c9 | Letter to Justice Minister

Letter to Justice Minister

Oooo, I'm in a snit tonight.

Dear Minister Cotler:

I read in the Toronto Star that you will be allowing civic officials the option of refusing to provide equal services to same-sex couples in the area of marriage, despite your claim that the government sees this as an equality and human rights issue. Can you please explain for me the difference between refusing to marry same-sex couples, and refusing to marry interracial couples? Why is one acceptable to your government and not the other?

I await your reply.

Sincerely
Cameron MacLeod

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Note: my response has to do with the forcing of *religious* officials.
On the subject of gay marriage I believe that religious officials, or officials who are religious, should not be forced to marry gay people if they feel it is wrong. Now before some people get up in arms, I'm a *huge* advocator for gay marriage but not to the point of forcing religious officials to perform it. It should be a choice. Why force those officials who are against gay marriage to perform it when there are so many other officials who are supportive and willing? Why would anyone want to be married in a church, or by a religious official, who dispises everything they stand for? They might marry you because they have too but you wouldn't have their blessing.
Also, I find many people are a titch too quick to lump gay marriage with racial discrimination. While there are many similarities, we must remember that gay marriage and racial discrimination (along with gender discrimination and other topics) are all separate issues with different histories that have affected them in different ways. It's too easy to say, 'they did it for interracial marriage' as a support for gay marriage. We must realize that the history, meaning and context, of interracial marriage is very different from that of gay marriage.
I also believe that even if we agree wholeheartedly with something we must analyze and critique it to avoid becoming entrenched in biased and one-sided opinions. We should always try to come at an issue from all sides.
It's a difficult thing to decide because while I agree that gay people should have ALL the rights and opportunities to marriage (and divorce) that straight people do, I do not agree that people should be forced to go against their religious beliefs. But then, how will opinion change unless we force it to change? But does forcing the public opinion to change really change the opinion (or does it merely sweep how people really feel under the rug)?
In one sense people should be able to feel and believe in whatever they choose but only as long as they don't hurt the person or property of another. So, they can dislike (or hate in some cases) gay people, ethnic people, women, etc because it's their right as a free human being. BUT, and this is a big but, they should not be allowed to force their opinions on others - just as we should not be allowed to force our opinions on them.
Does any of this make sense to anyone?
P.S. This is in no way an attack against your post, it is merely my meandering opinion. :-)

I agree that religious officials, performing in their religious capacity should have the right to refuse to marry same-sex couple.

BUT, when an individual agrees to take a civic role, they should not be mixing it with their religious beliefs. I think this is one of the most basic steps required for separation of church and state. Besides, my tax dollars are paying for this person as well as any straight person, but yet they are allowed to deny me of the services I pay for? In their own space, fine... but not in the public space.

Besides, they still have the choice of whether or not they wish to perform marriage on same-sex couples; they can always resign their civic post.

That is very true, I agree completely in the area of civic duties they should have to perform gay marriages (separation of church and state and all that jazz). I just felt like discussing religious duties. :-)

Sure! And the Charter guarantees that religious officials will not have to do anything they don't want to. The Catholic church rejects women as priests, and won't marry people who have been divorced without an annulment. Those are both possible due to the same section in the Charter. Nothing will change.

Also, several churches bless same-sex unions, and currently are NOT allowed to due to the discriminatory law. The big churches conveniently forget that when they're talking to the press.

But the big difference is religious versus civil: the Mayor is paid by me, to provide equal services to the community. He doesn't get to reject people he doesn't like.

lol, yeah i kind of just glossed over civic aspect because I wanted to discuss the religious one. :-P
I should have clarified that I was omitting civic officials in my rant. Your letter just inspired me to think about religious officials for some reason and I felt an irresistable need to express myself on that subject (which you didn't even mention).

That last part sounded a bit rude (the "which you didn't even mention" part). Sounds accusatory (didn't mean it like that - lol). I just meant that while you were discussing civic officials I was thinking about religious ones (for some strange reason - who knows why I think of the things I do).
Hope you and V are having a wonderful holiday season by the way!!!!
P.S. Your cats are adorable. I miss having a cat.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh rachel hates meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

oh, ok

THings are good, thanks. I miss the cats too, with this week on the road. Can't wait to get home!

I think there's a big difference between "religious officials" and "officials who are religious".

If a religious official wants to refuse to perform a church ceremony, more power to them.

If a civil servant, who happens to be Catholic, refuses to perform a civil marriage? I think that's different.

We wouldn't let her refuse just because the couple was Jewish, or pagan, or lived together before marriage--even though as a Catholic, she could legitimately have objections to any of those things.

I don't think it should be any different for same-sex couples.

That's a good point. I hadn't considered that.
So clever are you.

And pretty.

P.S. I agree with what you say about sexual orientation and race.

I actually think a better comparison, ironically I guess, is between sexual orientation and religion.

Consider:
-religion is as much an "activity" as an "identity"
-you can start out with one religion, but may not stick with it your whole life
-you can pretend to be of a certain religion in order to "fit in" with the mainstream
-there is a lot of blatant hatred based on religion today (unlike racial hatred, which tends to be more subtle)

Plus, most of the anti-gays are more likely to respond to a comparison based on religious discrimination, than one based on race.

Excellent point. I shall endeavour to use religion-based discrimination more often.

In my writing for comparisons, not as a way to actually discriminate, of course.

Yes. I was going to ask if by "use", you meant "commit".

I've commented in this thread too much already. But I have another thought.

I've looked closely at Cotler's quoted statements a few times, and from what I can tell, all he's said is that civic officials who choose not to serve same-sex couples will be "accommodated".

"Accommodation" could mean that they are given a right to take a different job, one that doesn't require them to deal with marriage at all. It doesn't necessarily mean that they get to stay in the same job, but pick and choose which couples they serve.

I'd still be interested to see the specifics of the plan here. There are many different "civic officials" affected, who get involved in marriage in various ways, and "accommodation" could mean many things. And, who knows what the federal government even has power to do here.

Anyway. More thoughts.

Also, municipal officials ("civic") are a provincial responsibility. Cotler is promising to come up with an agreement with all provinces to consistently allow intolerant people to shift into some different role.

Example: small town, only one justice of the peace. Can that justice of the peace say "no way" and thereby deprive the whole town of equal service?

Well, now looking at the debate in the light of "accommodation", my opinion might be changing ...

There's at least a decent argument that human rights laws require the employer to accommodate an employee who refuses to do something that they sincerely believe to be in violation of their religious beliefs. (It's probably debatable whether or not it violates any religion to officiate over a smae-sex civil marriage--but I don't see a human rights commission wanting to get too deep into that argument.)

The requirement to accommodate is balanced against a protection from undue hardship. Where there is no accommodation possible without causing the employer undue hardship, then accommodation is no longer required.

So, arguably in your one-town-one-official scenario, we've got undue hardship, and the guy could be fired.

All speculative of course. Also consider: the one official in the one town could always quit rather than go against her conscience, which in practical terms leads you to the same place.

I feel ok spending some time typing on about this because it is work-related for me. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Letter to Justice Minister

My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Oopsie

Re: Oopsie

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

Re: My 2 cents - not perfect, not popular but my opinion nonetheless

no subject

no subject

no subject