CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?

[Guest zipperzone]

Canadian same sex marriage has been in the headlines lately.

 

Last week our Supreme Court handed down a decision that such a law would not be against our Constitution. This was received with much hoo-haw and was regarded as a major victory.

 

The Liberals - the party in power, although in the minoity - have promised that a bill will be tabled in parliament before the end of January to attempt to make it law.

 

Alberta - redneck as always - through it's premier has vowed to do whatever possible to thwart the legislation. This is the only province that is against.

 

Our Prime Minister has always said that the bill will have a clause that will allow religious denominations to refuse to perform the marriage ceremony should they feel it is aginst their beliefs.

 

I had no problem with this provision - sounded reasonable to me - and I figured that gays could always revert to a civic official to perform the marriage vows.

 

NOW GET THIS....... In order to make it more palatable for the majority of straights he has said today that a civic official/civil servant CAN ALSO REFUSE TO PERFORM THE CEREMONY if the concept of same sex marriage is against his or her personal beliefs.

 

A government employee, who is paid a salary for performing his job is being given the right to personally decide if he has to follow the law or not!

 

THIS CHICKEN SHIT APPROACH SUCKS BIG TIME.

 

Have you ever heard of anything so ludicrous?

[Mikeyz7]

>NOW GET THIS....... In order to make it more palatable for the

>majority of straights he has said today that a civic

>official/civil servant CAN ALSO REFUSE TO PERFORM THE CEREMONY

>if the concept of same sex marriage is against his or her

>personal beliefs.

>

I do agree that civil servants should be required to uphold the law -- if they don't like it they could always quit!

However, with a minority government, the passage of any legislation requires compromise. In the case of this piece of contentious legislation where there is going to be a "free vote" nothing can be taken for granted. In spite of the general optimism that this legislation will pass I won't believe it until I see it. You can bet that MPs will be under a lot of pressure over the next few weeks when they are home for the holidays. This "opting out" of civil servants is just a another attempt to quiet concerns by some and possibly garner a few more votes in Parliament.

[trilingual]

If a civil servant/civic official doesn't "believe" in gay marriage, then it may be a violation of his/her religious beliefs, but it cannot, by definition, be a violation of her/his civic beliefs. Civil servants and public officials in the U.S. take an oath to uphold the laws when entering public service, and I believe they do the same thing in Canada and other countries. If someone's religious beliefs do not permit them in good conscience to uphold the law of the land, they shouldn't seek a career in public service.

 

I hope Canada won't make this mistake. If it allows this exception, religiously conservative judges and public officials would have to be permitted to refuse to marry people who've previously been divorced. Fundamentalist public hospital admission clerks could refuse to admit a woman seeking an abortion or a man wishing to have a vasectomy. Social workers could refuse to process adoptions by single or gay parents. A nurse could refuse to provide a transfusion. Where does it end? In a country like Canada that guarantees equal treatment under the law, you can't make an exception like this and not have it apply to all of these other situations where a public servant may have a religious objection to something.

[AaronScottDC]

Here is a rather funny, but serious op-ed piece on Canada's recent legalization of medical marijuana, gay marriage and their health care system.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2004/12/15/notes121504.DTL

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/aaronscottdc.html

[noviceny]

HMMM...I dont know...I understand that it is kind of a pussy thing to do to let persons of ill will back out of performing the service, but what if it is really against their conscience...should they quit cause they dont agree with one law ?...maybe...but still I think that "conscientious (sp?) objectors" is a good idea in theory...we had it in the U.S. for purposes of war...gotta give it some though

[Guest ncm2169]

< Fundamentalist public hospital admission clerks could refuse to admit a woman seeking an abortion or a man wishing to have a vasectomy. Social workers could refuse to process adoptions by single or gay parents. A nurse could refuse to provide a transfusion. Where does it end?

 

Surely you've heard about proposals in the US to give legal cover to pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions - it's actually happened even without legal sanction. x(

[noviceny]

Im still not sure...matters of conscience are very important, but I think a lot of people dont act on conscience...more act on prejudice, so maybe you are right.

 

I worked for SJU (St. John's University) in NY. We were not allowed to give counsel for abortion, or even to mention it as an option. If we did, we could (and most probably would) be fired. I guess its the right of the university to ask for that...after all I have the choice not to work for them.

[trilingual]

The answer is yes. If they're truly people of conscience, they can't continue to violate the dictates of their conscience if their job requires them to do so. They should quit, or expect to be fired. (It also works the other way around, as you illustrated -- you accepted a job with a Catholic institution, so you have to be prepared to uphold church beliefs on the job, even if they go against your own, or be prepared to resign or be fired.)