Seems like a logical enough compromise. Too bad it cant happen this country.

 

Canada's Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government plans to allow same-sex marriage are constitutional, in a landmark ruling in the long battle for equal rights for gays and lesbians.

 

The government had asked the court to examine its Bill before it enters Parliament, a step expected to follow early next year.

 

The court ruled, however, that religious officials cannot be compelled to marry same-sex couples, if they believe the practice infringes on their religious beliefs.

 

While the government waited for a judgement before changing federal law on same-sex marriage, courts in six Canadian provinces and one territory already ruled that same-sex marriage is legal.

 

The court was posed four questions by the government:

# Is Parliament allowed to change same-sex marriage laws?

 

# Is the proposal constitutional?

 

# Does freedom of religion permit priests to refuse to marry gay couples?

 

# Is the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and woman also constitutional?

 

 

The court said yes to each of the first three questions, but exercised its right not to issue a ruling on the fourth question.

 

The final inquiry was motivated by a desire to standardise law between any provinces that rules that marriage is a state between a man and a woman. -- Sapa-AFP

As long as they don't compromise the beliefs of the church and make church officials perform the ceremonies, it's fine with me (although i'd prefer civil union as the title instead of marriage, but it's called compromise for a reason).

Seems pretty fair to me. Not like I would expect many gays to have a traditional church-style wedding.

I think that's a valid compromise.

Finally, the gay majority in Canada can be married. :plain

*doesn't move to Canada* :thumbdown

It is a lopsided compromise. A true compromise would be allowing gays all the legal rights of marriage, not force religous groups to observe it (1st amendment), and also not call it marriage. Because its not like gays were going to be actively getting married in churches, especially christian churches who think holosexuality is wrong

It is a lopsided compromise. A true compromise would be allowing gays all the legal rights of marriage, not force religous groups to observe it (1st amendment), and also not call it marriage. Because its not like gays were going to be actively getting married in churches, especially christian churches who think holosexuality is wrong

631475[/snapback]

If religious groups arent compelled to recognize it, then why is it an issue? Whats clear as our earlier conversation presented is that some Christians feel they have a monopoly on the term marriage. Not only must it not violate the sanctity of how they see marriage but how anyone else sees marriage. That is precisely why this issue has more to do with giving gays benefits and nothing to do with marriage. They know its a copout argument that allows them cover for blatant discrimination without much if any justification.

That works.

 

There's some church in CA that'll declare you an ordained minister with the right to perform marriages (in CA) for a $20 "donation". You can upgrade your title to Bishop, Cardinal, Pope, etc (or any other title you make up) for a slightly higher "donation".

 

I sent'em the $20 back when I was in grad school. Clergy ID and a "clergy" sign in the windshield of your car can get you off the hook for a lot of parking tickets Well worth the investment

631483[/snapback]

Contact info? :mischief

It is a lopsided compromise. A true compromise would be allowing gays all the legal rights of marriage, not force religous groups to observe it (1st amendment), and also not call it marriage. Because its not like gays were going to be actively getting married in churches, especially christian churches who think holosexuality is wrong

631475[/snapback]

If religious groups arent compelled to recognize it, then why is it an issue? Whats clear as our earlier conversation presented is that some Christians feel they have a monopoly on the term marriage. Not only must it not violate the sanctity of how they see marriage but how anyone else sees marriage. That is precisely why this issue has more to do with giving gays benefits and nothing to do with marriage. They know its a copout argument that allows them cover for blatant discrimination without much if any justification.

631496[/snapback]

 

This is entirely true. If the gay rights movements really want to call the christian groups' bluff they need to say ok fine lets just do civil union and no marriage and see what the response is. B/c if the christian majority opposes civil union then it really isnt about sancitity of marriage but about homophobia. However, if the gay activists continue to fight for marriage only and wont settle for civil rights then the christians have a legitimate argument that its just a way to stick it to them

I just applied to be ordained. I'm excited.

I just applied to be ordained. I'm excited.

631658[/snapback]

 

Did you wet yourself?

Call me Reverend Shamrock henceforth!

632684[/snapback]

LMAO :lol

 

I got a good laugh with this one

 

good find PhishPhan :thumbup

Reverend Dodgii. How do you like that?

 

 

 

So what the hell does this church stand for anyway? :lol

Brett Hull said the best thing about this while on SNL

 

"Well thats what happens when there is no hockey in Canada."

Reverend Dodgii.? How do you like that??

 

So what the hell does this church stand for anyway?? :lol

632936[/snapback]

 

The ULC is like soy - its anything you want it to be.

632957[/snapback]

 

 

 

Oooooo, excellent! :shifty

 

I will preach quite the interesting doctrine.