not destroy society and all of life as we know it, some very special types of people remain in hysterical panic, as this gem from North Carolina demonstrates.
Speaking to an anti- gay marriage crowd, David Gibbs—the lawyer best known for his fight to keep the brain-dead Terri Schiavo on life support—hypothesized about a post- gay marriage future:
[Same-sex marriage] will open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina. Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses? Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots.
Their robots! It all fits into place! Why, just today I caught my robot looking at me with a distinctly amorous gaze.
Why? Why did I order a robot that can love?
And a huge tip o’ the hat goes to JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie for a story that I just couldn’t resist.
- Marriage rally draws 1,000 [News & Observer]
LifeSite Hearts Scare Quotes: Part 2
A New York judge has ruled that the surviving partner of a same-sex couple married in Canada is entitled to the deceased’s estate—as stipulated in his will—without having to involve next of kin in the probate proceedings. It’s a barely interesting legal case for very many, terrifically boring reasons, but it does establish some precendent in how all the “death do us part” matters are handled when it comes to foreign same-sex marriages.
Say, let’s see how those nutty scribes at LifeSite are reporting this!
Despite the fact that same-sex “marriage” is illegal in New York, a New York Judge has ruled that a man will receive the estate of his deceased male partner, whom he had “wed” in Canada eight months earlier. [...] The decision is the latest in a series of decision [sic] in New York which have set legal precedent in the state in favor of same-sex “marriage.”
We’ll ignore, for a moment, that same-sex marrages are not actually illegal in New York when performed out-of-state, and focus on the much more interesting issue here: Scare quotes!
Yes, in their usual LifeSite style, every occurance of the words “marriage,” “married,” “wed,” and “spouse” in the article are encased by a pair of delightfully sneering quotations. Why, even the word “divorce” gets a nice pair of quotes when it refers to same-sex partners. In fact, of the exactly nine sentences, there are 13 pairs of quotation marks—none of which are used for proper attributions. Oh, how the contempt does drip forth! I can almost visualize the author’s face, locked in a disapproving rictus, the Shift key permanently held for maximum quotage.
Almost makes you wonder exactly what their beef is regarding state probate notification procedures with respect to estate transfer between same-sex spouses…
Probably the same-sex part.
Parenthetically, while LifeSite correctly points out that the couple was married in Canada eight months ago, they somehow neglect to mention that the couple had been in a committed relationship for nearly 25 years prior and the surviving siblings had no objections to the will.
- NY Judge Grants Estate to Surviving Partner of Same-Sex “Marriage” Effected in Canada [LifeSite]
- N.Y. Judge Finds Man Entitled to Inherit Same-Sex Partner’s Estate [National Law Journal]
- NY judge: Same-sex spouse gets husband’s estate [Associated Press]
NJ Issues Gay Divorces; Still No Marriage
Here’s another reason why the whole concept of separate civil unions instead of same-sex marriage is a terrible idea: New Jersey.
New Jersey happily recognises same-sex marriages performed out-of-state, but in-state, only civil unions can be issued for gay couples. Well, now a New Jersey couple who married in Canada in 2004 wants a divorce so one half can re-marry. Canada won’t issue a divorce because they aren’t citizens; New Jersey, until now, wouldn’t do it because they could only dissolve gay civil unions, not marriages; and, of course, Canada won’t let the other half re-marry if they don’t get a proper divorce first. What a mess!
Enter Judge Mary Jacobson, who ruled that the couple should be able to get a divorce within New Jersey because the state has a history of divorcing foreign marriages. This ruling comes much to the chagrin of The Attorney General’s Office, which had argued that only civil union dissolutions should be allowed for same-sex couples in-state, even if they were fully married, not civil-unioned. The argument resolved around the idea that allowing same-sex divorce would eventually lead to same-sex marriage.
So, there you go. Civil unions have become entangled in the long tentacles of the law, the state is arguing that divorce leads to gay marriage, and we’re now left with this fun fact: In New Jersey, same-sex couples can’t get married—but they’ll be happy to divorce you!
- Judge to rule on whether gay couple can divorce [Winnipeg SUN]
- Judge grants permission for NJ’s 1st gay divorce [Canoe CNEWS]
Polygamous Sect Uses Gay Marriage In Defense
The leaders of a religious, polygamous sect in Bountiful, British Columbia will use same-sex marriage as a court defense in a trial that could see them jailed for having up to 20 wives. Winston Blackmore and James Oler will claim that since gay couples can wed legally, polygamy laws should be struck down as invalid.
Anti-gay groups are already somersaulting on the “I told you so” trampoline, blaming the gays for this whole situation. (I think they’ve also got a “dog marriage” cartwheel mat, “incestuous marriage” trapeze ropes, and other acrobatic devices for each claim in their Hall of Ridiculous Arguments™.)
A pet peeve of mine involves the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage somehow changed the definition of marriage and therefore makes gays responsible for this whole polygamous marriage discussion. Scoff.
The rights and legalities of marriage have remained identical after same-sex marriage. I’m betting the story with polygamy would be a tad different, as virtually every law involving cohabitation would likely have to change. Joint tax returns, pension transfer, guardian rights, maternity/paternity rights, GST rebates, family allowance, employment insurance… I’m no lawyer, but it would be a massive, exhaustive update. Same-sex couples have demanded nothing of the sort, and polygamous sects have been pushing for all this long before same-sex marriage was ever up for discussion.
Still, ignoring the fact that the polygamy lawsuit is just an ostensible charge for larger allegations of abuse, lack of consent, and sexual relations with minors, the main difference between this situation and the one that brought about same-sex marriage is simple. People do not choose their sexual orientation, but they can absolutely choose their crazy religious sect.
Wait—I thought of another! “Paedophilic marriage” uneven bars.
Google Stands Up For Equal Marriage
Google, the California-based search giant that I’ve just totally wasted my first sentence even bothering to describe, is continuing to follow through with its support of same-sex marriage. The company announced on Thursday that they had officially signed an amicus brief in support of court challenges aiming to strike down the ill-conceived Proposition 8:
Denying employees basic rights isn’t right, and it isn’t good for businesses. We are committed to preserving fundamental rights for every one of the people who work hard to make Google a success.
In protest, anti-gay lobby groups will now use a methodical guessing procedure to find websites—at least until their own search portal, www.search-engine.jesus, goes live.
- Google Amicus Brief Challenges Calif.’s Prop 8 [PC Magazine]
- Supporting equality [Official Google Blog]
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]
Meanwhile, In The United States…
Gay couples in the United States are in bitter-sweet celebration this week after a court victory won the right of same-sex marriage in Connecticut, a week after California lost it due to Proposition 8′s passage. Emboldened by what happened in California, anti-gay lobby groups are already working hard to reverse Connecticut’s court ruling, which they call “undemocratic.”
Undemocratic: That’s a word we’ll be hearing a lot of from anti-gay groups down South for a while, at least if Canada’s history on the matter is any indication.
When Stephen Harper announced that Canada’s Conservative party would vote to re-open the “marriage debate” in late 2006, I felt completely heartsick. Gay couples had already won the right to marry from multiple consecutive court rulings, and a bill to legalize it nationally had narrowly passed the year prior. That the Conservative Party was motioning to vote to take away rights from a minority group that fought so hard for them was confusing and mean-spirited, but they insisted it was necessary because the previous vote apparently wasn’t “free” enough. Liberal cabinet ministers, a handful of seats in the 308-seat parliament, were required to vote for equal marriage rights. That, they said, was undemocratic.
Ignoring, for a moment, that the “party whip,” a requirement by the party leader to vote for or against legislation, is part of our democratic process and something every party has employed, I couldn’t believe how quickly lessons from history had been forgotten. The fundamentally flawed concept that the rights of minorities should be decided by the majority had been used before in Canada, and it resulted in one of our greatest shames.
In 1885, Canada’s history was forever marred by the Chinese Immigration Act, brought into law through a democratic vote. Having already settled in North America, the people decided that legal barriers were necessary to keep out Chinese immigrants; they introduced a fifty dollar head tax for each Chinese immigrant, a small fortune at the time. This lasted 15 years until, in 1900, a second democratic vote increased that fee to five hundred dollars. Not long after, a third democratic vote severely restricted the number of Chinese immigrants that could be on any given boat to Canada, depending on the weight of the boat. Finally, in 1923, Canada banned Chinese immigrations entirely. The law wasn’t repealed for 24 years.
While the controversy was different, the concept was the same. The majority could tyrannize an unpopular minority, and protests or protections from this were dismissed as undemocratic.
This is precisely what’s happening in the States, and I’m deeply saddened that California is a part of it. It brought back memories from 2000, when I was living in Alberta and the provincial Tories utilized an obscure clause to override Canada’s Charter of Rights and ban same-sex marriage in the province. Thankfully, despite both successful and unsuccessful votes to ban it, Canada kept fighting and was eventually able to win equal marriage rights. The United States will too.
Protests against Proposition 8 are happening all over the world tomorrow, November 15th, and Canadians are invited to join in! Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver, Sault Ste. Marie, and Calgary all have protests planned, and organizers in other cities are mobilizing too. Find out where it’s happening in your city and take part!
- After California loss, gay couples get right to wed in Connecticut [Globe and Mail]
- Same-sex marriages begin in Connecticut [CBC News]
- Protests against Prop 8 continue [Xtra]
Proposition 8 Is Discriminatory Nonsense
On Tuesday, California will vote on Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and repeal the marriage licenses from same-sex couples who are already married. As a constitutional amendment, it would not only impose and enforce this single belief on everyone, it would be entirely immune to legal challanges.
The state consitution was created to ensure that everyone was entitled to equal treatment under the law and that everyone could pursue their own happiness. Writing in provisions that deny existing rights to a minority group while keeping those rights for the rest of the majority is a terrible abuse of the constitution and its spirit. There is no argument against same-sex marriage that justifies a law forbidding it, and one can look to countries (like, saaaaay, Canada) and states that enjoy equal marriage rights to see that no harm has come of it.
Californians, vote NO on Proposition 8.
Four More Churches Split Over Gay Blessings
Four more churches have voted to break from the Anglican Church of Canada over division on whether gay parishoners should receive blessings.
The Anglican Church is in tatters due to in-fighting over doctrine, with gay blessings being the centrepiece issue. Fourteen congregations have left so far.
Ah, another disagreement over what God wants. If history serves as any indication, I think this will all be resolved quickly through a happy consensus with much rejoicing and merriment…
- Four more churches vote to leave [Anglican Journal]
Blog Dredging: Gay Marriage Worse Than Tsunamis
Let’s forgo the mainstream news sources for today. It’s time for some blog dredgin’!
Writing from his free account at Mississauga Blogs, Surjit Singh, reporter for Ontario’s Hamdard Weekly Punjabi community newspaper, argues against same-sex marriage by comparing it to the horror and mayhem of tsunamis:
Scary, Horrifying, Terrifying, Fearsome are the descriptive words used to describe the disaster “TSUNAMI “. The earth full of dead bodies and wrecked houses, buildings is called “Tsunami “. People living on the side walks, under the trees, at the school corners, is called “TSUNAMI “. Also called God’s anger! But I think same sex marriage is not less then Tsunami disaster.
Hey, I think we’ve found a second nomination for this year’s Enjoyable Hyperbole Award! And, if I must say so, I think this nominee will sweep up the competition like a tsunami. Singh seems outright convinced that same-sex marriage will cause nothing short of the end of civilization. Oh my!
[...] there will be no more new generation , no more love and romance between men and women and no more kids, isn’t that more scary , horrifying then Tsunami?
Ah, the classic “everyone will turn gay, not bother to reproduce, and mankind will go extinct” argument. Some would say that line of reasoning has holes the size of tsunamis, but I won’t bother pointing them out; I’m much too delighted for having discovered an additional argument against same-sex marriage that I’ve never heard before:
[A]nd think about that there will be more abuses and assaults, violences, fights, more people killed every day because every gay man will try to find in every single man as a homosexual , and a lesbian woman will be looking in every woman as a bisexual.
How could I have missed this connection? Everyone, please, ban equal marriage rights; it’s the only way to stop violent homophobia!
And, of course…
Hallmark Introduces Gay Wedding Cards
Hallmark, the internationally beloved greeting card company, is introducing a handful of cards suitable for presentation at gay weddings this year. While the company made a special point of mentioning the new products were due to demand and not to make any sort of political statement, the cards are surprisingly neutral. The card cover features, at the buyer’s option: A pair of tuxedos, roses, or hearts with a simple offering of best wishes on the inside. The word “marriage” isn’t to be found anywhere.
Hallmark spokesperson Sarah Gronberg Kolell was pleased with the new cards, saying the market is ready for gay-themed products after California’s recent legalisation of same-sex marriage. In explanation of the card’s kid gloves approach, however, she added: “It’s our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can.”
Aw, how inclusive. Though, to fit in with this goal better, I’m told the next batch of cards will feature androgynous cartoon couples accompanied by the text “Best wishes for a generic celebration with family and friends, either religious or non-denominational, in recognition of your unification for life, or perhaps until a regional government amends their constitution to nullify said union.”
Sniff… Does anyone have a tissue?
- Hallmark adds gay marriage cards [Winnipeg SUN]
Anglicans Halt Gay Blessings
Worldwide Anglican bishops have ended their once-a-decade conference with a “wide agreement” on implementing a moratorium on gay blessings. In a statement, Anglican Leader Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said that non-acceptance of the moratorium would put the entire church in “grave peril.”
(As an off-topic interjection, nominees for this year’s Enjoyable Hyperbole Awards will be announced shortly. Stay tuned!)
The issue of same-sex blessings has deeply divided the Anglican community, which genuinely appears on the brink of separation. Progressive churches say that the bible has never condemned or forbid loving, monogamous, same-sex unions, and the overwhelming message of love instructs them to bless all parishioners without judgement. Conservative factions disagree, particularly within the international Anglican community.
The rift has been controversial, to understate the matter. Over 200 bishops have boycotted the conference, and one gay bishop was barred from attending. Both sides did appear to agree to lay off the rhetoric, though. In a joint statement, the bishops announced that “we need to repent of statements and actions that have further damaged the dignity of homosexual persons.” The church then imploded from the contradiction.
- Bishops end conference with ‘wide agreement’ on moratoria for same-sex blessings [Anglican Journal]
- Anglican leader urges ban on gay bishops [Globe and Mail]
Obsessive Small-Town Wedding Soldiers
In my web travels I often collect stories that I intend to share, but then become distracted by newer, shinier stories—or feel too lazy to illustrate them. This is what becomes of those stories: A Pile o’ Sla… Hugs?
The Town of Truro, Nova Scotia—which made national news last year after some bizarre homophobic comments by its mayor—has finally reached an agreement with a local gay rights group, amending its employment equity policy to include sexual orientation. A strange outcome, considering the dispute was over a flag-flying policy.
For the first time ever, Canada’s Armed Forces marched in Toronto’s Gay Pride parade, promoting equal rights and openly recruiting gay servicemen and women. This is in stark contrast to the policies of the United States. I’d ask if you’d like me to describe them, but I’m afraid I can’t tell.
A nation-wide poll shows that support for same-sex marriage in Canada has climbed to 68%. Recent converts cited a lack of family-destroying meteor showers for their change in opinion.
The top leader of Canada’s Anglican Church is standing up for gay-friendly denominations in the country, saying that ultra-conservative factions are obsessing over the wrong issues. Primate Fred Hiltz said it’s unfortunate that some Christians are “preoccupied with sexual acts between homosexuals and falsely equate homosexuality with promiscuity,” adding that they’d gain more credibility on sexual issues if they devoted the same energy to “combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation by people in positions of power, and global sex slavery.” Hmm… Combating something that everyone agrees needs combating; what a novel concept!
Same-sex marriages skyrocketed last month, as gay couples plan their weddings around Pride celebrations. Because if it weren’t for that, no one would want a June wedding.
Well, have a great weekend kiddos, and Happy Independance Day to all my Stateside visitors. May it be nothing like the movie.
Conservative Anglicans Battle Progressive Churches
Conservative leaders of the Anglican church have resolved to create their own council of bishops to separate themselves symbolically from more progressive congregations. Their central issue: gay blessings.
The group issued a press release yesterday attacking any interpretation of the bible different from their own, calling such interpretations a “false gospel”:
This false gospel undermines the authority of God’s Word. [...] It promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behavior as a universal human right. It claims God’s blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony. This false gospel led to the consecration of a bishop living in a homosexual relationship.
Progressive churches claim that loving, monogamous, same-sex unions were never condemned by the bible, and that the gospel’s overwhelming message of love despite our differences instructs them to welcome and bless gay parishioners.
Knowing how arguments about what God wants usually turn out, I think this thing should resolve itself fairly quickly, no?
Norway Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
Kathrine, an avid Slap reader and Norwegian blogger, writes in with some fantastically amazing news from abroad!
Norway has officially legalized same-sex marriage by vote of 84 to 41. This makes Norway the sixth country in the world to permit equal marriage rights nationwide, alongside Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain.
Congratulations, Norway, on this important victory!
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.
P.E.I. To Finally Recognize Same-Sex Marriage
No, that’s not an old headline or a misprint. Prince Edward Island, the place that brought us the book that inspired just about every gay bed and breakfast out there, is finally updating the law books to officially recognize same-sex marriages.
P.E.I. was one of only two provinces in Canada to deny same-sex marriage before the federal Bill C-32 was passed in 2005. After that, gay people could get married in the province, but they didn’t have the same legal status as opposite-sex unions. All of that’s changing with the introduction of new legislation that passed through all three readings on Wednesday.
Attorney General Gerard Greenan responded to questions of why the process took so long:
Honestly, it certainly was a task. It took seven months to put this bill into place.
Well, that, and I guess an additional two-and-a-half years to take their eyes off the breathtaking scenery and start the process in the first place. It’s the P.E.I. curse, I suppose.
So, to all the happily married couples in P.E.I., congratulations on officially getting your hospital visitation and power of attorney rights!
- P.E.I. to recognize same-sex marriages [National Post]
